Tricky Bugis Keris

[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!

[Rick]

Welcome to the warung Dave .
Your contributions have have been sorely missed .

Rick

[David]

Welcome back Dave. I second Rick's sentiments. Hopefully you will find some time in your busy schedule to drop by more often.

[A. G. Maisey]

Good to see your comments on this, Dave.

I think you have demonstrated admirably what keris discussion is all about:- your experience tells you that you are looking at one thing, mine tells me I am looking at something different---and both of us could be incorrect were we to handle the object.
This whole question of Michael's blade is not about one person being right or wrong, it is about the sharing of opinions, based on what we can see in a picture.

Regarding my suggestion on the "tangguhing" of blades from outside Jawa. I've taken on board what you have said, and it seems to indicate that in your experience it is close to impossible to appraise the physical characteristics of a blade and give an opinion with any certainty upon the place of origin of that blade. I can relate easily to this, as I have encountered a number of blades that were undoubtedly from Palembang, but they have displayed widely varying features.

However, if we forget the Javanese idea of "tangguh", and worked on the basis of a stylistic classification system , and then attributed various styles to specific geographic locations, or perhaps cultural groups.Would this be feasible, or not?

I suspect that it must be, otherwise you would not have offered the opinion that Michael's blade in of Sumatran origin.

Bear in mind one thing:- my whole approach here is blade focussed. Dress is another matter. The objective is to be able to classify a blade by itself, without any dress.

[Mans]

Hello dear all,

Just want to give my humble opinion relating the Tangguh.
And I'm sorry not give opinion about the Bugis keris which posted first on this thread

About the Tangguh, we can read about the definition of it on many keris book. The knowledge of Tangguh for Jawanese keris learned well since Mataram Sultan Agung period (17th century).

To know the Tangguh of keris, we cannot used just style of blade and characteristics of ricikans form, moreover by the wrangka which used. The style of keris can be copied and the wrangka can be changed.

But we must know well about the kind of iron which used, application of pamor work and material of pamor which used, also the region and geography. That because every period and region used different iron and pamor material, also tecnique of pamor worked.

And we must know well about styles or forms of every ricikans like greneng, kembang kacang, pucuk, tikel alis, etc..

And to know about the deep meaning (phylosophy) of every keris (dapur and pamor), we must know well about the cultures and histories of every kingdoms were the keris was made.

So, to estimating the tangguh of keris, we must have many knowledge about all of the keris aspects like an mPu. Not just the style of the blade. And so that why to estimating the tangguh of the keris is very very difficult although estimating by the man who learned about the keris for many years, from many book, many keris, from every keris market or from someone who called mPu. They assumption about the Tangguh still can be wrong. Moreover, actually didn't know anything about the tangguh as the meaning of TANGGUH it self.

Tangguh NOT just estimated the keris by the stylistic classification system and region. That because any keris Mataram (17th century) which made similiar with Majapahit Keris styles (14th century) or another older keris style. In Jawanese term called as Keris Putran or Yasan. From what aspects we can distinguishing the Keris Putran or Yasan with the original keris from its era if we don't know about the kind of iron and pamor material also pamor worked ? Also any keris Sumateran which made on Majapahit or Mataram period.. etc...

So, I think we can begining to distinguishing the Sumateran, Bugis or Malay Keris not just by style, but also analysis by the iron and pamor worked and material which used in order to can estimating when the period of the keris made, also to know about from where and which period the keris had influenced.

Well, sorry if any mistake on my words

Regards,

Hidayat.

[Alam Shah]

Originally Posted by DAHenkel

Greetings to all after my long absence – I confess I have not had much time to participate in the forum ...

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 for the info... I've seen very little keris from Borneo. In needed to get good examples to form a good knowledge-base. I was a little suspect with that piece to start with... Thanks for the pointer. Hope to see you more often . Still owe you one...

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you Dave for expanding and clarifying the way in which we should approach the classification of keris from the areas outside the Jawa/Bali/Madura epicenter of the world of the keris.My own understanding of keris types once we move outside the Jawa/Bali/Madura region is very limited. Yes, certainly I can identify the more easily recognisable forms of blade, I can differentiate Sulawesi Bugis and Bugis not from Sulawesi, and a couple of distinctive Peninsula styles, but I have absolutely no knowledge at all of the materials typically used in various blade forms, no knowledge of minor variations, no knowledge of the various techniques and technologies used in manufacture, and no knowledge of so much more in respect of these keris forms. Accordingly I have no hesitation in categorising myself as abysmally ignorant of blade classifications once I move away from the blades of the areas that I know.

My teaching and experience has been directed at a system which attempts to fix origin of a blade in terms of time or geographic location---albeit that system may require considerable faith for some of the classifications to be accepted as reality. The appraisal system I have learnt allows for a complete keris to classified as Surakarta, or Jogjakarta, or Banyumas, or whatever, but then requires that the individual parts of that keris be individually classified, thus we can have a Jogja keris, with a Bugis blade.

If I have understood you correctly, what you are saying is that for keris from the areas outside Jawa/Bali/Madura, what we need to do is to firstly identify the dress of the keris, and take that into consideration in any classification of the blade. Am I correct in this?

If my understanding is correct then in application of this system, we can to a large extent ---or perhaps completely--- ignore stylistic differences in blades, and restrict our classification to an entire keris, taking into account the weight of evidence of the dress, and then say that the blade is probably from the same origin as the dress?

Under this approach, would it be acceptable to classify a keris as, say, Palembang without any further qualification, no matter what style of blade that Palembang keris may have?

I can understand you saying that there is no existing system as such for these keris, and I think I can recall some of your posts from some years past where you mentioned the disappearance of keris knowledge in the Peninsula, and the probable reasons for this.

My present questions are posed in an effort to assist my understanding of what is and is not acceptable to knowledgeable students of the keris in the areas where you have far greater knowledge than do I.

[VVV]

Thanks all for your comments.
It has been very educating reading even if no concensus was found.
For those interested I have posted additional pictures of this Keris and a summary of the discussion at
http://www.kampungnet.com.sg/modules...view_album.php

Michael