New Made keris, dhapur Mundarang

[A. G. Maisey]

Ferry, please do not misunderstand me.

I am not criticising your keris, nor am I criticising you.

I am simply saying that if a dhapur is fixed, then that dhapur cannot vary in the assemblage of its ricikan. It cannot vary by even the slightest degree, if it does, it no longer conforms to the parameters for that particular dhapur, within the relevant pakem.

Your keris is a very nicely made keris, no doubt of it. The pawakan and ron dha are Surakarta, thus it must be considered to be a Surakarta keris. However, regretably it does not comply with the Surakarta pakem.

Perhaps we could avoid this small deficiency if we were to say that it is a keris of dhapur mandhurang, in accordance with the pakem of Mr. Haryono Haryoguritno.

By giving the pakem for reference all difference of opinion can be avoided.

[ferrylaki]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Ferry, please do not misunderstand me.

I am not criticising your keris, nor am I criticising you.

I am simply saying that if a dhapur is fixed, then that dhapur cannot vary in the assemblage of its ricikan. It cannot vary by even the slightest degree, if it does, it no longer conforms to the parameters for that particular dhapur, within the relevant pakem.

Your keris is a very nicely made keris, no doubt of it. The pawakan and ron dha are Surakarta, thus it must be considered to be a Surakarta keris. However, regretably it does not comply with the Surakarta pakem.

Perhaps we could avoid this small deficiency if we were to say that it is a keris of dhapur mandhurang, in accordance with the pakem of Mr. Haryono Haryoguritno.

By giving the pakem for reference all difference of opinion can be avoided.

Alan, I'm perfectly understand that you're not criticising my keris, nor criticising on me.
your point is on the dhapur, this keris has ricikan which not suitable compared to the book 'dhapur'. since My personal understanding do not always from keraton point of view, then I only believe and acomodate the knowledge from what I can see and hold. In this case, I never saw and hold keraton keris. generally speaking in keris community here in Indonesia, we mention this keris as dhapur mundarang. as weel as pasopati dhapur with two ron dha plus ron dha nunut, compared with the book 'dhapur' which illustrated tha pasopati dhapur only having one ron dha with out ron dha nunut.

We all understand perfectly that keris are made widely by empus inside and outside the keraton it self. for the empus outside the keraton, it is possible, they we not fully acknowledge or aware about this pakem determined/drawed in the book 'dhapur' (1920), Since the book it self didn't ment to be published. so how could the empus possibly know about the determined ricikan. I think that is a reasonable execuse and a trully reasonable reason why the keris did'nt made exactly like the book 'dhapur' illustrated.
do I make my self quite reasonable now. I'm trying to defend my opinion regarding this ron dha nunut matter.
I was trying to find another opinion regarding this keris age. not the tangguh, only an estimation whether this is an old one or not. then you gave a more interesting topic to discuss.
Alan, from this pictures, Do you have an opinion on its age? just an estimation or any thing. here are some more pictures for observation.

Regards,
FERRYLAKI

[A. G. Maisey]

It is far too difficult to comment on age from photos Ferry.

Yes, sometimes it is possible if you see certain distinct stylistic characteristics, but in the case of your keris I would not presume to comment on age unless it were in my hand.

Ferry, in respect "the keris community in Indonesia".

Which keris community?

Over the time I have been visiting Indonesia I have noted that there is not one single, homogenous keris community, but rather a number of keris communities. The people within these communities sometimes may share a common opinion about some things, but on many other things opinions will vary from community to community and even between individual people within a community.However, variation can usually be modified within a keris group by presence of the well documented Javanese heirarchical principles, with the end result that a concensus is reached within that community which has been determined by the heirarchy within the community.


I feel that perhaps I have failed to make myself clear.

My point is not that the ricikan of this keris do not agree with the ricikan for mundharang as noted in the Surakarta Pakem.

My point is that the ricikan as noted in the Surakarta Pakem is the documentation of what is acceptable by Surakarta Karaton standards.

Keris art is karaton art.

The karaton has the obligation and the right to define the standards that apply to its art.

This keris does not conform to Surakarta Karaton standards, even though stylisticly it is a Surakarta keris..

That is my point.

However, it is still a fine keris, and if you tell me that it does comply with the requirements for a mundharang according to some authority other than the Surakarta Karaton, I of course accept that.

It is not necessary to actually hold a karaton keris to be able to apply the presence of ricikan to determine a dhapur. A dhapur must comply with certain set parameters, and cannot move outside those parameters, if the dhapur is given in accordance with the pakem that is the point of reference.

However, if we disregard what is set down in a pakem, of course we can all form our own opinion as to what is correct and what is not.Regretably, my own instruction did not permit me that latitude:- I was told that where a karaton standard exists in respect of something, that standard must be followed.

Ferry, we are all entitled to hold our own opinions.

I have already said that I personally hold no opinion in respect of this keris. My knowledge and experience is insufficient to allow me to challenge that which is set down in a Karaton Pakem, and that which my teacher accepted as immovable.

However, I acknowledge completely your right to hold whatever opinion you wish.

Ferry, I've just noticed something in this keris of yours that I did not previously see,

Tell me, what shape is the blumbangan?

Is it boto adeg or is it more or less square?

It is difficult to be sure about this from a photo because a slight difference in angle can alter the result in the photo.

[ferrylaki]

the gandik is amboto rubuh / less square.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks Ferry.

It sure doesn't look like mboto rubuh in the photos. That's the difference between a photo and actually having something in one's hand.

In fact, I've never seen a modern keris with mboto rubuh.

Mataram keris have an almost square blumbangan, Surakarta and Majapahit keris have a "brick standing up " ---mboto adeg---blumbangan, the most obvious mboto rubuh --- "brick fallen over" --- blumbangan is really only found in one of the divisions of Pajajaran, so to find one in a fairly recent keris like this one is a real surprise.

However, the important thing is this:- it is not a mboto adeg blumbangan, and Surakarta should have this, or at least, if not classic mboto adeg, it should be long, upright and narrow, this narrowness in turn creating a short gulu meled.

Additionally I cannot see very distinct kruwingan or kusen in this blade, there is a fairly obvious ada - ada, but it seems --- in the pic --- to create a more or less diamond cross section in the blade, whereas a Surakarta ada-ada should be nicely modelled, not abrupt.

There is a tungkakan, but in a Surakarta keris it should be rounded, in the photos I cannot see if it is rounded or not, it looks more like it has been formed by a rather sharp line. Additionally, if we look closely at the ron dha, there is some inconsistency evident, yes, the ron dha are Surakarta, but there is considerable variation in form, almost as if the maker was not accustomed to cutting this form, and was really trying hard to get it right from a drawing --- and the wadidang seems a little too high and too long, but this could easily be because of camera angle, it might look different in the hand.

Taking all these things together, I must say I am somewhat confused.

On the one hand we have a blade that appears to have a Surakarta pawakan, and Surakarta ron dha, but the other features that we would expect to see in a typical Surakarta blade appear to be absent.

According to what I have been taught a blade with this mix of characteristics must be under some suspicion as to origin.

We're coming dangerously close to playing the tangguh game here, and I absolutely refuse to commit myself on any dubious tangguh from photographs, but Ferry, you have this in your hand, may I suggest that you seek a few knowledgeable local opinions?

On the face of it, I believe this blade is worthy of very close inspection.

How is the ganja fixed? Does it use a key and keyway?

Does the pesi where it enters the ganja decline marginally? If there is a marginal decline, it cannot be SKA, and is likely to be Madura.

How long is the pesi, and how is the tip of the pesi finished?

Is the ganja sebit ron?

Is there a very marginal rounding of the buntut urang?

Is the palemahan flat, or is it a bit rounded? SKA should be flat.

Is there any filler present between ganja and wilah?

What is the nature of the pamor material?

What is the nature of the iron?

Has it been heat treated ?

How heavy is it?

Ferry, if you want to confirm if this is a Surakarta blade or not, these are some of the things you will need to look at and consider. There is no way, no way at all that this can be done through the medium of photographs, and it might be as well to seek more than one knowledgeable opinion.

[ferrylaki]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Thanks Ferry.

It sure doesn't look like mboto rubuh in the photos. That's the difference between a photo and actually having something in one's hand.

In fact, I've never seen a modern keris with mboto rubuh.

Mataram keris have an almost square blumbangan, Surakarta and Majapahit keris have a "brick standing up " ---mboto adeg---blumbangan, the most obvious mboto rubuh --- "brick fallen over" --- blumbangan is really only found in one of the divisions of Pajajaran, so to find one in a fairly recent keris like this one is a real surprise.

However, the important thing is this:- it is not a mboto adeg blumbangan, and Surakarta should have this, or at least, if not classic mboto adeg, it should be long, upright and narrow, this narrowness in turn creating a short gulu meled.

Additionally I cannot see very distinct kruwingan or kusen in this blade, there is a fairly obvious ada - ada, but it seems --- in the pic --- to create a more or less diamond cross section in the blade, whereas a Surakarta ada-ada should be nicely modelled, not abrupt.

There is a tungkakan, but in a Surakarta keris it should be rounded, in the photos I cannot see if it is rounded or not, it looks more like it has been formed by a rather sharp line. Additionally, if we look closely at the ron dha, there is some inconsistency evident, yes, the ron dha are Surakarta, but there is considerable variation in form, almost as if the maker was not accustomed to cutting this form, and was really trying hard to get it right from a drawing --- and the wadidang seems a little too high and too long, but this could easily be because of camera angle, it might look different in the hand.

Taking all these things together, I must say I am somewhat confused.

On the one hand we have a blade that appears to have a Surakarta pawakan, and Surakarta ron dha, but the other features that we would expect to see in a typical Surakarta blade appear to be absent.

According to what I have been taught a blade with this mix of characteristics must be under some suspicion as to origin.

We're coming dangerously close to playing the tangguh game here, and I absolutely refuse to commit myself on any dubious tangguh from photographs, but Ferry, you have this in your hand, may I suggest that you seek a few knowledgeable local opinions?

On the face of it, I believe this blade is worthy of very close inspection.

How is the ganja fixed? Does it use a key and keyway?

Does the pesi where it enters the ganja decline marginally? If there is a marginal decline, it cannot be SKA, and is likely to be Madura.

How long is the pesi, and how is the tip of the pesi finished?

Is the ganja sebit ron?

Is there a very marginal rounding of the buntut urang?

Is the palemahan flat, or is it a bit rounded? SKA should be flat.

Is there any filler present between ganja and wilah?

What is the nature of the pamor material?

What is the nature of the iron?

Has it been heat treated ?

How heavy is it?

Ferry, if you want to confirm if this is a Surakarta blade or not, these are some of the things you will need to look at and consider. There is no way, no way at all that this can be done through the medium of photographs, and it might be as well to seek more than one knowledgeable opinion.

Thank You Alan,
I found so many Information from your reply. Those indicators that I've never realize before. I'll make a further observation on this keris by using the indicators you gave to me.
I bought this keris as a new made keris and also the price I paid for. our discussion gave me more actual knowledge and understanding to comprehence my lack of experience. this would take some time and effort to fully determine whether I will conclude this keris as a new product or an old keris. I'll also ask for more advises from mates who has more experience and knowledge about surakartan keris.
then I think we could end this discussion, exept another would like to continue.

for all forum mates, another opinion or question would just great.

FERRYLAKI

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Ferry, I think that's the way to go.

Let a few experienced people handle it, seek their opinions, and then make up your own mind. Its just too, too hard to be very definite about some blades when all you have is a photo.

Most of the people that I have met in Jawa who play with tangguh just look at a keris and get a feeling for it. Pak Parman is the only person I ever met who had actually codified all of the indicators of a tangguh, so he might look at a blade and immediately say --- Oh yes, Tangguh such and such. But if he was asked, he could then explain at great length exactly why he had this opinion. This is something I have not seen in any other ahli keris.

Much of what is in my previous post is from Pak Parman's notes on indicators for a Surakarta keris, and if anybody should have known this, it would be him, as he was the Surakarta Karaton empu for a number of years.