Pandai Saras Luk 9

Gustav · 10th May 2015, 04:23 PM

Rasdan, thank you very much for the picture. There are similarities indeed, yet becouse of the deep Jenggot it looks like a blade from Narathiwat.

Attached the Sorsoran of a Keris, which is provenanced from Kedah. It isn't, of course, a Pandai Saras (there is no Ada-Ada, the cross section is hexagonal).

The Buntut of The PS Luk 9 is actually missing, the other picture is showing a Sulawesi sheath. 2011 I didn't know nothing about Buntut forms from Kedah, so this elongated Buntut was my only possibility to guess.

Like you, I also think, there are so much different features, which originaly could be distinctive for some talented smiths. There surely was an immense intermingling of influences, somewhere is a good post of DAHenkel about that. Clear archetypical forms are rare, perhaps almost impossible, and I feel at the moment, Kedah is bladewise especially "eclectical" - a lot of blade styles and mixing of elements from different locations.

A. G. Maisey · 10th May 2015, 09:34 PM

Peninsula keris are not really my thing, but some of the content in this thread does interest me sufficiently for me to raise some questions.

When the term Pandai Saras , or Pandai Mamat, or Pandai Somebodyelse is used, does that mean that for an authority on Peninsula keris, that the name given to the keris identifies the maker, or is it the name of a style?

If it is the name of a style, can that style be attributed to a particular span of time?

When making the decision to name a keris as Pandai Somethingorother, what indicators are taken into consideration?

David · 11th May 2015, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

When the term Pandai Saras , or Pandai Mamat, or Pandai Somebodyelse is used, does that mean that for an authority on Peninsula keris, that the name given to the keris identifies the maker, or is it the name of a style?

If it is the name of a style, can that style be attributed to a particular span of time?

When making the decision to name a keris as Pandai Somethingorother, what indicators are taken into consideration?

Hey Alan, as you know this isn't really my area of concentration either, but from what i do understand there is no expectation that a keris that follows the form of a Keris Pandai Saras be actually made by the famed pandai himself. It is simply a style and dhapur of blade that was either originated by or made popular by that smith. The same can be said of Keris Tok Chu i believe. Hopefully if i am misled on this someone with more knowledge on the area will correct me.

A. G. Maisey · 11th May 2015, 07:20 AM

Thanks David.

Since execution detail seems to vary pretty widely, as does material and dhapur, would it be reasonable to say that when the description "Pandai Saras" is used, what we are to understand is the style of workmanship?

Maybe a bit similar to tangguh in Javanese keris, except that with tangguh, material is one of the indicators.

Actually, when I look at a "Pandai Saras", and some other blades from outside Jawa, what I see is Madura Sepuh --- yeah, there are very slight differences, but overall:- Madura Sepuh.

rasdan · 11th May 2015, 12:08 PM

Yes Gustav, the nearer a keris to our present time, the more intermingling features can be seen. I sometime feel that this type of keris are almost impossible to classify with some acceptable accuracy.

G'day Alan.

Pandai Saras, Pandai Mamat, Tok Chu etc are supposedly pandai keris that makes keris to a certain style. It is said that Pandai Saras came from Majapahit. The closest name of a Majapahit Empu to Pandai Saras that I had heard is Empu Ki Sarap. Some say we can attribute these names to certain time period, but I doubt it.

On a different note, I am most interested to a ricikan on the ganja of many pandai saras keris which we can also see on some later Balinese keris - some Bugis and Palembang keris also have this ricikan. I am not sure the name of the ricikan which I mark in the picture below (the Balinese keris is from your website).

Do you know the name of this ricikan and does this ricikan present in older tangguh say, prior to the 1800's? - if we associate tangguh with time.

Also, what are the characteristics of a Madura Sepuh keris present on the above keris?

rasdan · 11th May 2015, 12:44 PM

G'day Alan, I just checked keris pictures in Den Indonesiske Keris, it appears that the ricikan I mentioned above is present in keris from the 1600s. It's just that the form ia different - in Javanse keris the ricikan is a line rather than a bulge on pandai saras keris. Sorry for the trouble Alan.

A. G. Maisey · 11th May 2015, 02:53 PM

Rasdan, I do not know the name for the feature you identify.

In fact, I doubt that this feature has been given a name at any time in the recent past, at least in Jawa, and possibly in Bali also. I say this because I cannot find it as being identified by name in the half dozen or so recent books that I've just now looked at.

It may have had a name once, but apparently, not now.

I've looked at photos I have of a lot of pre-1700 keris in several European collections. Most of these keris are Javanese, with what I believe is a smattering of Balinese keris. There seems to be no universal rule as to when this feature appears and when it does not, also there is a variety of forms of the feature used in these older keris.

Where the feature does appear , it is sometimes just a line, at other times it is a raised, rounded ridge with a line cut through the middle of the ridge, at other times it is a ridge that is defined by a line above and a line below. There is no consistency as to how this feature is expressed, when it is used.

I am unable to show pictures of any of these keris, as I have signed undertakings with the museums concerned not to publish my photographs.

The principle thing that strikes me about these Pandai Saras keris , and which turns my thoughts to Madura Sepuh is the pawakan, the overall visual impression. Think of it this way:- if I see somebody who has Chinese features I immediately identify him as Chinese, but then when I speak with him I may discover that he is fourth generation Australian, and that only his father is Chinese.

Its the same with these P.S. keris, I glance at them, and I see an old style Madura blade, I see the ridged odo2, which is not at all elegant, I see the lack of definition in the blumbangan, I see the whispy kembang kacang, I see the long last luk, I see the overall stiffness and apparent fragility (note:- apparent, that does not mean that it is fragile), I see the form of the ron dha, which is often not much more than an undefined notch, not dissimilar to some older Balinese keris, and when it does have definition it is a very faint echo of a Majapahit ron dha, almost as if the maker has hesitated to make it a distinct copy of a Mojo ron dha.

I do understand that for many people, especially those who prize Peninsula keris, these P.S. keris are highly regarded, but when I apply Javanese standards I do not see a particularly wonderful keris.

This is the reason why we must never appraise a keris by any standard other than the standard which applies to that particular keris.

We cannot apply Surakarta standards to a Pajajaran keris, and we cannot apply Javanese standards to a Peninsula keris. We can only measure the quality of a P.S. keris against another P.S. keris.

It is never a very good idea to use the tangguh classifications as exact indicators of time, as most people understand the concept of time. In general, a keris that can be classified as an old tangguh will be older than a keris that can be classified as a more recent tangguh, but that does not mean that the name of the tangguh necessarily aligns with the historic period of the same name. Tangguh was brought into being for purposes other than to help 20th century collectors put a date on things, and it was only ever intended to apply to keris of very high quality. Keris that could be depended upon to preserve wealth.

I believe that it is entirely possible that the maker who originated the P.S. keris form could have come from the Majapahit kingdom. If we look at the history of the empus of the Land of Jawa, we find that they tended to move around quite a bit, and when they moved they often changed names, or maybe were just known by another name --- a Javanese characteristic even today. Maybe when Majapahit collapsed some of the smiths who moved from Blambangan back west to Banten, just kept on going and finished up on the Peninsula, and in other places. I seem to recall I heard a story about a shipwreck, where a ship from Mojo got blown off course and was wrecked on the cost of the Peninsula, and one or more smiths continued to live there.

Alternatively, maybe the P.S. keris form is not quite as old as we might like to believe. I have a Brunei keris that was made in 1842 that displays very distinct Madura style. Was this style already in existence in Brunei for a long time prior to 1842, along with a puntiran pamor that we tend to think of as a more recent development, something that came into being along with the migration of smiths into North Coast Jawa that occurred after Islamic domination, or did the Madura style come into Brunei not too long before that 1842 keris was made?

I cannot answer any of these questions, but perhaps they bear thinking about.

10th May 2015, 04:23 PM	#1
Gustav Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,280	Rasdan, thank you very much for the picture. There are similarities indeed, yet becouse of the deep Jenggot it looks like a blade from Narathiwat. Attached the Sorsoran of a Keris, which is provenanced from Kedah. It isn't, of course, a Pandai Saras (there is no Ada-Ada, the cross section is hexagonal). The Buntut of The PS Luk 9 is actually missing, the other picture is showing a Sulawesi sheath. 2011 I didn't know nothing about Buntut forms from Kedah, so this elongated Buntut was my only possibility to guess. Like you, I also think, there are so much different features, which originaly could be distinctive for some talented smiths. There surely was an immense intermingling of influences, somewhere is a good post of DAHenkel about that. Clear archetypical forms are rare, perhaps almost impossible, and I feel at the moment, Kedah is bladewise especially "eclectical" - a lot of blade styles and mixing of elements from different locations. Attached Images

11th May 2015, 12:08 PM	#5
rasdan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Kuala Lumpur Posts: 369	Yes Gustav, the nearer a keris to our present time, the more intermingling features can be seen. I sometime feel that this type of keris are almost impossible to classify with some acceptable accuracy. G'day Alan. Pandai Saras, Pandai Mamat, Tok Chu etc are supposedly pandai keris that makes keris to a certain style. It is said that Pandai Saras came from Majapahit. The closest name of a Majapahit Empu to Pandai Saras that I had heard is Empu Ki Sarap. Some say we can attribute these names to certain time period, but I doubt it. On a different note, I am most interested to a ricikan on the ganja of many pandai saras keris which we can also see on some later Balinese keris - some Bugis and Palembang keris also have this ricikan. I am not sure the name of the ricikan which I mark in the picture below (the Balinese keris is from your website). Do you know the name of this ricikan and does this ricikan present in older tangguh say, prior to the 1800's? - if we associate tangguh with time. Also, what are the characteristics of a Madura Sepuh keris present on the above keris? Attached Images

10th May 2015, 09:34 PM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,015	Peninsula keris are not really my thing, but some of the content in this thread does interest me sufficiently for me to raise some questions. When the term Pandai Saras , or Pandai Mamat, or Pandai Somebodyelse is used, does that mean that for an authority on Peninsula keris, that the name given to the keris identifies the maker, or is it the name of a style? If it is the name of a style, can that style be attributed to a particular span of time? When making the decision to name a keris as Pandai Somethingorother, what indicators are taken into consideration?

11th May 2015, 07:20 AM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,015	Thanks David. Since execution detail seems to vary pretty widely, as does material and dhapur, would it be reasonable to say that when the description "Pandai Saras" is used, what we are to understand is the style of workmanship? Maybe a bit similar to tangguh in Javanese keris, except that with tangguh, material is one of the indicators. Actually, when I look at a "Pandai Saras", and some other blades from outside Jawa, what I see is Madura Sepuh --- yeah, there are very slight differences, but overall:- Madura Sepuh.

11th May 2015, 12:44 PM	#6
rasdan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Kuala Lumpur Posts: 369	G'day Alan, I just checked keris pictures in Den Indonesiske Keris, it appears that the ricikan I mentioned above is present in keris from the 1600s. It's just that the form ia different - in Javanse keris the ricikan is a line rather than a bulge on pandai saras keris. Sorry for the trouble Alan.

11th May 2015, 02:53 PM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,015	Rasdan, I do not know the name for the feature you identify. In fact, I doubt that this feature has been given a name at any time in the recent past, at least in Jawa, and possibly in Bali also. I say this because I cannot find it as being identified by name in the half dozen or so recent books that I've just now looked at. It may have had a name once, but apparently, not now. I've looked at photos I have of a lot of pre-1700 keris in several European collections. Most of these keris are Javanese, with what I believe is a smattering of Balinese keris. There seems to be no universal rule as to when this feature appears and when it does not, also there is a variety of forms of the feature used in these older keris. Where the feature does appear , it is sometimes just a line, at other times it is a raised, rounded ridge with a line cut through the middle of the ridge, at other times it is a ridge that is defined by a line above and a line below. There is no consistency as to how this feature is expressed, when it is used. I am unable to show pictures of any of these keris, as I have signed undertakings with the museums concerned not to publish my photographs. The principle thing that strikes me about these Pandai Saras keris , and which turns my thoughts to Madura Sepuh is the pawakan, the overall visual impression. Think of it this way:- if I see somebody who has Chinese features I immediately identify him as Chinese, but then when I speak with him I may discover that he is fourth generation Australian, and that only his father is Chinese. Its the same with these P.S. keris, I glance at them, and I see an old style Madura blade, I see the ridged odo2, which is not at all elegant, I see the lack of definition in the blumbangan, I see the whispy kembang kacang, I see the long last luk, I see the overall stiffness and apparent fragility (note:- apparent, that does not mean that it is fragile), I see the form of the ron dha, which is often not much more than an undefined notch, not dissimilar to some older Balinese keris, and when it does have definition it is a very faint echo of a Majapahit ron dha, almost as if the maker has hesitated to make it a distinct copy of a Mojo ron dha. I do understand that for many people, especially those who prize Peninsula keris, these P.S. keris are highly regarded, but when I apply Javanese standards I do not see a particularly wonderful keris. This is the reason why we must never appraise a keris by any standard other than the standard which applies to that particular keris. We cannot apply Surakarta standards to a Pajajaran keris, and we cannot apply Javanese standards to a Peninsula keris. We can only measure the quality of a P.S. keris against another P.S. keris. It is never a very good idea to use the tangguh classifications as exact indicators of time, as most people understand the concept of time. In general, a keris that can be classified as an old tangguh will be older than a keris that can be classified as a more recent tangguh, but that does not mean that the name of the tangguh necessarily aligns with the historic period of the same name. Tangguh was brought into being for purposes other than to help 20th century collectors put a date on things, and it was only ever intended to apply to keris of very high quality. Keris that could be depended upon to preserve wealth. I believe that it is entirely possible that the maker who originated the P.S. keris form could have come from the Majapahit kingdom. If we look at the history of the empus of the Land of Jawa, we find that they tended to move around quite a bit, and when they moved they often changed names, or maybe were just known by another name --- a Javanese characteristic even today. Maybe when Majapahit collapsed some of the smiths who moved from Blambangan back west to Banten, just kept on going and finished up on the Peninsula, and in other places. I seem to recall I heard a story about a shipwreck, where a ship from Mojo got blown off course and was wrecked on the cost of the Peninsula, and one or more smiths continued to live there. Alternatively, maybe the P.S. keris form is not quite as old as we might like to believe. I have a Brunei keris that was made in 1842 that displays very distinct Madura style. Was this style already in existence in Brunei for a long time prior to 1842, along with a puntiran pamor that we tend to think of as a more recent development, something that came into being along with the migration of smiths into North Coast Jawa that occurred after Islamic domination, or did the Madura style come into Brunei not too long before that 1842 keris was made? I cannot answer any of these questions, but perhaps they bear thinking about.