A gamble, your opinion?

Sajen · 7th August 2012, 03:48 PM

By this blade i am unsure. I think that the blade is original but the gold is newly reworked.

Sajen · 7th August 2012, 03:50 PM

And here recent Madura work.

Jean · 7th August 2012, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sajen

By this blade i am unsure. I think that the blade is original but the gold is newly reworked.

Hello Detlef,
Thank you for the detailed pictures. This specimen is interesting because I am not sure that the Singo Barong is original to the blade: from the pictures there seems to be a discontinuity in the pamor lines at the interface of the blade and the singa, the pamor lines of the singa look denser than on the blade itself and the colour of the iron is a bit different. So the singa may have been welded later on the blade, what do you think?
I have a similar Singo Barong blade but it is more difficult to determine if the singa is more recent than the blade or not because it is more covered by gold, I will send detailed pictures in the next days.
This is my impression from the pictures but other opinions are of course welcome!

Regards

Sajen · 7th August 2012, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jean

Hello Detlef,
Thank you for the detailed pictures. This specimen is interesting because I am not sure that the Singo Barong is original to the blade: from the pictures there seems to be a discontinuity in the pamor lines at the interface of the blade and the singa, the pamor lines of the singa look denser than on the blade itself and the colour of the iron is a bit different. So the singa may have been welded later on the blade, what do you think?

This is my impression from the pictures but other opinions are of course welcome!

Regards

Hello Jean,

have had the same thoughts before but I am very very unsure by this. When it is like you suppose someone have done a good work.

Regards,

Detlef

A. G. Maisey · 7th August 2012, 11:45 PM

In the period between 1812 and 1818 Stamford Raffles, who was Governor of Jawa during the period it was under British control, remarked that the keris in Jawa had become an item of dress . He said something like:-

" the keris in Jawa now occupies a position similar that of the small sword in Europe 50 years ago".

So 200 years ago the keris in Jawa had to a very great extent already lost the societal position it had held during the Majapahit era and the period concurrent with the rise of Islam in Jawa. If we consider the line of dominant kingdoms in Jawa, through to perhaps the mid 17th century, when the involvement of the Dutch began to have a very real erosive effect on Javanese power and culture, we can very easily understand that the position of the keris in Jawa had already undergone significant change during the more than 150 years to 1812 when Raffles made his observation.

So, when we talk about "old keris", and "new keris", exactly what sort of time frame are we talking about in respect of Jawa?

Many Javanese people consider keris that can be classified as Mataram , Sultan Agung to be the last of the "old keris", or if not that, then the first of the "new keris".

In other words "old keris" roughly pre-date 1650.

When the Japanese occupied Jawa during WWII an era came to an end. Under Dutch colonialism the Central Javanese kingdoms were still accorded a token level of power and traditional Javanese kraton culture was still alive, although to a much lesser degree than had been the case a couple of hundred years earlier. There were still great empus working under the aegis of the ruler of Surakarta. WWII put a lid on all of that, and keris culture did not really revive until the mid-1970's.

So the other landmark date that attaches to keris is 1942.

Javanese keris of the period prior to 1942 can be considered to still be "old keris" in one interpretation of the concept.

In respect of the "traditional" motifs used in keris kinatah work, my understanding of this use of the word "traditional" is that the motifs involved should be motifs that also occur in the descendents of the keris of Majapahit which have continued in unpolluted form, that is, the keris of Bali.

Many of the motifs used in keris ornamentation and other Javanese ornamentation can be associated with Islamic or European roots, not indigenous nor Hindu roots.

So, for me a traditional keris motif is one that can be associated with either a Javanese indigenous root or a Hindu root. Admitted, this is a personal opinion, but if we look at the traditional motifs used in kraton keris culture, my opinion seems to reflect the stance adopted by at least the senior kraton of Jawa, the Karaton Surakarta Hadiningrat.

Perhaps when we wish to use the words "old", or "traditional" in respect of the Javanese keris, we might wish to consider exactly what we mean with these two concepts.

Jean · 8th August 2012, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Perhaps when we wish to use the words "old", or "traditional" in respect of the Javanese keris, we might wish to consider exactly what we mean with these two concepts.

Hello Alan,
Yes, this is a difficult question and subject to endless discussion. Personally I classify as old a blade estimated to date from about 1860 to WWII (Javanese nem-neman period). For the ones estimated as older , I classify them as very old (1600-1860 i.e Mataram and early Yogyakarta & Surakarta periods), antique (1300-1600 or Majapahit, Pajajaran to Pajang periods), and early krisses (before Majapahit period). This may not be correct but in absence of a better definition from the experts (which I would welcome) it suits my requirements.
And regarding the traditional kinatah motifs, I agree with your definition (Hindu or Javanese origin and endorsed by the kratons).

Best regards
Jean

David · 8th August 2012, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jean

Personally I classify as old a blade dating from about 1860 to WWII (Javanese nem-neman period). For the older ones (or supposed to be so), I classify them as very old (1600-1860 i.e Mataram and early Yogyakarta & Surakarta periods), antique (1300-1600 or Majapahit, Pajajaran to Pajang periods), and early krisses (before Majapahit period). This may not be correct but in absence of a better definition from the experts (which I would welcome) it suits my requirements.

I think we all have our own unique guidelines for this Jean, which is perhaps part of the problem. I don't really question yours in general, though you might want to re-consider your use of the word "antique" in this regard. I say this because "antique" does have a fairly commonly accepted definition of items which are over 100 years old. Since you use that term to describe only items that are 400-700 years old specifically you might find that when you use the term in this manner that confusion might ensue.

Jean · 8th August 2012, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

I think we all have our own unique guidelines for this Jean, which is perhaps part of the problem. I don't really question yours in general, though you might want to re-consider your use of the word "antique" in this regard. I say this because "antique" does have a fairly commonly accepted definition of items which are over 100 years old. Since you use that term to describe only items that are 400-700 years old specifically you might find that when you use the term in this manner that confusion might ensue.

Hello David,
Thank you for your valid comment; I could not find a better term and the confusion comes from the French language in which one definition of antique is just very old/ very ancient without any specific age in mind. Any suggestion for a replacement term?
Regards

Jean · 10th August 2012, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sajen

Hello Jean,

have had the same thoughts before but I am very very unsure by this. When it is like you suppose someone have done a good work.

Regards,

Detlef

Hello Detlef,
Yes, good work indeed. I attach the pictures of my own Singabarong kris, the kinatah work is not very fine and partly gone as seen on the detailed pictures and there is a welded patch on the paws.
The singa does not obviously seem to have been added later because the pamor lines appear quite continuous but I am not sure about it. Any comment?
Regards

7th August 2012, 03:48 PM	#1
Sajen Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Germany, Dortmund Posts: 9,165	By this blade i am unsure. I think that the blade is original but the gold is newly reworked. Attached Images

7th August 2012, 03:50 PM	#2
Sajen Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Germany, Dortmund Posts: 9,165	And here recent Madura work. Attached Images

7th August 2012, 11:45 PM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	In the period between 1812 and 1818 Stamford Raffles, who was Governor of Jawa during the period it was under British control, remarked that the keris in Jawa had become an item of dress . He said something like:- " the keris in Jawa now occupies a position similar that of the small sword in Europe 50 years ago". So 200 years ago the keris in Jawa had to a very great extent already lost the societal position it had held during the Majapahit era and the period concurrent with the rise of Islam in Jawa. If we consider the line of dominant kingdoms in Jawa, through to perhaps the mid 17th century, when the involvement of the Dutch began to have a very real erosive effect on Javanese power and culture, we can very easily understand that the position of the keris in Jawa had already undergone significant change during the more than 150 years to 1812 when Raffles made his observation. So, when we talk about "old keris", and "new keris", exactly what sort of time frame are we talking about in respect of Jawa? Many Javanese people consider keris that can be classified as Mataram , Sultan Agung to be the last of the "old keris", or if not that, then the first of the "new keris". In other words "old keris" roughly pre-date 1650. When the Japanese occupied Jawa during WWII an era came to an end. Under Dutch colonialism the Central Javanese kingdoms were still accorded a token level of power and traditional Javanese kraton culture was still alive, although to a much lesser degree than had been the case a couple of hundred years earlier. There were still great empus working under the aegis of the ruler of Surakarta. WWII put a lid on all of that, and keris culture did not really revive until the mid-1970's. So the other landmark date that attaches to keris is 1942. Javanese keris of the period prior to 1942 can be considered to still be "old keris" in one interpretation of the concept. In respect of the "traditional" motifs used in keris kinatah work, my understanding of this use of the word "traditional" is that the motifs involved should be motifs that also occur in the descendents of the keris of Majapahit which have continued in unpolluted form, that is, the keris of Bali. Many of the motifs used in keris ornamentation and other Javanese ornamentation can be associated with Islamic or European roots, not indigenous nor Hindu roots. So, for me a traditional keris motif is one that can be associated with either a Javanese indigenous root or a Hindu root. Admitted, this is a personal opinion, but if we look at the traditional motifs used in kraton keris culture, my opinion seems to reflect the stance adopted by at least the senior kraton of Jawa, the Karaton Surakarta Hadiningrat. Perhaps when we wish to use the words "old", or "traditional" in respect of the Javanese keris, we might wish to consider exactly what we mean with these two concepts.