Cirebon hilt?

kai · 2nd January 2018, 01:02 PM

Hello Séverin,

As you'll have noticed, you certainly lucked out on these 2 keris!

Quote:

The first one, very finely sculptured reminds me, in the posture of the body and the arms, the handle of the South of Sumatra.

It is a relatively early JD hilt which still shows some features of it cousins from the northern Jawa coast. Very nice craftsmanship!

The second keris is exceptional and shows the classic workmanship. It exhibits a cunning similarity to keris #2886 from the Dresden museum (provenance dating from 1671): only the kruwingan of your piece are shorter; examples with a plain gandik combined with "full" greneng are quite rare, anyway. Keris #2899 from the Dresden museum (provenance dating from 1676) is also similar.

BTW, the mendak is also of special interest: I can't remember any close matches but some semblance might be seen here:
Jakarta museum E 261 (a gift of the Mataram court)
Zeevaartschool (Kweekschool voor de Zeevaart), Amsterdam [stolen] (provenance dating from 1692)

Close-ups with high resolution would be great for detailed discussions!

Regards,
Kai

A. G. Maisey · 2nd January 2018, 10:39 PM

These comments are relative to the blade only of the second keris.

In my opinion this is not a Banten blade.

Typically the Banten wilah has a boto adeg blumbangan, the blumbangan of this keris is square.

There are two possibilities:- Mataram or Pajajaran

Condition and garap of the blade implies Mataram, but the dress is contrary to this.

It is very difficult to consider Pajajaran as possible because I have never seen a blade accepted as Pajajaran in such fine condition as this one:- I have no basis for comparison. However, the slightly concave gandhik is not a feature usually found in a Mataram blade, and a ron dha of this style is not typically associated with Mataram. So, although difficult, my inclination is to give this blade as Pajajaran.

In any case, it is old, it is fine, it is a very desireable.

Dresden 2886 has a Mataram blumbangan, square but not particulary large; the body cross section is the typical Tuban rotan, it does not have a ron dha that is classifiable, ie, it does have a ron dha but that ron dha cannot be aligned to an accepted form, however, I note that there is a possibility of corrosive damage to the greneng of 2886, which has impacted the ron dha; 2886 lacks kruwingan. However, the pawakan is similar to the pawakan of the keris under discussion.

Kai, I can see no similarity at all between Dresden 2899 and the keris under discussion. Dresden 2899 even uses a metuk instead of mendak and is of totally different dhapur and garap. Can you please tell me what the similarities are? Thanks.

Jean · 3rd January 2018, 12:31 PM

For those of you who have the Krisdisk from Jensen, the Dresden # 2886 kris is shown on page 28 of the Banten chapter for comparison with Athanase's kris.

Alan, the greneng/ ron dha (and the ganja to a lower extent) of Athanase's kris do not look in line with the drawing which you showed us recently?
Regards

kai · 3rd January 2018, 02:06 PM

Hello Jean & Alan,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jean

Alan, the greneng/ ron dha (and the ganja to a lower extent) of Athanase's kris do not look in line with the drawing which you showed us recently?

I was mulling over exactly the same apparent discrepancy!

Of course, the drawing are based on specimens which have been exposed to humid tropical climate and regular cleaning & etching - so we have to allow for quite a bit of erosion when comparing contemporary Jawa features with early collected museum pieces. A ron dha nunut is crafted from relatively thin metal and, thus, more prone to change from erosion and revision. However, the ron dha is usually crafted from fairly substantial metal and I have a hard time to fathom how the base could converge into the typical form unless by the helping hand of someone eager to implement change... (The tips and hooks are much more likely to degrade during routine maintenance, of course.)

In the mean time, Séverin posted a separate thread for this keris - maybe we can keep this thread for discussing Cirebon/North coast hilts and move the keris discussion over here?
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=23514

Regards,
Kai

David · 3rd January 2018, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kai

In the mean time, Séverin posted a separate thread for this keris - maybe we can keep this thread for discussing Cirebon/North coast hilts and move the keris discussion over here?
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=23514

I wholeheartedly agree with Kai. There is no reason to hold two discussions on this keris in two different places. Now that the blade is up for discussion on its own i suggest we direct all comments on it on the new thread. Thanks!

3rd January 2018, 12:31 PM	#3
Jean Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,740	For those of you who have the Krisdisk from Jensen, the Dresden # 2886 kris is shown on page 28 of the Banten chapter for comparison with Athanase's kris. Alan, the greneng/ ron dha (and the ganja to a lower extent) of Athanase's kris do not look in line with the drawing which you showed us recently? Regards Attached Images

2nd January 2018, 10:39 PM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	These comments are relative to the blade only of the second keris. In my opinion this is not a Banten blade. Typically the Banten wilah has a boto adeg blumbangan, the blumbangan of this keris is square. There are two possibilities:- Mataram or Pajajaran Condition and garap of the blade implies Mataram, but the dress is contrary to this. It is very difficult to consider Pajajaran as possible because I have never seen a blade accepted as Pajajaran in such fine condition as this one:- I have no basis for comparison. However, the slightly concave gandhik is not a feature usually found in a Mataram blade, and a ron dha of this style is not typically associated with Mataram. So, although difficult, my inclination is to give this blade as Pajajaran. In any case, it is old, it is fine, it is a very desireable. Dresden 2886 has a Mataram blumbangan, square but not particulary large; the body cross section is the typical Tuban rotan, it does not have a ron dha that is classifiable, ie, it does have a ron dha but that ron dha cannot be aligned to an accepted form, however, I note that there is a possibility of corrosive damage to the greneng of 2886, which has impacted the ron dha; 2886 lacks kruwingan. However, the pawakan is similar to the pawakan of the keris under discussion. Kai, I can see no similarity at all between Dresden 2899 and the keris under discussion. Dresden 2899 even uses a metuk instead of mendak and is of totally different dhapur and garap. Can you please tell me what the similarities are? Thanks.