keris palembang

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 · 25th August 2020, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Thanks Jean, but I still need those other shots.

This looks more Banten than your first pics.

Hello Alan,
I attach the pics as requested and hope that they are adequate.
I would like to add the following indicators which point to a 17th century blade rather than a Surakarta one IMO:
. The blade remains wide to almost the point, the width is still 2.2 cm at the last luk (29 cm from the base of the blade).
. The kembang kacang is very strong.
. The short kruwingan depan & belakang (or long tikel alis & sraweyan) are very typical of these 17th century blades.
. If the blade had originally 13 luks as I would expect, there is no Surakarta dhapur matching with this one (Parungsari and Sengkelat being the closest).
. Last but not least, the thin twin lines on the sirak cecak of the ganja are very typical of these 17th century blades and not (or very rarely) seen on Surakarta blades to my best knowledge.
Regards

A. G. Maisey · 26th August 2020, 12:04 AM

Thanks Jean, yes, I agree with you, this can be classified as Banten. I think this demonstrates just how difficult it can be to classify from photos. There is so much that cannot be adequately appraised from photos, that it is silly to even try in most cases. I'd still like this in my hand to be absolutely certain, but I can now see sufficient to be reasonably confident that we're not looking at Surakarta.

24th August 2020, 12:12 AM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,029	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.

24th August 2020, 01:14 PM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,029	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	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,029	Thanks Jean, but I still need those other shots. This looks more Banten than your first pics.

26th August 2020, 12:04 AM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,029	Thanks Jean, yes, I agree with you, this can be classified as Banten. I think this demonstrates just how difficult it can be to classify from photos. There is so much that cannot be adequately appraised from photos, that it is silly to even try in most cases. I'd still like this in my hand to be absolutely certain, but I can now see sufficient to be reasonably confident that we're not looking at Surakarta.