Keris luk 9 - inviting comments

A. G. Maisey · 14th August 2019, 09:53 AM

Jaga, I sold this keris to the gentleman who had owned the collection that was auctioned last Sunday. In fact many of the S.E.Asian items in this collection had come from me.

I am not working from a blank canvas here, I know exactly what I'm looking at, I know all the craftsmen involved, Agus Irianto I knew for around 15 years, he was a friend of Empu Suparman, as his father was also. In the early 1990's he went to work for Tommy Suharto.

It would be a very bad idea to "swap out" the pendok. This keris is perfect and beautiful as is --- after you get rid of that garbage level selut. The pendok may be pasar quality, but it is very good pasar quality, you will not get one of equal quality in a pasar these days, to get anything better you will need to go to a bespoke one from a Solo craftsman, and for brass that will cost you around as much as this entire keris cost you. Additionally, this is good quality gold plate, to get quality as good as this now is impossible in Solo, you would need to get it plated in Sydney, and again, you'd be looking at a cost greater than the cost to you of this keris. You have something very nice and very good. Leave it alone and just look after what you have.

Jean, please see page 60 of the Surakarta Pakem. Balebang has two legitimate forms in the Surakarta Pakem, luk 7, luk 9.

There is something else too that we must not forget Jean:- dhapur, pamor, and just about everything else about the keris is not graven in stone, what one considers to be so is only correct in one specific dimension. The dimension I choose to use is Surakarta/Solo. I use this for a number of reasons, it is the senior branch of the House of Mataram, most of what I have learnt about keris has come from Solo, in a slip-sliding world of illogical, unfounded keris opinions, at least Surakarta/Solo stays consistently illogical, it does not change when the wind blows from a different direction.

Haryo Haryoguritno (Alm.) wrote a book, true, it is probably the best reference for Javanese keris that we have, but it is very, very far far from perfect. Never forget that Haryoguritno was a collector of information as well as keris, he collected from many people, but his world was the world of the collector, not the world of the dealer.

Jean · 14th August 2019, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Jean, please see page 60 of the Surakarta Pakem. Balebang has two legitimate forms in the Surakarta Pakem, luk 7, luk 9.

There is something else too that we must not forget Jean:- dhapur, pamor, and just about everything else about the keris is not graven in stone, what one considers to be so is only correct in one specific dimension. The dimension I choose to use is Surakarta/Solo. I use this for a number of reasons, it is the senior branch of the House of Mataram, most of what I have learnt about keris has come from Solo, in a slip-sliding world of illogical, unfounded keris opinions, at least Surakarta/Solo stays consistently illogical, it does not change when the wind blows from a different direction.

You are correct Alan but the dapur Balebang shown on page 60 of the book "Dhapur" is quite different from the blade in question IMO, especially it includes a sogokan, twin lambe gajah, and kruwingan. As this blade was recently made it is not too surprising that it does not follow the standard pakem.
Jaga, by "EK" I am referring to the Ensiklopedi Keris written by the late Bambang Harsrinuskmo.
Regards

A. G. Maisey · 14th August 2019, 10:03 PM

Jean, I do not have the book you mention, but it would make no difference if did, I always try, insofar as possible to follow the Surakarta line.

If you care to go through the Surakarta Pakem and match the various forms and the names given these forms, to common belief, you will find that more than one Surakarta dhapur varies from common belief. Does this mean that the Surakarta Pakem is often wrong, or does it mean that other people and other writers are often wrong?

Actually, it means neither. Surakarta is always right, within its dimension.

All the others are also right, within their individual dimensions.

With the keris there are very few absolute rights & wrongs.

This is particularly so when we get to playing with names and that is a foundation stone of my personal philosophy that the names of things are unimportant, that which is important is the understanding, but very few people seem to be prepared tom devote the time necessary to grasp an understanding of the keris.

jagabuwana · 15th August 2019, 12:20 AM

Jean, Anthony - thank you !

Alan - Haha I did say to my partner "I bet half this stuff went through Alan's hands once.." when I saw the auction. There we go.
Understood loud and clear regarding the pendok. Knowing what I know now I no longer have any inclination to remove it.

I should also make clear that my reservations about it were entirely from a personal taste and aesthetic preference perspective (I have a general bias against to gold or shiny things

) , and certainly not on the pendok's suitability as a dressing or its quality. However my personal tastes and preferences have certainly been pliable as far as keris matters goes, so I hope that along the way I can appreciate this pendok more and come to see it in the same way as keris aesthetes.

A. G. Maisey · 15th August 2019, 12:39 AM

I understand what you're saying Jaga, and I agree, I personally don't much like this "bling-bling" style that was and is popular with many people in Solo, but it is perhaps not correct to over-rule a taste or style that we do not find particularly appealing and substitute a style that we personally like. The substitution might be more pleasing to us, but is it more pleasing to the people of the culture that owns the artifact? After all, we indulge ourselves in "ethnic collection", not in the collection of things that are our own interpretation of what is ethnically pleasing to us.

jagabuwana · 15th August 2019, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

.. but it is perhaps not correct to over-rule a taste or style that we do not find particularly appealing and substitute a style that we personally like. The substitution might be more pleasing to us, but is it more pleasing to the people of the culture that owns the artifact? After all, we indulge ourselves in "ethnic collection", not in the collection of things that are our own interpretation of what is ethnically pleasing to us.

Well said and a good reminder. Agreed!

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

I guess I'd have to go with "diluar pakem"

Unfortunately I don't have the Surakarta Pakem / Dhapur books to reference, but it seems then that you would disagree with Jean's suggestion that this is dhapur Sempana Robyong. Would I be correct there? If so, I'd be interested to know how a different understanding of this could come about if you both use the same reference that is considered to be canon.

A. G. Maisey · 16th August 2019, 02:09 AM

Jaga, I do not know sempana robyong, Jean apparently does. I'm not going to debate the matter, Jean has found a source that provides this name, I do not search for sources or references, I run on what is in my head, and there is a great deal that is not in my head. I try to check things before I post, in fact, I usually do, but sometimes I just don't have time to check thoroughly.

Admitted, it always helps if a reference is quoted when we use a reference source, but its OK if we don't. The names are no big deal, really. I like Surakarta, but even there, there are things that I have been taught by knowledgeable people in Solo who do not agree with one another, or with kraton produced references. It is as I have said:- nothing is graven in stone.

You know what "diluar pakem" means, but does that include all pakems? In any case, any pakem is only a guide, it is not any sort of Holy Gospel. The reason it is regarded as "gospel" in western keris collecting circles is because it was produced within the Surakarta Kraton and published under the aegis of the kraton, but many Javanese ahli keris will disagree with some of the stuff in it.

Collectors in the west, and for that matter, within Indonesia, but not a part of the Central Javanese circles, tend to believe that if something about keris has been written by an Indonesian then that must be so. However, in Solo we constantly hear respected ahli keris bewailing the fact that the people who write about keris have failed to learn anything about keris before writing. The big name "Keris Experts" who have published books about keris in Indonesia, do not get nearly the same level of respect from genuine ahli keris in Solo that they get from Western collectors and people from Jakarta and Surabaya.

But why argue about it? It is far, far easier to agree with what is generally believed than to fight a battle about every minor difference. For example, the names I use for pamors, dhapurs, ricikan and so on when I post here, or produce a catalogue are names that I believe most people who read what I write will understand, but they are not necessarily the same names or words that I use in conversation in Solo.

The names are not important. The understanding is. I've said or written this more times than I can remember, but still all that anybody wants to do is to talk about empty, arguable, names. This is not keris knowledge and it is not keris study.

The misunderstanding was entirely due my haste and probably also to Jean's haste. I remembered the dhapur "Balebang", your keris is 9 luk, it looked like Balebang to me, I went straight to luk 9 keris in the pakem, glanced at the Balebang pic, confirmed my memory, continued writing, I noted that there were two versions of Balebang. But I missed the lack of sogokan.

When I write these posts I allow at most a few minutes for one, nearly everything comes out of my head, but I try to check before I write. Sometimes I'm not careful enough, and/or my memory has holes in it.

I'm guessing that Jean did something similar to me, but he missed the cross reference to the two types of balebang.

Jean · 15th August 2019, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Jean, I do not have the book you mention, but it would make no difference if did, I always try, insofar as possible to follow the Surakarta line.
If you care to go through the Surakarta Pakem and match the various forms and the names given these forms, to common belief, you will find that more than one Surakarta dhapur varies from common belief. Does this mean that the Surakarta Pakem is often wrong, or does it mean that other people and other writers are often wrong?

Hello Alan,
This is the book in question (my favourite reference about dapur types) and it should constitute or be in line with the Surakarta Pakem which you mention.
I recommend this book to all the members who do not own it yet.
Regards

A. G. Maisey · 15th August 2019, 09:35 AM

Yes, you're right Jean, speed kills. No sogokan, I should have checked before rushing into print.

What you call the "Dhapur" book, I call the Surakarta Pakem. Its the same book.

Actually, many years ago, some time in the 1980's, I was offered the original of this book with all the hand drawn illustrations and hand written notes, it is a very big book. The price was way beyond me, but I was permitted to borrow it and photograph the pages.

I guess I'd have to go with "diluar pakem", which is the usual for these more recent keris. Pity.

Incidentally, the "greneng above the KK" is called a "jenggot", a beard.

14th August 2019, 09:53 AM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,047	Jaga, I sold this keris to the gentleman who had owned the collection that was auctioned last Sunday. In fact many of the S.E.Asian items in this collection had come from me. I am not working from a blank canvas here, I know exactly what I'm looking at, I know all the craftsmen involved, Agus Irianto I knew for around 15 years, he was a friend of Empu Suparman, as his father was also. In the early 1990's he went to work for Tommy Suharto. It would be a very bad idea to "swap out" the pendok. This keris is perfect and beautiful as is --- after you get rid of that garbage level selut. The pendok may be pasar quality, but it is very good pasar quality, you will not get one of equal quality in a pasar these days, to get anything better you will need to go to a bespoke one from a Solo craftsman, and for brass that will cost you around as much as this entire keris cost you. Additionally, this is good quality gold plate, to get quality as good as this now is impossible in Solo, you would need to get it plated in Sydney, and again, you'd be looking at a cost greater than the cost to you of this keris. You have something very nice and very good. Leave it alone and just look after what you have. Jean, please see page 60 of the Surakarta Pakem. Balebang has two legitimate forms in the Surakarta Pakem, luk 7, luk 9. There is something else too that we must not forget Jean:- dhapur, pamor, and just about everything else about the keris is not graven in stone, what one considers to be so is only correct in one specific dimension. The dimension I choose to use is Surakarta/Solo. I use this for a number of reasons, it is the senior branch of the House of Mataram, most of what I have learnt about keris has come from Solo, in a slip-sliding world of illogical, unfounded keris opinions, at least Surakarta/Solo stays consistently illogical, it does not change when the wind blows from a different direction. Haryo Haryoguritno (Alm.) wrote a book, true, it is probably the best reference for Javanese keris that we have, but it is very, very far far from perfect. Never forget that Haryoguritno was a collector of information as well as keris, he collected from many people, but his world was the world of the collector, not the world of the dealer. Last edited by A. G. Maisey; 14th August 2019 at 10:04 AM.

15th August 2019, 12:20 AM	#4
jagabuwana Member Join Date: Jan 2018 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 291	Jean, Anthony - thank you ! Alan - Haha I did say to my partner "I bet half this stuff went through Alan's hands once.." when I saw the auction. There we go. Understood loud and clear regarding the pendok. Knowing what I know now I no longer have any inclination to remove it. I should also make clear that my reservations about it were entirely from a personal taste and aesthetic preference perspective (I have a general bias against to gold or shiny things ) , and certainly not on the pendok's suitability as a dressing or its quality. However my personal tastes and preferences have certainly been pliable as far as keris matters goes, so I hope that along the way I can appreciate this pendok more and come to see it in the same way as keris aesthetes. Last edited by jagabuwana; 15th August 2019 at 04:32 AM.

14th August 2019, 10:03 PM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,047	Jean, I do not have the book you mention, but it would make no difference if did, I always try, insofar as possible to follow the Surakarta line. If you care to go through the Surakarta Pakem and match the various forms and the names given these forms, to common belief, you will find that more than one Surakarta dhapur varies from common belief. Does this mean that the Surakarta Pakem is often wrong, or does it mean that other people and other writers are often wrong? Actually, it means neither. Surakarta is always right, within its dimension. All the others are also right, within their individual dimensions. With the keris there are very few absolute rights & wrongs. This is particularly so when we get to playing with names and that is a foundation stone of my personal philosophy that the names of things are unimportant, that which is important is the understanding, but very few people seem to be prepared tom devote the time necessary to grasp an understanding of the keris.

15th August 2019, 12:39 AM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,047	I understand what you're saying Jaga, and I agree, I personally don't much like this "bling-bling" style that was and is popular with many people in Solo, but it is perhaps not correct to over-rule a taste or style that we do not find particularly appealing and substitute a style that we personally like. The substitution might be more pleasing to us, but is it more pleasing to the people of the culture that owns the artifact? After all, we indulge ourselves in "ethnic collection", not in the collection of things that are our own interpretation of what is ethnically pleasing to us.

16th August 2019, 02:09 AM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,047	Jaga, I do not know sempana robyong, Jean apparently does. I'm not going to debate the matter, Jean has found a source that provides this name, I do not search for sources or references, I run on what is in my head, and there is a great deal that is not in my head. I try to check things before I post, in fact, I usually do, but sometimes I just don't have time to check thoroughly. Admitted, it always helps if a reference is quoted when we use a reference source, but its OK if we don't. The names are no big deal, really. I like Surakarta, but even there, there are things that I have been taught by knowledgeable people in Solo who do not agree with one another, or with kraton produced references. It is as I have said:- nothing is graven in stone. You know what "diluar pakem" means, but does that include all pakems? In any case, any pakem is only a guide, it is not any sort of Holy Gospel. The reason it is regarded as "gospel" in western keris collecting circles is because it was produced within the Surakarta Kraton and published under the aegis of the kraton, but many Javanese ahli keris will disagree with some of the stuff in it. Collectors in the west, and for that matter, within Indonesia, but not a part of the Central Javanese circles, tend to believe that if something about keris has been written by an Indonesian then that must be so. However, in Solo we constantly hear respected ahli keris bewailing the fact that the people who write about keris have failed to learn anything about keris before writing. The big name "Keris Experts" who have published books about keris in Indonesia, do not get nearly the same level of respect from genuine ahli keris in Solo that they get from Western collectors and people from Jakarta and Surabaya. But why argue about it? It is far, far easier to agree with what is generally believed than to fight a battle about every minor difference. For example, the names I use for pamors, dhapurs, ricikan and so on when I post here, or produce a catalogue are names that I believe most people who read what I write will understand, but they are not necessarily the same names or words that I use in conversation in Solo. The names are not important. The understanding is. I've said or written this more times than I can remember, but still all that anybody wants to do is to talk about empty, arguable, names. This is not keris knowledge and it is not keris study. The misunderstanding was entirely due my haste and probably also to Jean's haste. I remembered the dhapur "Balebang", your keris is 9 luk, it looked like Balebang to me, I went straight to luk 9 keris in the pakem, glanced at the Balebang pic, confirmed my memory, continued writing, I noted that there were two versions of Balebang. But I missed the lack of sogokan. When I write these posts I allow at most a few minutes for one, nearly everything comes out of my head, but I try to check before I write. Sometimes I'm not careful enough, and/or my memory has holes in it. I'm guessing that Jean did something similar to me, but he missed the cross reference to the two types of balebang.

15th August 2019, 09:35 AM	#9
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,047	Yes, you're right Jean, speed kills. No sogokan, I should have checked before rushing into print. What you call the "Dhapur" book, I call the Surakarta Pakem. Its the same book. Actually, many years ago, some time in the 1980's, I was offered the original of this book with all the hand drawn illustrations and hand written notes, it is a very big book. The price was way beyond me, but I was permitted to borrow it and photograph the pages. I guess I'd have to go with "diluar pakem", which is the usual for these more recent keris. Pity. Incidentally, the "greneng above the KK" is called a "jenggot", a beard.