Banten? Keris

[kai]

Hello Alan,

Thanks a lot for your comments!

I, for one, wasn't necessarily suggesting Banten.

However, it is certainly interesting to have such an early blade with (apparently) its complete "original" fittings, even if these are of secondary importance...

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.

Dresden 2886 exhibits a concave gandik, too.

Any ideas how strictly controlled/enforced dapur was during the very early Mataram Senopaten court? During any major cultural transition, one might either expect pieces with mosaic features (alluding to different sources) or a (possibly fast evolving) "new style" to build a new social identity/cohesion?

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.

I do see shallow kruwingan extending approx. to the third luk: The concave channels are more obvious next to the sogokan and rather quickly fading out after the 2nd luk or so (still, an ada-ada is visible between the kruwingan, too).

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?

I did not want to imply that these two keris have the same dapur nor that they are closely related. However, the concave gandik and very pronounced tikel alis appear to be similar features for a start. The apparently unique metuk (or metuk-like iron mendak?) does not preclude to compare this wilah with other keris blades, doesn't it?

Regards,
Kai

[David]

Kai,
Thank you very much for taking it upon yourself to transfer a few of the posts from the other thread to this thread. Be careful though, or Rick and i might just have to curse you with a moderator title for your trouble.

[David]

I would also ask, is anyone capable of presenting photos of these Dresden examples (2886 and 2899) here for these discussions? For many of us these conversations are useless without a visual illustration to follow along with these observations. Thanks!

[A. G. Maisey]

David, I believe that the only way anybody can actually get any understanding at all of the Dresden keris is to obtain permission from the relevant curator to examine them.

I did obtain that permission, and the price I had to pay was my signature on a legal document that ensured I could never publish, share, or lend any photograph of any item that I had photographed.

Some other people who have published photographs of these keris have broken the conditions agreed to and have laid themselves open to prosecution.

I personally feel that it might be difficult for a German organisation to pursue charges against an Australian over a matter such as this, but there is the possibility that I may wish to examine these keris again one day, and I want to be able to do so.

Incidentally, every other museum that has permitted me to examine their holdings has imposed similar requirements to those imposed by Dresden. In most cases, not quite as formal, nor as frightening, as Dresden, but legally enforceable just the same. In Dresden it was explained to me that the document I was obliged to sign in order to gain access was the result of previous betrayals of trust.

[David]

Alan, it is my understanding that at least one of these Dresden keris has been published in Jensen's Krisdisk. I have no understanding as to whether or not he did that with or without permission, but to copy the photo here would certainly fall under fair usage for educational purposes. I, for one, do not own a copy of the disk.
Yes, i am certain that to truly understand the Dresden keris one should actually handle them, but if you gentleman are going to continue to make reference to these keris in comparison over and over again it would indeed be useful to see the photograph(s) of them presented in Jensen.
In any case, i certainly was not suggesting that you publish your own personal photos of these keris as i am well aware of the arrangements that you made with this museum when you had the opportunity to handle them.

[Athanase]

Originally Posted by David

I would also ask, is anyone capable of presenting photos of these Dresden examples (2886 and 2899) here for these discussions? For many of us these conversations are useless without a visual illustration to follow along with these observations. Thanks!

Yes please because I am a little lost. I am still sad with the specific vocabulary of various part of the blade (especially that on the Internet plans don't use every the same name or the same spelling).

I don't understand this stupid regulation that forbids the sharing of photos of a piece kept in museums. A museum is made to preserve and share a knowledge or a masterpiece with the biggest numbers! If the object isn't exposed and that the museum prohibits the photos it should either publish official photos on its website, or in a publication available for purchase for those interested.

Otherwise, would it be possible for those who have photos to draw shematically the blades in question? (when you have some time of course).

[A. G. Maisey]

David, I do not currently have access to Jensen's Kris Disc, and I am not looking at his photos, I have been looking at my own photos which are much more detailed and supported by notes on the various features of each keris I examined.

I prefer not to comment on Jensen's use of photographs.

Athanase, keris terminology can be very confusing. Spellings for the same word can vary, and the words themselves are seldom carved in stone. This link may assist a little:-

http://www.kerisattosanaji.com/kerisdiagram.html

In respect of the attitudes of museums, I prefer not to comment, except to say that many people do share your opinion.

On the other hand, I have always found museum staffs very obliging in making items held by them available for examination.

I'm afraid I am not able to draw sufficiently well to demonstrate the very, very tiny differences in various keris that permit us to assign one classification or another.

[Jean]

I attach a scanned picture of the kris #2886 in question taken from Jensen's Krisdisk, sorry for the quality.
Regards

[Jean]

(Post cancelled)

[A. G. Maisey]

Kai, since yesterday I have moved away from my records and it will be at least 2, possibly 3, days until I can respond to you adequately.

My previous remarks have been made upon the basis of +/- 12 photos of the "Banten" keris, as well as notes made while I was handling it. I am not using Jensen, as I still do not have access to that work.

I will respond when I am able.