Tricky Bugis Keris

Alam Shah · 16th October 2006, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

Personally i don't see any Bugis influence in this blade. And the execution of the pamor seems very different from the Bugis/Malay examples shown even if the basic pamor type is the same. I don't think this blade was created by a Bugis smith.

Hi David,
I'm not implying that the keris blade is made by a Bugis empu. All I'm saying that it might be made for a Bugis, considering the fittings(?). And the form is not a typical blade, hence the difficulty in placing the origin. Btw, what influence did you see?

Alam Shah · 16th October 2006, 02:27 AM

Hi all,

Below is an example of a blade which was acquired in Borneo (Kalimantan) by the previous owner (blade only). Now in the possession of our forumite, John.

http://www.kampungnet.com.sg/albums/albur05/Blade1.jpg
http://www.kampungnet.com.sg/albums/albur05/Blade.jpg

Notice the similarities in the greneng-work.
The pamor is also similar, except that John's piece does have finer worksmanship, imo.

Let's discuss...

To Michael,
Can we have a picture of your keris's pesi, please.

A. G. Maisey · 16th October 2006, 03:32 AM

Anything is possible.

However, when presented with a Madura keris, the balance of probability indicates that that keris was made in Madura.

Certainly it could have been made in Kalimantan, or anywhere else for that matter, but it is not probable that it was. Possible, yes, probable, no.

Tangguh is about establishing an applicable classification, based on comparison of indicators with certain fairly specific parameters. It is not necessarily about fixing origin of a blade at a certain time and place.It may indicate time and place of origin, but it does not necessarily have to do so.

A number of examples of other blades have been posted, but none of these blades look like a Madura blade.

However, this a matter of opinion. I have given my opinion, anybody else is perfectly entitled to a different opinion.

A. G. Maisey · 16th October 2006, 03:50 AM

For instance.

Where do you think these blades might have been made?

VVV · 16th October 2006, 08:09 AM

Here you are AlamShah.

Michael

Alam Shah · 16th October 2006, 09:19 AM

Thanks VVV.

Marcokeris · 16th October 2006, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

For instance.

Where do you think these blades might have been made?

Are the blades your?

BluErf · 17th October 2006, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

For instance.

Where do you think these blades might have been made?

These blades look like they came from the source that you normally get your kerises from.

There is a certain distinct feel to these types of new keris blades. Though they may look like some of the Sumatran (1st keris) or N. Malayan (2nd keris) kerises posted on this forum before, the execution of the keris gives them away immediately. The 'air tangan' is not 'right'. As is pamor execution and material used.

Is it possible to see more pictures of old Madurese keris blades please.

Thanks in advance.

BluErf · 17th October 2006, 03:05 PM

Is it possible to tell where these blades came from?

A. G. Maisey · 18th October 2006, 12:04 AM

Those two blades that I posted images of are my work, as guessed by Marco.

They were forged and carved in Wentworthville, near Sydney, Australia.

The first used a classic Surakarta keris as its pattern, but I did not express the ada-ada distinctly, in order to retain the pamor. The material used was old carriage iron and German nickel.The method used to make the pamor was to fold a single very thin leaf of nickel into the iron; four of these pieces were made, which were welded together and folded five times to give a nominal 128 layers of pamor.The pamor forging was then cut in half, turned miring, and the steel core welded in. This is the usual method employed by most Surakarta makers of the current era---except of course for the turn miring. The thingil is a unique variant. Upon completion the blade was heat treated.

The second keris used a number of different old Javanese keris as patterns. In making this my intention was to produce a keris that would not fit any accepted tangguh.The material used was a tyre from a carriage, which means that it needed to be washed repeatedly, as was old iron, before it could be welded to the core. The contrasting material was Indonesian nickel from Luwu, and it was incorporated into the folding at an early stage, resulting in a distribution similar to that found in older keris.The washing ran to something over 9 welds before the iron was clean, however, the nickel was incorporated on the first weld, so the nickel was folded in at the same time that the iron was being washed. There are a number of variants in the garap which would confuse anybody with a knowledge of tangguh, and as I have already remarked, this was my intention.

The execution of garap in both keris is Surakarta.

Blu Erf has suggested that these are similar to the keris that come from my usual sources. Well, this demonstrates I think that photographs are totally inadequate to allow even somebody as knowledgeable as Blu Erf to distinguish material differences in a blade.

Most of the recent keris that I offer are from the Madura school. I do have the occasional recent keris from Surakarta, but the cost of these blades means that they are normally not offered publicly. The materials used in Madura keris are always modern materials, the pamor is produced by using current era products that has a nickel, or other contrasting material, content.

Madura garap is fairly easily recogniseable, when it is compared to Surakarta style garap. One of the obvious differences is in the gusen. There are others of course,such as the fit of the gonjo, the method used to cut a ron dha, the blade angle, but to see these in a photograph can be quite difficult.

If one were to see the keris I posted images of, and some keris from the Madura school, in the hand, the difference would be immediately apparent, but from photographs published over the internet, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to be too certain about anything. Only very, very occasionally can we be reasonably certain of anything, and then that certainty must be based on what one can see in a single dimension.

This thread has been principally directed at identification of a complete keris with a mixture of features.I gave a firm opinion on origin of the blade of this keris. My opinion was based on my experience, and what I could see in the photograph. I have returned to look at the image of that keris many, many times. Based upon what I can see, I cannot alter my opinion.However, were I to hold that keris my opinion might be qualified. Although stylistically that keris is beyond argument Madurese, a microscopic examination of material could indicate other than Madurese origin, feel of the material could indicate other than Madurese origin, weight and balance could be other than Madurese.

What we are doing here is involving ourselves in tangguh. We may not realise this, but that is what it comes down to:- if you wish to classify a blade in any way at all, you are dabbling in tangguh. In determining any tangguh you need to not only look at the form of the keris, but you need to understand the material, you need to understand how it was made, you need to view the angles and corners of the garap from a number of angles, you need to gauge proportion, you need to look very, very closely, often with magnification, at tiny details. Then to understand what you have seen and felt, you need enormous experience.
Sometimes we can offer an opinion based just on style, for instance in a Javanese keris of tangguh segaluh, or in the classic Balinese straight keris, or in some other tangguh with an over-riding distinctive feature, or features, of form that gives a very high probability that this opinion based on form alone would be confirmed were the blade to be handled.
In most cases, however, an opinion based on blade form alone is not enough.

Ultimately, any determination of tangguh is opinion. This is the meaning of the word. Thus, there may be a number of opinions regarding any one blade, usually when an opinion is offered on anything the opinion that is most likely to be correct is the opinion that can be backed with reasons and experience.But any opinion is only as good as the information provided to base that opinion upon, and as I have already demonstrated, photographic images seen on a computer screen are simply not good enough.

Blu Erf, who is an experienced and knowledgeable student of the keris with, I assume, considerable experience, was unable to discern the differences between current Madura, current Surakarta, and a unique approach deliberately created to confuse somebody knowledgeable in tangguh.However, had he had several current era Madura pieces, and the pieces of which I posted images, in his hand, I have no doubt at all that he would have easily observed the differences in material, garap , and method of manufacture.

David · 16th October 2006, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alam Shah

Hi David,
I'm not implying that the keris blade is made by a Bugis empu. All I'm saying that it might be made for a Bugis, considering the fittings(?). And the form is not a typical blade, hence the difficulty in placing the origin. Btw, what influence did you see?

Well, like you Shahrial, i am no more than an avid collector and don't have anywhere near the experience that Alan has with keris. My first impression of this blade was, frankly, somewhat influenced by the dress.

Since it doesn't look Bugis inluenced to me i thought that it might be Sumatran made under the influence of Javanese keris style. But i do see many of Alan's points. especially about the slope of the gandik. It is not just a matter of the kembang kecang recessing into the gandik, which is indeed common on many Bugis pieces. It is the actual slope of the entire gandik area. If you compare Michael"s example with John's that you most recently linked to you might be able to see what i mean. While this two keris bear an overall resemblance to each other i think that on a point by point basis there are vast differences and that the different origins come clear. If i were a betting man i think i would put my money on Alan's assessment of Michael's keris.

Alam Shah · 16th October 2006, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

Well, like you Shahrial, i am no more than an avid collector and don't have anywhere near the experience that Alan has with keris.

Indeed. We are here to learn and share... are we not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

My first impression of this blade was, frankly, somewhat influenced by the dress.

Since it doesn't look Bugis influenced to me i thought that it might be Sumatran made under the influence of Javanese keris style. But i do see many of Alan's points. Especially about the slope of the gandik. It is not just a matter of the kembang kecang recessing into the gandik, which is indeed common on many Bugis pieces. It is the actual slope of the entire gandik area.

Likewise, I think for most of us.

Again another learning experience, for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

If you compare Michael"s example with John's that you most recently linked to you might be able to see what i mean. While this two keris bear an overall resemblance to each other i think that on a point by point basis there are vast differences and that the different origins come clear.

I somewhat agree. How about the similarities to Keris Kapak Cina? Any comments?

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

If i were a betting man i think i would put my money on Alan's assessment of Michael's keris.

Well, luckily I not a betting man.

How about comments on the fittings?

David · 17th October 2006, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alam Shah

I somewhat agree. How about the similarities to Keris Kapak Cina? Any comments?

Well, luckily I not a betting man.

How about comments on the fittings?

You know, i am afriad i can't really get a good enough look at the keris kapa cina to make a viable conparison. Again, as with John's keris, it bears an overall similarity, but i think that if we examined it piece by piece we would not think there were of the same origin.
As for the fitting, i'm pretty baffled. Bugis influenced Sumatran , Sulawesi and peninsula dresstends to mend together for me. I miss the subtlties.

16th October 2006, 02:27 AM	#2
Alam Shah Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,248	For comparison... Hi all, Below is an example of a blade which was acquired in Borneo (Kalimantan) by the previous owner (blade only). Now in the possession of our forumite, John. http://www.kampungnet.com.sg/albums/albur05/Blade1.jpg http://www.kampungnet.com.sg/albums/albur05/Blade.jpg Notice the similarities in the greneng-work. The pamor is also similar, except that John's piece does have finer worksmanship, imo. Let's discuss... To Michael, Can we have a picture of your keris's pesi, please. Last edited by Alam Shah; 16th October 2006 at 02:38 AM.

16th October 2006, 03:50 AM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	For instance. Where do you think these blades might have been made? Attached Images

16th October 2006, 08:09 AM	#5
VVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,637	Here you are AlamShah. Michael Attached Images

17th October 2006, 03:05 PM	#9
BluErf Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,180	Is it possible to tell where these blades came from? Attached Images

16th October 2006, 03:32 AM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	Anything is possible. However, when presented with a Madura keris, the balance of probability indicates that that keris was made in Madura. Certainly it could have been made in Kalimantan, or anywhere else for that matter, but it is not probable that it was. Possible, yes, probable, no. Tangguh is about establishing an applicable classification, based on comparison of indicators with certain fairly specific parameters. It is not necessarily about fixing origin of a blade at a certain time and place.It may indicate time and place of origin, but it does not necessarily have to do so. A number of examples of other blades have been posted, but none of these blades look like a Madura blade. However, this a matter of opinion. I have given my opinion, anybody else is perfectly entitled to a different opinion.

16th October 2006, 09:19 AM	#6
Alam Shah Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,248	Thanks VVV.

18th October 2006, 12:04 AM	#10
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	Those two blades that I posted images of are my work, as guessed by Marco. They were forged and carved in Wentworthville, near Sydney, Australia. The first used a classic Surakarta keris as its pattern, but I did not express the ada-ada distinctly, in order to retain the pamor. The material used was old carriage iron and German nickel.The method used to make the pamor was to fold a single very thin leaf of nickel into the iron; four of these pieces were made, which were welded together and folded five times to give a nominal 128 layers of pamor.The pamor forging was then cut in half, turned miring, and the steel core welded in. This is the usual method employed by most Surakarta makers of the current era---except of course for the turn miring. The thingil is a unique variant. Upon completion the blade was heat treated. The second keris used a number of different old Javanese keris as patterns. In making this my intention was to produce a keris that would not fit any accepted tangguh.The material used was a tyre from a carriage, which means that it needed to be washed repeatedly, as was old iron, before it could be welded to the core. The contrasting material was Indonesian nickel from Luwu, and it was incorporated into the folding at an early stage, resulting in a distribution similar to that found in older keris.The washing ran to something over 9 welds before the iron was clean, however, the nickel was incorporated on the first weld, so the nickel was folded in at the same time that the iron was being washed. There are a number of variants in the garap which would confuse anybody with a knowledge of tangguh, and as I have already remarked, this was my intention. The execution of garap in both keris is Surakarta. Blu Erf has suggested that these are similar to the keris that come from my usual sources. Well, this demonstrates I think that photographs are totally inadequate to allow even somebody as knowledgeable as Blu Erf to distinguish material differences in a blade. Most of the recent keris that I offer are from the Madura school. I do have the occasional recent keris from Surakarta, but the cost of these blades means that they are normally not offered publicly. The materials used in Madura keris are always modern materials, the pamor is produced by using current era products that has a nickel, or other contrasting material, content. Madura garap is fairly easily recogniseable, when it is compared to Surakarta style garap. One of the obvious differences is in the gusen. There are others of course,such as the fit of the gonjo, the method used to cut a ron dha, the blade angle, but to see these in a photograph can be quite difficult. If one were to see the keris I posted images of, and some keris from the Madura school, in the hand, the difference would be immediately apparent, but from photographs published over the internet, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to be too certain about anything. Only very, very occasionally can we be reasonably certain of anything, and then that certainty must be based on what one can see in a single dimension. This thread has been principally directed at identification of a complete keris with a mixture of features.I gave a firm opinion on origin of the blade of this keris. My opinion was based on my experience, and what I could see in the photograph. I have returned to look at the image of that keris many, many times. Based upon what I can see, I cannot alter my opinion.However, were I to hold that keris my opinion might be qualified. Although stylistically that keris is beyond argument Madurese, a microscopic examination of material could indicate other than Madurese origin, feel of the material could indicate other than Madurese origin, weight and balance could be other than Madurese. What we are doing here is involving ourselves in tangguh. We may not realise this, but that is what it comes down to:- if you wish to classify a blade in any way at all, you are dabbling in tangguh. In determining any tangguh you need to not only look at the form of the keris, but you need to understand the material, you need to understand how it was made, you need to view the angles and corners of the garap from a number of angles, you need to gauge proportion, you need to look very, very closely, often with magnification, at tiny details. Then to understand what you have seen and felt, you need enormous experience. Sometimes we can offer an opinion based just on style, for instance in a Javanese keris of tangguh segaluh, or in the classic Balinese straight keris, or in some other tangguh with an over-riding distinctive feature, or features, of form that gives a very high probability that this opinion based on form alone would be confirmed were the blade to be handled. In most cases, however, an opinion based on blade form alone is not enough. Ultimately, any determination of tangguh is opinion. This is the meaning of the word. Thus, there may be a number of opinions regarding any one blade, usually when an opinion is offered on anything the opinion that is most likely to be correct is the opinion that can be backed with reasons and experience.But any opinion is only as good as the information provided to base that opinion upon, and as I have already demonstrated, photographic images seen on a computer screen are simply not good enough. Blu Erf, who is an experienced and knowledgeable student of the keris with, I assume, considerable experience, was unable to discern the differences between current Madura, current Surakarta, and a unique approach deliberately created to confuse somebody knowledgeable in tangguh.However, had he had several current era Madura pieces, and the pieces of which I posted images, in his hand, I have no doubt at all that he would have easily observed the differences in material, garap , and method of manufacture.