Tricky Bugis Keris

[BluErf]

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]

Is it possible to tell where these blades came from?

[A. G. Maisey]

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.

[A. G. Maisey]

Sorry, something I forgot to mention:- the correct way to view a keris blade is with point upwards, the gonjo parralel to the ground, and the gandik to the viewer`s left. Looking at a blade in any other way can be very confusing.

[Boedhi Adhitya]

Sorry for leaving the forum so long. I've been busy from having 'garden parties' with Ki Jayamalelo and roasting some iron sand for lunch

Detemining the origin of the blade, in Javanese's keris world, known as Tangguh. Some people said, tangguh came from 'TA' seNGGUH', literaly means 'I guess'. It is based on 'special characteristic' that are thought, and agreed, traditionally, as belongs to certain origin. To determine the tangguh, 2 conditions MUST be fulfilled :
1. The keris maker must conform to the agreed 'special characteristic' norms.
2. The assesor understand the norm.
Thus, assuming the assesor have full infomations about the keris (e.g. handling it by himself), there are also 2 reason why the tangguh cannot be determined confidently:
1. The makers didn't conform, didn't even understand the norms, or mixed up the norm, intentionally or not, which considering thousands of keris makers, very probably happened. The keris which was made by those keris maker usually called 'Tilar Tangguh' (Tilar=to leave), means not conform to the tangguh norm, and thus, undeterminable. Thus, not ALL keris' Tangguh could be determined. Sad, but true.
2. The assesor didn't understand or confused about the norm, which considering the method on teaching the tangguh, very-very possible to happen, and even the norm through the time could lost or changed here and there.

Considering the keris we discuss, well, frankly, I'm not sure. I only saw mostly straight Maduras. The ones which had sekar kacang and luk were influenced by Mataram, but still leaving Madura's characteristic. I bet most Javanese dealer today would vote for Sumatra on this keris. But I don't know.

Sorry for not adding something more 'clear' here.

Good luck,

[A. G. Maisey]

Well Pak Boedhi, I think you have given a completely correct answer.

You have said that you are not sure.

Probably the answer I should have given if I had not been in a relaxed mood when I wrote my opinion.

I should have realised that sometimes that which is blindingly obvious to one person, may not be so to another.

I am not talking here about my opinion on Michael's blade.

I am talking about the fact that my opinion is based upon what I can see.

I'm going to restate that opinion. Make no mistake about it, my opinion is still exactly the same:- I look at Michael's keris and I see Madura.

However what I failed to do in my initial post was to state the blindingly obvious:- my opinion is based upon what I can see in the image on my computer screen.

So:- in my opinion Michael's keris displays features that indicate a Madura origin; please note that this opinion is based upon what I can see in the image on my computer screen, and this opinion could change were I to actually hold the blade in my hand.

I was wrong in stating my opinion as I did. I assumed that it was obvious that such an opinion was subject to the qualification I have now added, and thus it did not need to be added. I will not make the same mistake again.

Ta sengguh I have never heard. If I did hear it, it would confuse me.
Would I be hearing "ta sengguh", or would I be hearing "tak sengguh" ?
Would sengguh be being used to affirm correctness or to express disagreement?
The word sengguh has a number of meanings, ranging from "I guess" or "I think" to a noun meaning "a wrong idea". Actually, I think that correctly the "I guess" form probably should be "nyengguh".
Anyway, I am not a native speaker of Javanese, and if I did hear this relative to tangguh, I would question exactly what was meant.

Now, what I have heard, many, many, many times, is "tak sungguh"---"not true". Mostly this has been delivered in a more or less joking fashion indicating that what tangguh something may or may not be decided to be, its not true anyway.Its all imagination.

Personally, I don`t go along with this. The system of tangguh is something that developed during the 19th century, and its roots are buried deep in the socio-economic system of colonial Jawa. It once had a very solid purpose, but as time has passed, and that purpose has assumed a much lesser importance than it once had, the system itself has been corrupted, so it no longer functions as it was intended to.Still , it is all we have , so we live with it.

The word "tangguh" exists in Old Javanese, where it carries the meanings of advice, reminder, and guideline. Not all that far from its meanings in Modern Javanese.

Pak Boedhi, what you say about the difficulties with tangguh, I doubt that anybody would disagree with. However, what I have found is that the indicators that are used in determining a tangguh vary from place to place, given an equal (locally) accepted level of expertise of the penangguh. I believe that this was initially a Surakarta system---which makes sense, bearing in mind its original purpose--- but the indicators that are generally accepted in Surakarta can differ from those accepted in Jogjakarta, and once you move outside Central Jawa---well, everything can vary.Go to East Jawa and see what the understanding is.You mention the method of teaching tangguh. Again in my experience, and your own may be different, what I have found is that many, if not most people when questioned why they assign a particular tangguh to a blade will effectively say:- "well, its Mataram SA because it looks like Mataram SA" . Press them, and after they name and explain two or three indicators they revert to "it looks like Mataram SA". Then there is the lack of consistency.There are at least two different types of keris that are accepted by one group of people or another as Pajang. Try to get some consistency with Pengging!!!!! Again, at least two widely varying forms that different people will swear are Pengging.Mataram Senopaten and Pajajaran (bata rubuh)---how many times do you see these mixed up?? How many times have you ever heard anybody give a tangguh of Banten? Look at Jensen and see what Banten looked like and then see what people in Central Jawa would give as a tangguh.Banten blades were very common in the 16-17th century.

There`s another thing too:- the tangguh system was developed for a very specific purpose (which at this time I do not wish to elaborate on), and when it is applied to good quality blades in good condition, there will be a high degree of conformity with set down parameters---at least with the parameters I was taught. However, as the quality or condition of a blade deteriorates the degree of conformity will lessen and this is where we encounter a major problem, because there may be only a couple of indicators apparent that suggest a particular tangguh, so an opinion is given, based on those couple of indicators. This is the major reason why opinion on tangguh varies from person to person, and even with the same person when the same blade is presented to him for an opinion some months apart. If the application of tangguh were restricted to only good quality blades in good condition---which is what it was intended for before it became corrupted--- there would not be near the variation in opinion, nor the seemingly ridiculous opinions, that we encounter at the present time.

But, as we have already said:- tangguh is opinion, and that opinion can be accepted as correct in one place, and declared incorrect in another. In essence, it is a belief system, and the details of that belief system vary from place to place.

However, be all that as it may, one thing is certain:- an older blade will never be confused with a younger blade by anybody with even a little understanding of tangguh. Nobody will ever confuse Majapahit with Surakarta, nor Pajajaran with Kartasura.

Pak Boedhi, I am not challenging your opinion that most Javanese dealers would consider Michael's blade to be Sumatran, however, based upon my own experience, dealers in Central Jawa and East Jawa become totally confused by any blade that does not fall into a Javanese classification. Generally speaking, they just have no idea of point of origin once something moves outside Jawa.Yes, certainly, they will identify Bali, and Bugis,and Madura, but that is just about the limit.Moreover, what they call "Bugis" covers a whole range of styles that should probably be classified separately. Jakarta dealers might be different in this. I do not know about them, as I have not been to Jakarta since 1978.But I have spent a lot---a real lot---of time with dealers in Solo, Jogja, and a number of locations in East Jawa, and although some of them are pretty good with Javanese tangguhs, they nearly all become confused by anything that is not clearly Javanese. I have lost count of the times I have heard "diluar Jawa". Bearing in mind the original purpose of tangguh, there is nothing wrong with this, but it does demonstrate that if we seek to extend the boundaries of tangguh we need to look to sources of knowledge in places other than Jawa to do so.

My observations indicate that some of our members in Singapore and Malaysia do have the knowledge to be able to provide parameters that could be applied to Peninsula, and possibly Sumatran blades that would standardise the classification (tangguh) of these blades.
Do any of you Singapore and Malaysian gentlemen feel inclined to involve yourselves in such a project?
I could provide the framework that I was taught, and each indicator in this framework could be subject to debate and decision as to what is the generally accepted standard that applies to each indicator for each classification of blade.

[DAHenkel]

Greetings to all after my long absence – I confess I have not had much time to participate in the forum what with work and life and all but I have a few things I wanted to add to this discussion which I hope will be of some use to all involved – so thanks to Kai Wee for drawing my attention to it.

First of all – I am more or less convinced that the piece in question is Sumatran (though with a remote possibility of a Sulawesi origin but I doubt it) of the variety which I prefer to call the "Straits keris" – this is an amorphous and broad area that for much of the 16th through 19th centuries was highly unsettled with a very mobile community. It had a highly diverse population of more or less ethnic “Malays” as well as Bugis, Minang, Orang Laut and Javanese not to mention dashes of just about everything else. As such identifying keris from this area and pinning them to any one place is extremely tough to do. That said the Strait region extends more or less from North of Palembang to Deli on the Sumatran side as well as selected areas of the Peninsula – Kedah, Perak, Selangor and Muar (all more or less controlled by Malay/Bugis polities for the period of time when most extant kerises were produced). (Also note the conspicuous absence of the Negeri Sembilan which was a Minangkabau enclave and note further the very confused state of Siak which was hotly contested between Bugis, Malay and Minang forces and is as such even more confused.)

Given this state of affairs it is highly suspect to even begin to think of a classification system for the blades of the region – smiths from all over everywhere appear to have worked there and I have seen blades that look Bugis, Malay, Minang and Javanese (and all/or none of the above) but all dressed in more or less similar styles. Dress forms also comply to the above admixture of forms and styles. Trade blades, immigrant smiths and keris bearers and a lack of a strong “courtly style” to model on mean that this area is a mess for people who hope to identify the accurate provenance of a piece based on art historical analysis alone. Lampung, Palembang, Minangkabau, Aceh-Gayo (where keris are very rare), Pattani (w/Kelantan as a border/buffer with Terengganu) and Johor-Riau (inclusive of Terengganu and Pahang, on again, off again satellites) all have more or less identifiable characteristics. The Straits on the other hand are a fascinatingly bewildering mess.

Anyway, as for tangguhing, anyone who has read my comments in previous posts will recall my inherent mistrust in the methodology outside of Java (well even in Java frankly but I won’t go there – I’m not an expert on that particular subject). It is very difficult to classify kerises according to tangguh in the Malay world because of the confused political economic situation there and because of a seeming lack of “court style” as a model for more common examples. While the archetypical piece is more or less easy to place there are just too many examples of borderline cases where it could be one or the other. Besides really the fuzzy edges is what makes these things so darned interesting to begin with!

p.s. One more note to my good friend Alam Shah regarding the so called “keris kapak China" – never trust anything from the collection of the institution (which I cannot name in good professional conscience) in which the aforementioned keris was photographed. That hilt may be Banjar but God only knows where that blade came from.

Thanks and good night!