East Javanese Keris(es) - Discussion

A. G. Maisey · 26th February 2013, 09:25 PM

Thanks Jean, that's a lot better.

Re the blade. There is no doubt at all in my mind that the blade is a changeling. I'd need to handle it to know exactly how it was changed, but it is certain that the puthut is not original, and certain that the gonjo is not original.

As you remark, the blade grain does show good continuity, but if the smith had a full gonjo to work with it would be possible to create an impression of continuity by running the split gonjo up either side of the original gandhik, or as might have been done with this blade, using all the gonjo on one side only and reforging the base. Note how the carving goes into the core on one side of the blade?

This sort of thing that was done in the 19th and early 20th centuries was very, very skilful. I've got two singo barongs that are perhaps the most skilful forge work of this type that I've seen. I ran one of them past a gentleman who is an extremely experienced and very highly regarded keris authority, I told him there was something wrong with the blade, he homed in on the singo barong, because obviously if a simple blade has been played with and it has SB, that's where they've been playing. He could not find any fault with this blade --- not until I gave him a 3X loupe and pointed out the weld joint. Incidentally, I bought the blade as old and genuine, it was only when I examined it closely at home that I found the evidence of alteration. Those oldtime smiths were very, very clever.

Just because a blade is a bit old, and ron dha are worn, or other evidence of age is present, or it came from what might seem to be a genuine local source, that is absolutely no guarantee that we're looking at something old and genuine. It is my belief that this sort of alteration has been going on for at least 200 years. But as I've already said, I'm pretty sure it has not been going on for the last 40 or 50 years. Its easier now for the shonks to build a fake from the ground up.

The gandar might be original to the atasan, or it might not. Yes, there is a bit of variation in the two pieces of material, but very often it is simply not possible for a carver to perfectly match the atasan and the gandar. To my mind this question over the wrongko is neither here nor there. Its OK. But as Jean has said, it is not original to the blade anyway --- again, no big deal. Its asking a bit much to expect to find totally original totally matched, totally perfect two hundred or 300 hundred year old ensembles in modern Indonesia.

Its not a bad keris, but its not what it pretends to be, and as a collectable it is valuable because it demonstrates the way in which blades can altered. I have kept all the really skilful alterations that I have encountered over the years as part of my core collection. They tell you things you'll never find in books.

26th February 2013, 09:25 PM	#21
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,700	Thanks Jean, that's a lot better. Re the blade. There is no doubt at all in my mind that the blade is a changeling. I'd need to handle it to know exactly how it was changed, but it is certain that the puthut is not original, and certain that the gonjo is not original. As you remark, the blade grain does show good continuity, but if the smith had a full gonjo to work with it would be possible to create an impression of continuity by running the split gonjo up either side of the original gandhik, or as might have been done with this blade, using all the gonjo on one side only and reforging the base. Note how the carving goes into the core on one side of the blade? This sort of thing that was done in the 19th and early 20th centuries was very, very skilful. I've got two singo barongs that are perhaps the most skilful forge work of this type that I've seen. I ran one of them past a gentleman who is an extremely experienced and very highly regarded keris authority, I told him there was something wrong with the blade, he homed in on the singo barong, because obviously if a simple blade has been played with and it has SB, that's where they've been playing. He could not find any fault with this blade --- not until I gave him a 3X loupe and pointed out the weld joint. Incidentally, I bought the blade as old and genuine, it was only when I examined it closely at home that I found the evidence of alteration. Those oldtime smiths were very, very clever. Just because a blade is a bit old, and ron dha are worn, or other evidence of age is present, or it came from what might seem to be a genuine local source, that is absolutely no guarantee that we're looking at something old and genuine. It is my belief that this sort of alteration has been going on for at least 200 years. But as I've already said, I'm pretty sure it has not been going on for the last 40 or 50 years. Its easier now for the shonks to build a fake from the ground up. The gandar might be original to the atasan, or it might not. Yes, there is a bit of variation in the two pieces of material, but very often it is simply not possible for a carver to perfectly match the atasan and the gandar. To my mind this question over the wrongko is neither here nor there. Its OK. But as Jean has said, it is not original to the blade anyway --- again, no big deal. Its asking a bit much to expect to find totally original totally matched, totally perfect two hundred or 300 hundred year old ensembles in modern Indonesia. Its not a bad keris, but its not what it pretends to be, and as a collectable it is valuable because it demonstrates the way in which blades can altered. I have kept all the really skilful alterations that I have encountered over the years as part of my core collection. They tell you things you'll never find in books.