![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 470
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,740
|
![]()
Very interesting indeed, the kris is still in "leaf" style (short & broad), not a modern kris. From early Majapahit period?
Regards |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,056
|
![]()
I don't know Jean, Mojo, certainly, exactly what time, no idea.
Yes, Anthony, interesting, and it becomes even more interesting when we trace the form of the keris through bas reliefs from the Central Jawa (Early Classical) period to what we can see in the reliefs and statuary at Candi Sukuh (+/- 1437). There is much to consider in keris development. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 470
|
![]() Quote:
Honestly speaking, I am still confuse about how Majapahit keris looks like, till now. I always have impression it has less pamor, dark iron etc. Below link is just a sample. https://pusakadunia.com/keris-majapa...tuah-ampuh_10/ |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,056
|
![]()
Anthony, there is a very great difference between keris that some people might classify as Tangguh Majapahit, and the keris that evidence seems to indicate actually might have existed during the Majapahit period.
Tangguh ngak sungguh. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,056
|
![]()
Kai, it seems to be generally agreed between those people who are supposedly expert in these matters, that where material objects exist in Javanese sculpture from these early periods, those material objects do in fact reflect what was in use in the community at that time.
As to whether or not this sculpture actually did originate during the Mojo era, it is as I have already said:- it is in a museum that exists for no other reason than to preserve and display Majapahit artifacts it was found in the central area of Majapahit, and noted scholars consider that it is Majapahit work. I might be a little bit naive and perhaps too trusting, but all of that is good enough for me. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,255
|
![]() Quote:
Yes, agreed. It stands to reason that when a keraton introduces any new style everyone needs to follow suit immediately. I’m less convinced we can extend such a general assumption to rare or even singular iconography though. Anyway, I was thinking of only minor time lags like a generation or two (i.e. within the living memory of the artisan). There isn’t any evidence that the ancestral dagger much less the keris buda ever became culturally obsolete during the late Majapahit era, is it? Regards, Kai |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |||
Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,255
|
![]()
Hello Anthony,
Quote:
From statues and bas relief, it stands to reason that the keris buda (and possibly its ancestor, too) was at least well-known and very likely in active use by the ruling elite throughout (almost all of) the classical period. It’s the “modern“ keris which seems to make a really late appearance based on the extremely scant evidence. Quote:
As Alan already mentioned, it hasn’t been established whether blades classified as Majapahit really originate from that era. Even if partly true, each member of nobility must have hoarded thousands of keris to account for the number of examples nowadays claimed to be Mojo... ![]() The earliest well-preserved modern keris are documented from European collections since the later 16th century. It seems quite possible that a small fraction of these may date to the late Mojo period. However, this could only be substantiated by destructive sampling and C14 analysis; any recycling of old steel might confound the results though. Quote:
![]() Regards, Kai |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,056
|
![]()
Kai, I'm a very simple man, and I am sufficiently unfortunate to recognise my very distinct limitations.
One of those limitations is that I cannot be expert in all things that may be of interest to me. Thus, when it comes to some things I do not try to be an expert and to generate my own opinions, I simply turn to the people who are widely recognised as experts and I rely on those people. So, if a whole flock of people regarded as expert in the interpretation and understanding of early Javanese sculpture are of the opinion that something is so, I do not feel that my own knowledge, even though I have used a considerable part of my life in the study of Javanese classical sculpture, is of sufficient weight to counter that group opinion. There is a clear trail of keris development recorded in Javanese classical sculpture that stretches all the way from Candi Loro Jonggrang in Central Jawa, across into a swath of candis and statuary in East Jawa, and back to Candi Sukuh in Central Jawa. Perhaps a good starting point to begin to understand what was happening during this period of development might be a reading of Pigeaud's "Java in the 14th Century". This work does not by any means give the whole story, but it is, I feel, an essential foundation stone upon which to build the necessary structure of knowledge. I was in my late thirties when I discovered it, and I wish I had known of it 20 years earlier, it would have helped to prevent me going down a lot of dead ends. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,056
|
![]()
In respect of your Post #11 Kai.
The Modern Keris, that is, the keris as we presently understand a keris to be, is the result of ongoing development spread over 1000 years or more, but what I personally find more interesting is the development of the understanding that surrounds the keris. In the context of the keris, the word "tangguh" can be understood to mean "opinion". The Surakarta Tangguh System is a system of classification that is subject to a great deal of misunderstanding and is tolerant of the right of everybody to hold their own opinion. Of course, as with most things, the opinions of some people have more weight than the opinions of others. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,255
|
![]()
Hello Jean,
Quote:
Considering the pretty scant evidence, I'd expect that this earlier style was still utilized during a notable part of the late classical period. However, even if this sculpture could be reliably dated to the late Mojo period, it might be just a reference to an already obsolete style. Regards, Kai |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|