ANTIQUE 16th C OLD MADURA KERIS ??????

nechesh · 8th May 2006, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doecon

Thanks for your advice, looking forward meeting some expertise, might even learn something along the way.

I do however think you misunderstood the aim of my answer. I’m not defending anything, but I do think its important to show additional material so everybody can make up his own mind.

About the dress thing, yes of course we all understand people don’t throw their Ivory or golden dresses (they sell them). As I mentioned its quite common (here) to change an old dress for a new one, to illustrate that most blades around, don’t come with their “original” sheath. You should have a look in Java, you’ll be surprised to see a good amount of small businesses creating new sheaths, handles and pendok. Mostly for the local market. It’s a cultural thing. We (westerners) see the half rotten sheath as a valuable antique, here (java) they mostly don’t.

Regarding the possibility of keris being fake, I do have some things to say. It takes a lot of prejudice to assume that a (any) 15th, 16th , 17th year old keris is beforehand, probably a fake. Especially when it concerns a “common” keris. Fact is that there is still plenty (luckily) of old blades available in Indonesia. It simply doesn’t make sense to “copy” or fake a 16th century blade, when there is enough supply of the original. Or when the model copied is not in high demand.

I do however get worried myself about the continuous number of sellers claiming centuries of ages for obvious new blades. To me this doesn’t make sense. A good old keris is a good old one, a good new keris is a good new one…

Doecon, just to be clear, i was not assuming that this keris was a fake. I merely stated that the pics weren't very good and that the pitting looked suspicious to me. After further consideration and talk with other forumites i have come more to the conclusion that the pitting is just due to mistreatment over the years.
You are certainly right to say that " A good old keris is a good old one, a good new keris is a good new one…", however, i would definitely argue if you were to state that there are plenty of "good" old blades still available in Jawa. So of course it makes sense to copy 16thC blades if you make high quality ones. The blade in question is certainly not a high quality keris at all. You can probably find blades like this pretty cheap in Jawa.
As to dress, i firstly wouldn't make any assumption abot what "we (westerners) value. Many of us here understand the "cultural thing" and keep our collections accordingly. If i recieve a keris with damaged parts i replace them. If the blade needs a re-etching and staining, i do it , as do others on this forum. And it is not just ivory and gold dress which is highly valued and appreciated in Indonesia, but many types of highly prized woods. High levels of carving are also to be prized and appreciated. So, of course, anyone with a cultural understanding would not allow their keris to remain in a half rotten sheath. But in Indonesia don't just automatically change out a perfectly good sheath when they recieve an old keris, which is what you implied when you wrote:
"Most of the "new" owners simply want to change the "clothes" of their old blade. Put on a brand new sheath with shiny new brass cover is still seen as a good thing. You also dont wear the same clothes all the time, right ? The old ones sometimes is simply thrown away (trust me I see it happen a lot)."
But this is not the same as replacing an old worn out dress. I would not, however, be at all surprised at the number of small mranggi businesses in Jawa making new dress for old blades.

doecon · 8th May 2006, 08:30 AM

It seems that we almost agree on something
Regarding the “quality” of the old blades, it all depends on what you’re looking for. But as far as I know there is no rational way to measure the “quality” of an old blade.

Lot depends indeed how a keris was kept, how it survived the tests of aging or maybe even the quality of the metals used .(although mpu’s centuries ago simply didn’t have “good” metals (fine grains) and needed to work in very primitive conditions).

But probably more important, how would the spiritual and creative part of an Mpu be measured? No doubt that there have been master (keraton) MpuMpu who’s work is appreciated still by many..But how about the work from their students, followers or good amateurs from a village nearby?

To clarify (and for the clarity of not getting banned) I will use a simple analogue with paintings; Conditions of old oil paintings do effect their value, but they hardly do when the creator was considered a master. On the other side there is however masterpainter (Jeroem Bosch for example) who created art in a very primitive way. If we would place such an artist in the wrong timeframe (lets say he would have lived in the 19th C), his works would have been near worthless. Same probably counts for Da Vinci and others.
On top of this, there has been tons of good painters that never were considered “masters”, or worse….How about the nice old paintings without a sign!

To conclude, the keris isn’t a “Da Vinci”, but as an old ethnological creation it is an interesting object. Regarding the “painter”, I think its clearly made by someone who was skilled enough to create a keris that would maintain its proportions (and strength btw) after hundreds of years. Maybe not a “master”, but who knows…Clearly he (or she) left the work unsigned. And yes this keris could use a bath

I’m off now, finding some of those plenty cheap old blades again and visit the mranggi for some new dresses.

Cu

nechesh · 8th May 2006, 02:16 PM

Of course there are rational ways to measure the quality of old keris. A good thread for you to search for on this forum would be one titled "What makes a good keris" (i think that's the title). I'm sorry i don't have the link handy. You might find the search function here very useful infact and it will give you a better sense of the depth at which we have discussed the topic of the keris here in the past.
You ask how the spiritual and creative part of the mpu can be measured. Firstly, not all keris makers are mpus and i doubt very much that the keris under discussion was made by one. Apprentice and village work can be found in all manner of quality, some very good, some very bad. The creative quality can be easily measured by the look and feel of the blade, the mastery of pamor control, the skill of the carving of the ricikan, the general garap of the blade. Yes, the present physical condition of an old blade would also be something to take into account, but even a greatly mistreated blade can still show the mastery of it's maker if it's quality was high. The spiritual part, for me at least, would require a hands on experience.Even that is not necessarily a good judgement of the maker's spiritual skills since spiritual energy can easily leave a long mistreated blade.
You painters anology doesn't work for me. While certain aspects of keris have changed over the years it is not the same as the difference between, let's say, the classic realism of DaVinci and the abstract expressionism of Pollack.
A high quality 20thC blade could probably be examined by a 16thC Javanese and he would still understand the form and appreciate it's quality. This probably could not be said for the Pollack in DaVinci times.
Since no keris are "signed" we can not judge them based on some preconcieved quality for anything by DaVinci. Sometimes through either provenence or guesstimation we might assume a keris is the work of some great and famous mpu. You are correct, this blade ain't no DaVinci. Is it an interest artifact? Certainly. Is it highly collectible or desirable. Maybe to someone. Not to me. "Maybe not a "master", but who knows...."??? Please!

I would also argue your assertion that mpus centuries ago did not work with good iron, inspite of the "primative" condition under which they worked. Infact, old iron is highly prized as far as i know for a look and feel that newer keris tend not to have. You will, of course, find older keris made of poorer metals, but i don't think this is necessarily true of kraton pieces or other high quality work.

Rick · 8th May 2006, 03:05 PM

We are all going to play nice ; aren't we ?

nechesh · 8th May 2006, 03:39 PM

Sorry Rick.

Of course we will play nice.

Please pardon my momentary lapses of sarcasm. I certain intend to show all due respect, but i do find it necessary to counter some of Doecons statements and implications.

doecon · 8th May 2006, 09:37 PM

Well good that you did counter some of my statements, but to continue for the sake of disagreeing only doesn’t seem constructive. I think visitors here are wise enough to look at the ebay and picture links provided and make up their own judgment, whether or not this is a “catch”.

nechesh · 9th May 2006, 02:32 AM

Doecon, why on earth do you think i would bother to counter your statements just for the sake of disagreeing?

Yes....that would be counterproductive. I gave arguement to some of your statements because i think those statements are absolutely wrong.

I don't think ANYONE here , including myself, has tried to say that the buyer of this keris didn't get a good deal. This is not one of the points i have been debating with you. If you thought so then i am sorry for the misunderstanding.

If you would like to show me how the points i have made are incorrect i am open to hearing your reasoning.

8th May 2006, 08:30 AM	#2
doecon Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 63	It seems that we almost agree on something Regarding the “quality” of the old blades, it all depends on what you’re looking for. But as far as I know there is no rational way to measure the “quality” of an old blade. Lot depends indeed how a keris was kept, how it survived the tests of aging or maybe even the quality of the metals used .(although mpu’s centuries ago simply didn’t have “good” metals (fine grains) and needed to work in very primitive conditions). But probably more important, how would the spiritual and creative part of an Mpu be measured? No doubt that there have been master (keraton) MpuMpu who’s work is appreciated still by many..But how about the work from their students, followers or good amateurs from a village nearby? To clarify (and for the clarity of not getting banned) I will use a simple analogue with paintings; Conditions of old oil paintings do effect their value, but they hardly do when the creator was considered a master. On the other side there is however masterpainter (Jeroem Bosch for example) who created art in a very primitive way. If we would place such an artist in the wrong timeframe (lets say he would have lived in the 19th C), his works would have been near worthless. Same probably counts for Da Vinci and others. On top of this, there has been tons of good painters that never were considered “masters”, or worse….How about the nice old paintings without a sign! To conclude, the keris isn’t a “Da Vinci”, but as an old ethnological creation it is an interesting object. Regarding the “painter”, I think its clearly made by someone who was skilled enough to create a keris that would maintain its proportions (and strength btw) after hundreds of years. Maybe not a “master”, but who knows…Clearly he (or she) left the work unsigned. And yes this keris could use a bath I’m off now, finding some of those plenty cheap old blades again and visit the mranggi for some new dresses. Cu

8th May 2006, 02:16 PM	#3
nechesh Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 940	Of course there are rational ways to measure the quality of old keris. A good thread for you to search for on this forum would be one titled "What makes a good keris" (i think that's the title). I'm sorry i don't have the link handy. You might find the search function here very useful infact and it will give you a better sense of the depth at which we have discussed the topic of the keris here in the past. You ask how the spiritual and creative part of the mpu can be measured. Firstly, not all keris makers are mpus and i doubt very much that the keris under discussion was made by one. Apprentice and village work can be found in all manner of quality, some very good, some very bad. The creative quality can be easily measured by the look and feel of the blade, the mastery of pamor control, the skill of the carving of the ricikan, the general garap of the blade. Yes, the present physical condition of an old blade would also be something to take into account, but even a greatly mistreated blade can still show the mastery of it's maker if it's quality was high. The spiritual part, for me at least, would require a hands on experience.Even that is not necessarily a good judgement of the maker's spiritual skills since spiritual energy can easily leave a long mistreated blade. You painters anology doesn't work for me. While certain aspects of keris have changed over the years it is not the same as the difference between, let's say, the classic realism of DaVinci and the abstract expressionism of Pollack. A high quality 20thC blade could probably be examined by a 16thC Javanese and he would still understand the form and appreciate it's quality. This probably could not be said for the Pollack in DaVinci times. Since no keris are "signed" we can not judge them based on some preconcieved quality for anything by DaVinci. Sometimes through either provenence or guesstimation we might assume a keris is the work of some great and famous mpu. You are correct, this blade ain't no DaVinci. Is it an interest artifact? Certainly. Is it highly collectible or desirable. Maybe to someone. Not to me. "Maybe not a "master", but who knows...."??? Please! I would also argue your assertion that mpus centuries ago did not work with good iron, inspite of the "primative" condition under which they worked. Infact, old iron is highly prized as far as i know for a look and feel that newer keris tend not to have. You will, of course, find older keris made of poorer metals, but i don't think this is necessarily true of kraton pieces or other high quality work.

8th May 2006, 03:05 PM	#4
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,347	We are all going to play nice ; aren't we ?

8th May 2006, 03:39 PM	#5
nechesh Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 940	Sorry Rick. Of course we will play nice. Please pardon my momentary lapses of sarcasm. I certain intend to show all due respect, but i do find it necessary to counter some of Doecons statements and implications.

8th May 2006, 09:37 PM	#6
doecon Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 63	Well good that you did counter some of my statements, but to continue for the sake of disagreeing only doesn’t seem constructive. I think visitors here are wise enough to look at the ebay and picture links provided and make up their own judgment, whether or not this is a “catch”.

9th May 2006, 02:32 AM	#7
nechesh Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 940	Doecon, why on earth do you think i would bother to counter your statements just for the sake of disagreeing? Yes....that would be counterproductive. I gave arguement to some of your statements because i think those statements are absolutely wrong. I don't think ANYONE here , including myself, has tried to say that the buyer of this keris didn't get a good deal. This is not one of the points i have been debating with you. If you thought so then i am sorry for the misunderstanding. If you would like to show me how the points i have made are incorrect i am open to hearing your reasoning.