Newbie Question: Kinatah vs Sinarasah

[kai]

Hello YS,

From browsing several keris websites, I’ve found that the consensus is that Kinatah is considered as a SUPERIOR technique than Sinarasah but no further explanations provided.

I beg to differ: Like David I'd tend to believe that these methods mainly are for different purposes. If the craftsmanship is good, they'll be fairly robust; I've seen more than a few lousy jobs with both methods though...

1. Why is Kinatah considered superior than Sinarasah? Is it because it is more difficult to do and the results are better?

I'd guess that plain inlay merely receives less recognition. The more splendid/fancy keris will usually be done via kinatah work while inlay usually tends to be more subdued, localized decor.

2. How can you tell that the gold ornamentation found in Keris is the result of Kinatah or Sinarasah?

Typical sinarasah will be smooth with the blade surface.

If the gold seems to be sitting on top of the blade, it could be both methods and most people would call it kinatah without a second thought. Sometimes, you can spot the surface scratching to attach true kinatah along the margins of the gold work - if the work is good (and without missing bits from wear/etc.), there shouldn't be any clues visible though.

If done in the same quality, I'd rather opt for sinarasah-style attachment since this is likely to be more stable in the long run!

BTW, for big lumps of gold like elephant/tiger/etc. standing proud of the blade, there usually is some iron base left on the wilah/gonjo which then get's covered by gold: This helps to avoid spending more for precious metals than necessary and, more importantly, provides a very secure attachment! While this may also be subsumed under the kinatah category, it is much more stable and I can't remember having seen any examples with the typical scratching on the surface...

Actually, there is at least one more (sub)type of attachment: Sometimes a tiny chisel is utilized to cut into the iron and bend it upwards - with a few of these curved "tooths" standing proud of the surface and an irregular hole in the middle, this also offers a very secure attachment for any gold work (possibly including inset gems)! Again, most people would also refer to it as kinatah even if the construction principle might be closer to sinarasah...

Regards,
Kai

[JustYS]

Thank you David, Rick and kai for your explanations.

Originally Posted by kai

Hello YS,


I beg to differ: Like David I'd tend to believe that these methods mainly are for different purposes. If the craftsmanship is good, they'll be fairly robust; I've seen more than a few lousy jobs with both methods though...

I admit my source of this statement is mostly from Indonesian websites and also online sellers where they always put a higher price for kinatah compared to sinarasah, although to my untrained eyes it’s difficult to see the difference.

Cheers,

YS

[Jean]

Dear Kai,
Would you classify the gold work on the blade shown by David as kinatah or sinarasah?
Regards

[kai]

Dear Jean,

Our post crossed - my comments were directed at Yohan's questions.

Would you classify the gold work on the blade shown by David as kinatah or sinarasah?

As I said, we can't really know from any pic but a high-power X-ray...

As a default, I'd assume that the figurines have an iron core which was pre-modelled on the gonjo. The gold layer may be thin, indeed.

I believe this most likely would be subsumed under kinatah by Jawa standards.

Regards,
Kai

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Kai, you're pretty right;- see a bit gold, or gold plate, or gilt, or brass on a blade, the common term is "Kinatah".

This is often technically wrong, but it is only in serious, analytical discussion that the correct technical terms get used --- if people do in fact know them.

David's Example

The work on David's keris is kinatah work, the two little protuberances on top of the gonjo could be achieved with other methods, but are most likely to be gonjo material left proud and then the gold foil applied.