Frey Collection Picit

[David]

Originally Posted by Jean

He also refers to forgeries of Trengganu Majapahit-picit krisses with a broad punched blade and integral hilt.

I am also not convinced we can refer to any keris picit as "forgeries" simply because we suspect a broad punch was used to create the indentations. This is probably the case with many old keris picit for all we know. I don't think it is actually possible to prove that any picit was truly accomplished with only the bare fingers of the smith. Like Gardner i do believe that on very thin blades this method is indeed possible to accomplish, but to prove it one way or another for any particular keris would be quite impossible. Some indentations do tend to look more organic than others, but beyond that how would we know?
I am surprised to find that Gardner seems to dismiss the magickal power of such a method though, stating "Such a feat would be no more wonderful than firewalking. It is said that many professional conjurers use on their hands a mixture of camphor and styrax dissolved in spirit, and can then handle red hot iron with ease." Given that Gardner was indeed the father of modern Wicca and a practitioner of ceremonial and ritual magick in his day it seems odd that he would dismiss the use of bare finger tips transferring talismanic power into a blade as a mere parlor trick. From my perspective it is not that the act seems impossible to perform that determines the intent and purpose or power of the act. It is simply a direct transference of power by the empu into the blade. If "tricks" are used to make this operation possible it does not really diminish the act in the eyes of the empu or those that believe in its power. Of course, Gardner didn't fully begin to step into his magickal world view until 1939 so maybe these ideas were not fully formed in his mind at the time of this writing.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by David

I am also not convinced we can refer to any keris picit as "forgeries" simply because we suspect a broad punch was used to create the indentations.

I think that Gardner considered these pieces as forgeries because they were recently made contrary to the old original pieces (see one specimen of each type). I regret that he did not elaborate on the area of origin of his krisses picit.
Regards

[David]

Originally Posted by Jean

I think that Gardner considered these pieces as forgeries because they were recently made contrary to the old original pieces (see one specimen of each type). I regret that he did not elaborate on the area of origin of his krisses picit.

Well, Gardner calls keris sajen as keris majapahit. It seems, from his further commentary about keris sajen made with picit after the 1500s that he may not have considered these keris legitimate if they were not made during the Mojopahit empire. It does seem that now most collectors recognize that legitimate keris sajen were made well after the Mojopahit kingdom was in power.
Still, all this is a little off track since the keris in question is not a keris sajen. It seem that the only keris picit that Gardner talks about in this section are ones that are also keris sajen. This is true of the ones he claims were from Terengganu as well. But we do know that there is a tradition of talismanic keris with picit that are not in any way keris sajen. We must also keep in mind that Gardner did not spend any of his time in SEA Malaysia, except for a brief stint in Borneo. So the information he was receiving about Javanese keris and other keris outside Malaysia in all probability was not coming from natives to those specific areas. That he speaks of the keris sajen as being used as a weapon with a poisoned blade certainly makes all his subsequent information on the subject suspect.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by David

It seem that the only keris picit that Gardner talks about in this section are ones that are also keris sajen. We must also keep in mind that Gardner did not spend any of his time in SEA outside? Malaysia, except for a brief stint in Borneo. So the information he was receiving about Javanese keris and other keris outside Malaysia in all probability was not coming from natives to those specific areas.

Just a small comment: the krisses picit shown by Gardner on pics 27.6, 27.7, 28.1, and 39.4 are not sajen type and he makes a clear distinction between the 2 types IMO.
Regards

[David]

Originally Posted by Jean

Just an observation that krisses picit shown by Gardner on pics 27.6, 27.7, 28.1, and 39.4 are not sajen type and he makes a clear distinction between the 2 types IMO.
Regards

You are correct that 27. 6 appears to be a keris picit (from his words since the photo does not reveal the picit) with a broken off hole at the end of the pesi. I am not so sure about 27.7 (again due to the bad photos. The pesi gets strangely fat at the end making me wonder if it is not a slimmer version of a figurative integral handle. Not all keris sajen have the more developed integral hilts. I borrowed this one from Alan's site and he has a few more like it. Both 27.7 and 28.1 might very well be this style of keris sajen.
Thanks for pointing out the keris picit in 39.4. I wasn't looking that much further into the book given the section on picit came earlier. It does have a Jawa Demam hilt, but again, given the unfortunate photos it is impossible to determine if the blade is truly Malay or if it's origins are also in Jawa. Certainly many Javanese blades found their way beyond Jawa.