keris palembang

kai · 23rd August 2020, 07:46 PM

Hello Alan,

Quote:

If it were mine I would not change a thing on it, everything hangs together nicely exactly as it is.

There are solid cultural reasons, apart from personal preferences, why men choose to wear humble clothing and non-ostentatious accoutrements, and when such a nice example as this comes our way it is perhaps a little arrogant of somebody who is not a part of the originating culture to take it upon himself to override the taste of the previous owner.

This thread might be of interest:-
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ghlight=GINJEI

If there was any evidence suggesting that this keris is an ensemble that was traditionally worn by a former owner as-is (or even a decent likelihood only), I’d fully agree not to change anything. However, very few keris have enough provenance to suggest them likely being genuine ensembles.

Usually we have to go by indicators when trying to estimate whether any given keris may survive as an original ensemble.

For keris Palembang, we have a pretty good number of extant examples to reconstruct how original status ensembles looked like; this one doesn’t feel right to me at all…

As already mentioned (post #12), it is wise to keep any replaced parts. And to pass them on to any future owners so that any changes are fully reversible.

I believe the majority of keris in collections worldwide got sold/traded (usually via several middlemen) and many ensembles got altered during this process. While there are certainly genuine examples with fittings that are of thoroughly mixed origins and also reflect the genuine choice of the last traditional owner within his(/her) cultural environment, this seems to be a bit farfetched as a default assumption for most extant ensembles with strong discrepancies in style and/or quality, I believe.

(I'm not sure what you refer to regarding to Si Ginjei or Palembang vs Jambi - feel free to expand, please!)

Regards,
Kai

A. G. Maisey · 23rd August 2020, 11:41 PM

Yes Kai, you're right, if I look at a blade it is measured against a mental template, initial appraisal is always based on overall impression that takes into account the dominant feeling of the pawakan, and any particular characteristic that is only attributable to a particular classification.

Once you have that you then examine more closely to try to disprove the initial evaluation. If you cannot disprove that initial evaluation, it stands.

Blumbangan is of relative importance but it cannot over-rule everything else.

Blade classification in my terms is "tangguh" in the terms of just about everybody else, I use "classification" because I have yet to meet anybody from a western culture who truly understands all the things that "keris tangguh" expresses to a Javanese ahli keris. Use of the word "classification" simplifies things and brings the whole concept back to something that people who are outside Javanese culture can more or less understand.

Never forget this:- the Solonese tangguh system was initiated for very specific reasons, reasons that I will not go into here, it was not initiated so that keris collectors would have something to talk about. This tangguh system should only be applied to very high quality blades of investment quality. Yes everybody now wants to stick a tangguh onto everything, but that is not really the way things are supposed to work.

When we look very closely at a high quality blade we base our judgement on the impression , some things are measurable, I mean able to measured precisely with verniers, things like the width of a kruwingan, other things are close to impossible to measure accurately, or perhaps can be part measured and then we gauge placement and impression.

The greneng is the maker's signature. Look at the illustrations in KJ.

It is not only the signature of the maker, but also a major indicator of classification. The ron dha used in a Surakarta keris is similar to the ron dha used in a keris that is classifiable as Mojo, but it is not the same.

We need to be pay extremely close attention to detail when we look at quality keris.

Surakarta echoes Mojo, but it is very far from being the same, and within the Surakarta classification there is variation between periods and makers, and vast variation in quality.

To even begin to understand this we need a very great deal of experience. There is no easy way, there is no formula, there is nothing that can be written down as a set of rules. We need to handle one hell of a lot of keris in the presence of and under the guidance of somebody who really does understand.

The judgement of a blade classification is an opinion. Sometimes that opinion will be based on a 99% agreement with indicators, sometimes it will be based on a 51% agreement with indicators, sometimes it will be 50/50.

Whether the opinion is accepted or not is usually based upon the generally agreed position of the person giving the opinion. This is exactly the same as applies in the world of art in general where an appraiser is generally agreed as being the greatest living authority on the work of a particular period, or artist within a period.

A. G. Maisey · 24th August 2020, 12:12 AM

I understand "genuine ensemble" as meaning a keris that is in the dress that it had when it left the culture of origin. If that keris was with a custodian who actually wore it, or whether it was with a dealer or agent within the culture of origin, I accept that ensemble as genuine.

Why do I include dealers and agents?

Because in the societies with which I am familiar, many people buy a keris fully dressed from a dealer or agent and never touch it as long as they have it.

This can vary of course, sometimes a keris will be redressed to suit an occasion, often a single blade can have half a dozen different forms of dress, for example dress to attend an evening function, dress to inspect ricefields, dress to go to an afternoon of dance practice, dress to appear less than one really is, dress to appear more than one really is.

To form an opinion on the "genuiness" of keris dress based upon a keris seen out of context is unwise and cannot be substantiated. It is an opinion formed without knowledge. We need to see the keris within its context in order to form an opinion that can be substantiated.

The idea of keeping replaced parts on a keris may be something that would appeal to a collector who is based in a society outside the area of origin, but it is something that within society of origin would be regarded as being at best something to smile at. Something like keeping a worn out suit of clothes, or the suit that you wore when you were a junior clerk, as opposed to the suit that you wear when you attend a board meeting.

Frankly, I do not see this keris as a "status" keris. It is made in a particular style, but it is almost a caricature of that style, as if the style has been described and noted, but the maker has perhaps never seen more than one or two of that style in his life.

It is a nice keris, but to paint it as "status" is more than a bit extreme.

Kai, in respect of this:-

" (I'm not sure what you refer to regarding to Si Ginjei or Palembang vs Jambi - feel free to expand, please!)"

I don't have time to go looking for what I wrote, and since I wrote what has piquied your interest I have probably written something like 25,000 words about a number of subjects and for different purposes.

Could you please direct me to the passage concerned and frame your question as precisely as possible? I'll do my best to respond.

kai · 24th August 2020, 11:32 AM

Hello Alan,

Thanks for your responses - I'll try to tackle other topics later.

Quote:

Kai, in respect of this:-

" (I'm not sure what you refer to regarding to Si Ginjei or Palembang vs Jambi - feel free to expand, please!)"

I don't have time to go looking for what I wrote, and since I wrote what has piquied your interest I have probably written something like 25,000 words about a number of subjects and for different purposes.

Could you please direct me to the passage concerned and frame your question as precisely as possible? I'll do my best to respond.

Rather to the contrary, your original statement at the end of post #26 in this thread was too terse for me, I'm afraid. I suppose that you refer to your last post (#15 in the referenced thread) but I fail to see the connection to the current discussion. (If a discussion Palembang style vs Jambi style is deemed relevant, I guess my first question would be who attributed those old keris to Palembang and on what reason?)

Regards,
Kai

A. G. Maisey · 24th August 2020, 01:14 PM

Jean, how good is the provenance on that keris?

How certain are we of the dating?

How certain are we that it is from Banten?

At this point I am not arguing against Banten, but I will say that it appears to tick all the boxes for a Surakarta keris, and it lacks characteristics that we would normally be looking for in a Banten keris.

Would it be possible to do a close-up as near to 90 degrees as possible of the wadidang side greneng, and also straight down onto the top of the gonjo?

Also a full length shot so we can see the pawakan.

Kai, I apologise if you consider that my use of words was too sparing Kai, Frankly I just don't understand what you're getting at or what your question is. But if I was sparing in my use of words, perhaps it was because I had nothing of any great importance to say, so I most gently suggest that you ignore that which you find confusing or objectionable. Just leave my terse comments to sit wherever they might be and languish in loneliness.

Jean · 24th August 2020, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Jean, how good is the provenance on that keris?

How certain are we of the dating?

How certain are we that it is from Banten?

At this point I am not arguing against Banten, but I will say that it appears to tick all the boxes for a Surakarta keris, and it lacks characteristics that we would normally be looking for in a Banten keris.

Would it be possible to do a close-up as near to 90 degrees as possible of the wadidang side greneng, and also straight down onto the top of the gonjo?

Also a full length shot so we can see the pawakan.

Hello Alan,
I said "possibly originating from Banten and dating from the 17th century" because of the large similarities between this blade and the specimens shown in the Krisdik from Jensen and in the Dresden and Copenhagen collections, especially the dapur/ ricikan and the size of the blade.
I will shot more pics but am not sure that they will give more accurate evidence.

My supporting arguments for the Banten or Blambangan origin and estimated age are as follows:
. Unfortunately the blade was shortened and only has 9 or 11 luks against probably 13 originally and measures only 31.5 cm instead of 38-40 cm estimated as the typical blades from Banten. (see pics)
. The dapur and ricikan are extremely similar to the reference blades from Banten/ Blambangan.
. The blade is significantly heavier (thicker and wider) than the standard Surakarta blades including the PB ones.
. The attached hilt is typical of the 17th century pieces from Banten or Blambangan.
. The blade was sheathless as you would expect from a very old piece from an uncommon origin (a Surakarta blade would more probably have a scabbard).
Regards

A. G. Maisey · 24th August 2020, 09:22 PM

Thanks Jean, but I still need those other shots.

This looks more Banten than your first pics.

Jean · 24th August 2020, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Blade classification in my terms is "tangguh" in the terms of just about everybody else, I use "classification" because I have yet to meet anybody from a western culture who truly understands all the things that "keris tangguh" expresses to a Javanese ahli keris. Use of the word "classification" simplifies things and brings the whole concept back to something that people who are outside Javanese culture can more or less understand.

Yes Alan, I fully agree and I would propose that from now on we should use "classification" instead of "tangguh" in this forum to avoid confusion and misunderstanding such as using the tangguh concept for blades from outside Java/ Madura.
In my book and after having failed to properly understand and describe the tangguh concept, I have used the word "style" which may not be fully appropriate but is easily understandable by Western collectors.
BTW I just checked the book "The World of the Javanese Keris" and noticed that unless I miss a few mentions the authors did not use the word "tangguh" at all but referred the age of the blades to the historical periods such as Majapahit, Pajajaran, and Mataram. I feel that the age estimate of some blades is overestimated but this is only my personal opinion.
Regards

24th August 2020, 12:12 AM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	Refer post 35 I understand "genuine ensemble" as meaning a keris that is in the dress that it had when it left the culture of origin. If that keris was with a custodian who actually wore it, or whether it was with a dealer or agent within the culture of origin, I accept that ensemble as genuine. Why do I include dealers and agents? Because in the societies with which I am familiar, many people buy a keris fully dressed from a dealer or agent and never touch it as long as they have it. This can vary of course, sometimes a keris will be redressed to suit an occasion, often a single blade can have half a dozen different forms of dress, for example dress to attend an evening function, dress to inspect ricefields, dress to go to an afternoon of dance practice, dress to appear less than one really is, dress to appear more than one really is. To form an opinion on the "genuiness" of keris dress based upon a keris seen out of context is unwise and cannot be substantiated. It is an opinion formed without knowledge. We need to see the keris within its context in order to form an opinion that can be substantiated. The idea of keeping replaced parts on a keris may be something that would appeal to a collector who is based in a society outside the area of origin, but it is something that within society of origin would be regarded as being at best something to smile at. Something like keeping a worn out suit of clothes, or the suit that you wore when you were a junior clerk, as opposed to the suit that you wear when you attend a board meeting. Frankly, I do not see this keris as a "status" keris. It is made in a particular style, but it is almost a caricature of that style, as if the style has been described and noted, but the maker has perhaps never seen more than one or two of that style in his life. It is a nice keris, but to paint it as "status" is more than a bit extreme. Kai, in respect of this:- " (I'm not sure what you refer to regarding to Si Ginjei or Palembang vs Jambi - feel free to expand, please!)" I don't have time to go looking for what I wrote, and since I wrote what has piquied your interest I have probably written something like 25,000 words about a number of subjects and for different purposes. Could you please direct me to the passage concerned and frame your question as precisely as possible? I'll do my best to respond.

23rd August 2020, 11:41 PM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	Refer Post 34 Yes Kai, you're right, if I look at a blade it is measured against a mental template, initial appraisal is always based on overall impression that takes into account the dominant feeling of the pawakan, and any particular characteristic that is only attributable to a particular classification. Once you have that you then examine more closely to try to disprove the initial evaluation. If you cannot disprove that initial evaluation, it stands. Blumbangan is of relative importance but it cannot over-rule everything else. Blade classification in my terms is "tangguh" in the terms of just about everybody else, I use "classification" because I have yet to meet anybody from a western culture who truly understands all the things that "keris tangguh" expresses to a Javanese ahli keris. Use of the word "classification" simplifies things and brings the whole concept back to something that people who are outside Javanese culture can more or less understand. Never forget this:- the Solonese tangguh system was initiated for very specific reasons, reasons that I will not go into here, it was not initiated so that keris collectors would have something to talk about. This tangguh system should only be applied to very high quality blades of investment quality. Yes everybody now wants to stick a tangguh onto everything, but that is not really the way things are supposed to work. When we look very closely at a high quality blade we base our judgement on the impression , some things are measurable, I mean able to measured precisely with verniers, things like the width of a kruwingan, other things are close to impossible to measure accurately, or perhaps can be part measured and then we gauge placement and impression. The greneng is the maker's signature. Look at the illustrations in KJ. It is not only the signature of the maker, but also a major indicator of classification. The ron dha used in a Surakarta keris is similar to the ron dha used in a keris that is classifiable as Mojo, but it is not the same. We need to be pay extremely close attention to detail when we look at quality keris. Surakarta echoes Mojo, but it is very far from being the same, and within the Surakarta classification there is variation between periods and makers, and vast variation in quality. To even begin to understand this we need a very great deal of experience. There is no easy way, there is no formula, there is nothing that can be written down as a set of rules. We need to handle one hell of a lot of keris in the presence of and under the guidance of somebody who really does understand. The judgement of a blade classification is an opinion. Sometimes that opinion will be based on a 99% agreement with indicators, sometimes it will be based on a 51% agreement with indicators, sometimes it will be 50/50. Whether the opinion is accepted or not is usually based upon the generally agreed position of the person giving the opinion. This is exactly the same as applies in the world of art in general where an appraiser is generally agreed as being the greatest living authority on the work of a particular period, or artist within a period.

24th August 2020, 01:14 PM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	Jean, how good is the provenance on that keris? How certain are we of the dating? How certain are we that it is from Banten? At this point I am not arguing against Banten, but I will say that it appears to tick all the boxes for a Surakarta keris, and it lacks characteristics that we would normally be looking for in a Banten keris. Would it be possible to do a close-up as near to 90 degrees as possible of the wadidang side greneng, and also straight down onto the top of the gonjo? Also a full length shot so we can see the pawakan. Kai, I apologise if you consider that my use of words was too sparing Kai, Frankly I just don't understand what you're getting at or what your question is. But if I was sparing in my use of words, perhaps it was because I had nothing of any great importance to say, so I most gently suggest that you ignore that which you find confusing or objectionable. Just leave my terse comments to sit wherever they might be and languish in loneliness.

24th August 2020, 09:22 PM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	Thanks Jean, but I still need those other shots. This looks more Banten than your first pics.