Wilah nr2 hope you can help with identification

[PenangsangII]

during Sultan Agung's attempts to capture Batavia from the Dutch, the Jawanese forces were centered in Cirebon/Tegal/Banten. Thus kerises during that period are actually easier to identify, being bigger and longer than normal keris as they were meant for war. This hefty size of kerises were later on called the corok classification. The Makassarese/Buginese, fresh from their defeat in Gowa makassar later on adopted the corok keris as one of their weapons, hence the keris sundang which later on spread to the whole archipelago especially in bugis dominated area in sumatra and kalimantan including southern filipina.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by PenangsangII

during Sultan Agung's attempts to capture Batavia from the Dutch, the Jawanese forces were centered in Cirebon/Tegal/Banten. Thus kerises during that period are actually easier to identify, being bigger and longer than normal keris as they were meant for war. This hefty size of kerises were later on called the corok classification. The Makassarese/Buginese, fresh from their defeat in Gowa makassar later on adopted the corok keris as one of their weapons, hence the keris sundang which later on spread to the whole archipelago especially in bugis dominated area in sumatra and kalimantan including southern filipina.

Thank you PenangsangII, I knew the term corok but did not know that these strong krisses originated during the 17th century. Effectively the old kris blades from Banten/ Cirebon in the European museums are generally stronger and longer than those attributed to tangguh Mataram (about 40 cm versus 35).
Best regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks David.

Now fixed.

Yesterday was a long day.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Jean. Wrong number. Written down correctly, transcribed incorrectly. I was up at 3.30am yesterday, drove to Sydney for a meeting, round trip of about 500 km, came home, watched Zulu, and wrote my post sometime around 1am. It was a long day.

Jean, the tikel alis in the two blades in posts # 10 and # 17 are about as different as Javanese tikel alis can get --- at least, according to what I can see on my screen they are. If we examine the tikel alis in #10 it appears to terminate in line with the tampingan, and in the hand, there would probably be a nicely rounded curved edge rising up into the gandhik. This style of tikel alis is what we regard as the "new" style. Apart from the way in which it terminates under the gandhik, the line of the tikel alis down (or up) the blade appears to curve gently into the blade edge, and to taper.

Now look at the tikel alis in #17. This tikel alis terminates past the tampingan and in the hand it would probably give the appearance of flowing openly through to the front of the keris. This is the type of tikel alis that we regard as the "old" style . Then look at the line of the tikel alis down the blade, it is more or less straight.

Then look at the radius of curve in the tikel alis on both keris:- utterly different.

Then look at the proportion and style of the sorsoran on both keris :- utterly different.

The proportion of the two blumbangans appears to vary.

The wadidang appears to have a different radius.

It is difficult to appraise the shape of a sirah cecak from a side view, but I feel that if we could look at both sirah cecak from above, there might also be a variation in form here, too.

I feel that examination of #10 with a loupe would possibly reveal that the edges of the pamor show a minute gap between pamor layer and core; I doubt that the edges of the pamor layer of # 17 will show a similar gap.

Yes, it is certain that where a blade is not produced by an empu or a pandai keris, variations in style can occur. Variations in style can also occur between equally skilled empus working during the same period, but these variations in style are minute, the variations in style that we are looking at in the two blades under discussion are immense variations.

To anybody who is used to following Javanese standards of appraisal, the differences of style between these two blades is immediately obvious and must place them into two totally separate categories.

If we look at the two straight blades shown in post # 25, stylistic variation is even greater.

If we wish to compare an old Javanese blade that was removed from Jawa 300 years ago, and a blade from the same era, and that we can be reasonably certain is from the same era, that has remained in Jawa, we first need to understand methods of construction and the degree to which rust and cleaning can erode a blade. In effect, we need the experience to be able to mentally reduce one blade, and increase the other. This is not a particularly easy thing to do unless we have had many years experience in the actual handling of vast numbers of blades in varying states of preservation.

Then we have the problem of variations in characteristics that flow from variations in tangguh. Without training and considerable experience it is simply not possible to carry out such comparisons.

A Javanese ahli keris looks at a keris blade with different eyes than those of an untrained person. He looks for a degree of detail that the untrained person is not even aware exists. It takes a very long time to learn the variations in detail that need to be identified. Even then, the most experienced of men can sometimes take a few days of constantly handling and thinking on a blade before being willing to offer an opinion.

Truly, we are knee deep in a very difficult and complex subject here, and one that cannot be addressed satisfactorily at arms length by way of images on a computer screen.

When we come to consider physical size of blade, what we know is this:- keris from Bali, Blambangan, and Banten all have similar proportions. These are the "big" keris. Keris from the western line of development generally are bigger than keris that have come from the inland line of development. It might be theorized that this size was at least in part a product of better availability of material in the coastal communities than in the inland.

Cirebon is on the north coast. It is westwards. It is next door to Banten.

Regarding the "independence" of Cirebon.

In the 15th century Cirebon was just a fishing village. By the early 16th century the location of Cirebon had moved by a few kilometers and the local ruler declared independence from his overlord, because this local ruler had converted to Islam --- probably for the same reason that Majapahit princes converted to Islam:- trade links.

Then Sunan Gunungjati came on the scene, and Cirebon developed as a sultanate and important trading port.

Mataram and Banten both wanted control of Cirebon, and Sultan Agung of Mataram eventually won dominance ( first half 17th century). Cirebon was always a comparatively minor place that was in truth, only a coastal base for Mataram. But this situation only continued for a comparatively brief period, because by the last quarter of the 17th century the Dutch had control of Cirebon. Under the Dutch the administration of Cirebon was split between two or three Javanese lords, the usual Dutch "divide and conquer" policy.

Cirebon began as a fishing village, it developed as an Islamic trade enclave, it had no line of descent from Javanese royalty, it was subservient to Mataram, and then under Dutch control. Is it any wonder that the aristocrats of the House of Mataram had no interest in the keris of Cirebon?

Perhaps modern keris collectors may have some interest in Cirebon, but this is not an interest that has any parallel in traditional Javanese thought or values.

[PenangsangII]

only until recently, Pajajaran (mostly found around Cirebon) kerises were not really appreciated by collectors based in Jawa, but the situation seems to gradually change. This phenomenon takes place because, outside Jawa, for example in Malaysia, the Cirebonese kerises are appreciated more due to close resemblance in terms of construction and material with that of Buginese and Malay originated kerises.

Historically speaking, though the courts of Jawa (Solo & Jogja) were the centers of keris culture within Jawa, Cirebon gained more influence throughout the archipelago due to its role in the late 16th and 17th century. In particular, after the fall of Gowa Makassar to the Dutch in 1669, many Makassarese nobels and muslim clerics settled in Cirebon, and also in Sumatra and peninsula. This explains why kerises from Sumatra, Peninsula, Kalimantan and even Celebes were greatly influenced by the Pajajaran (Cirebon) kerises.

And lets not forget that many great empus were actually from Padjajaran. They moved to all corners of Jawa island due to bad condition in Padjajaran kingdom (Karsten Jensen disk) and after the Bubatan tragedy. Even the great empu Supo was also from Padjajaran. However, the keris culture within padjajaran (Cirebon) does not evolve as much as Mataram's kerises. Here we see the padjajaran (Cirebon) kerises still maintain the demonic/rasaksa/buta bajang/ganesha hilts and the old ladrang of jawa whilst Jawanese kerises had adopted new styles of nunggak semi hilts and gayaman/ladrangan sheaths.

[A. G. Maisey]

Penangsang, can I assume that you are located in Malaysia?

I raise this question because some of your recent posts relating to the Javanese keris reflect a point of view that is at variance with the generally accepted beliefs in Jawa. I find this interesting, as it demonstrates the existence of a non-Javanese belief system that relates to Javanese keris.

Regarding the smiths of Pajajaran. It seems that they migrated en masse to Majapahit, and this occurred a long time before Cirebon was even a dot on the map.

In respect of the very recent popularity of keris of Pajajaran classification, I feel that this is indicative of an increase in interest in the keris in general as a collectable, and a parallel deterioration in traditional Javanese values.

[PenangsangII]

Alan, indeed I am based in Malaysia, born in Malaysia from Malaysian parents. However, I am also a Javanese, speak Jawanese (ngoko) though somewhat can understand Jawa krama.

I know some of Malaysians of Jawanese descents belief system with regards to Jawanese keris is different compares to what the "Mataram kraton" belief system. It could be due to mix of cultures between the Jawanese and the local population in the peninsula, mostly Minangs and Bugis. But I was also told by an elderly kerisman, the belief system of the jawanese in Malaysia is actually a slowly evolved belief system since the mass exodus of the Jawanese to the peninsula during Amangkurat era. Some elderly kerismen quoted the belief system can be traced back to the Demak era after Adipati Yunus expedition to Malaka in early 16th century. No reference or writings can be produced. This is purely oral tradition.

Furthermore, in the culturally mixed society in Malaysia, keris is a keris, no matter where it originates from, as long as it can be used as intended, will be accepted as keris Melayu. The famous Taming Sari, though Jawanese of origin, is considered keris Melayu. The keris pusaka of the Kelantan Sultan, is a (claimed) Majapahit daphur Pandawa Cinarita - its regarded as Malay keris. Similarly also to kerises from other parts of the archipelago, we simply term them "keris Melayu". only when books and internet start to reclassify the kerises based from the place of origin, Malaysian collectors start to reclassify the kerises - be it Jawanese, Minang, Palembang, Bugis and so on

[Jean]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

To anybody who is used to following Javanese standards of appraisal, the differences of style between these two blades (posts # 10 & 17) is immediately obvious and must place them into two totally separate categories.
If we look at the two straight blades shown in post # 25, stylistic variation is even greater.

When we come to consider physical size of blade, what we know is this:- keris from Bali, Blambangan, and Banten all have similar proportions. These are the "big" keris.

Hello Alan and PenangsangII,
Thank you for your very interesting insights!
Alan, from my untrained eye I see significant similarities between the blades shown in post # 10 (top) and # 25 (top) on one hand (pejetan, tikel alis, indistinct pamor), and those shown in post # 17 and # 25 (bottom) on the other hand. However I would interpret the differences between these 2 sets of blades as due to the age (the second set looks significantly younger than the first one), and the evolution of the workmanship and style from the smiths. I would be open to accept that the second set of blades was not made in the Cirebon area but copying the older blades.
IMO these "corok" blades constitute another category of "big" krisses besides those from Bali, Blambangan, and Banten.
PenangsangII, the Cirebon/ Ceribon krisses are also very appreciated by the Dutch collectors, probably because they are different and less common than the Central Javanese ones.
Best regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Jean, early this morning I wrote another detailed, analytical response to your most recent post, but I have thought on this matter during today, and have decided that it would be a total waste of time to post my response.

I see these blades as having significant differences.

You see the same blades as having significant similarities.

I see with eyes that have been trained in a Javanese way of looking at keris.

You see with the eyes of a collector schooled in Euro-centric values.

And we both only have images on a screen to look at.

Nope. I've wasted enough time on this.

However, I will leave you with these thoughts:-

During the 1400's Cirebon was just a little village, mainly occupied with fishing, at this time it was under the domination of Pajajaran. It became an Islamic enclave by the 1500's , broke away from Pajajaran and became a sultanate, and the recognized father of Cirebon, Sunan Gunungjati appeared on the scene.

By about 1660 Cirebon had fragmented into 3 or 4 little principalities, and Cirebon's next door neighbour, Banten , took advantage of this fragmentation and occupied Cirebon during the 1670's.

The princes of Cirebon didn't like this much, so they tried to form an alliance with Mataram, but then Mataram sold them out, and by the late 1670's the Dutch had control of Cirebon. In the early 1680's Cirebon signed a treaty with the Dutch. By the early 1700's Cirebon had become a Dutch protectorate. The Dutch divided the administration of Cirebon between 3 of the princes, who each set up their own little court.

In fact, there was no "great kingdom of Cirebon". It was always second rate, no link to Javanese royalty , no honour.

Interestingly, the people of Cirebon identify themselves as Javanese, not Sundanese, and speak a dialect of Javanese, not a dialect of Sundanese.

The Javanese link their respect for particular Tosan Aji to respect for the associated realm. Cirebon never really was a realm.

It had links to Banten, it had links to Mataram, but it was never really an independent strong, political entity.


Consider this:-

We can probably identify various keris dress styles with Cirebon, and I would theorise that these various styles could in turn be aligned to the various royal houses of Cirebon.

However, I believe that it is extremely unlikely that we can ever identify a unique blade style as being the heritage of Cirebon. I believe that when the necessary research has been completed , and completed by independent researchers in an objective manner, we will find that the nobility of Cirebon filled their unique keris scabbards and hilts with blades from various other places, or had their own smiths copy these various other styles.

Cirebon was next door to Banten and for a time was occupied by Banten. It is very probable that the Banten style was reflected in the blades used by Cirebon people, whether those blades originated from Banten, or from Cirebon itself.

Recently there has been a commercial push to glorify Cirebon. It is perfectly understandable that the mind of the collector should be attracted to the idea of the Cirebon keris. However, I believe that eventually we will recognize that the "Cirebon Keris" is in fact a keris that uses Cirebon dress, and a blade style from other places.

Why does Cirebon not get a mention in the old references?

Easy answer:- it was regarded as a nonentity which lacked honour, and had no unique blade style. This is the reason Cirebon gets lumped in with Pajajaran.

Thus, we can most certainly have a Cirebon keris, but we cannot have a Cirebon blade, in Javanese terms, "tangguh Cirebon", or as I am wont to phrase it, "Cirebon classification."

Further, look at the dates involved:- all this happened pre-1700's. By the 1700's Cirebon was well and truly under the Dutch thumb. It had never had the opportunity to develop anything , and then the Dutch fell out of the sky and smothered Cirebon.

Consider all this and then draw your own conclusions.

[Marcokeris]

Why the old handles Cirebon are so beautiful and fascinating?