Tricky Bugis Keris - Page 2

David · 19th October 2006, 07:36 PM

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 · 20th October 2006, 01:03 AM

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 · 20th October 2006, 10:24 AM

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.

DAHenkel · 22nd October 2006, 06:16 AM

Actually, I'm afraid I don't think it is possible to come up with a "stylistic classification system" for dealing with the kerises of the "Malay World" (which I more narrowly define for the purposes of this discussion as, kerises of the Peninsula, Sumatra and parts of the Northern and Western coast of Borneo). At least not one that would be of any real use. There are simply too many variables and even more unknowns for it to be effective.

First off, Pak Boedhi hits the nail squarely on the head when he notes that:

1. The keris maker must conform to the agreed 'special characteristic' norms.

Alas, for the area under discussion these norms seem not to have existed in any concrete fashion. This is not to deny that there were not certain 'ideas' about what these norms constituted, simply that they varied according to any number of caprices including, but hardly limited to, personal preference, availability of materials and knowledge/skills etc.

As in Java, what norms as there were probably existed most clearly in the "court". Even there though, outside the court, the rules appear to rapidly break down. In the case of Java the more clearly defined structure of the norms probably meant that there was greater conformity but at some point fuzziness begins to occur. Better by far that we should acknowledge this than to insist that there is some clearly definable 'norm'.

As I have already noted, the fluidity of the Malay World and the mobility of groups and individuals within that world (to name just one example - and there are many - the infamous Raja Ismail of Siak and his followers were settled at different times in Siak, Palembang, Terengganu and Pulau Tujuh during a career which spanned the second half of the 18th century) not to mention the very kerises themselves, means that given the available evidence, even attempting to systematize the resulting mess becomes a suspect exercise.

To complete the logic of Pak Boedi's insight:

2. The assessor (must) understand the(se) norm(s).

However, we cannot understand such norms based simply upon the available evidence, which consists almost wholly extant examples of kerises, the vast majority of which have been divorced from their place and time of origin.

In my opinion, the only way forward, as imperfect as it is, is an historical - ethnological approach which takes into account whatever verifiable evidence is available and extrapolates based on comparisons with what is known of other similar examples.

What this most requires is evidence. The more evidence one has the better one is able to assess. Or to put it more plainly one must see, and hopefully handle, as many examples as possible. The more one does this, the better they will get at achieving some (admittedly imperfect) understanding.

The first Pattani keris I saw seemed very weird to eyes accustomed to Javanese norms. After seeing thousands of examples however, I feel fairly confident in being able to spot a Pattani keris and even to differentiate their individual qualities. That said, things still surprise me and what I know now is not what I knew even a few short years ago. Many Kelantanese keris are so close to Pattani 'norms' that it is sometimes impossible to be certain (a matter much complicated by the fact that many Pattani keris migrated with their owners to Kelantan after the Siamese annexation). However some provenanced examples of Kelantanese keris conform to more Terengganu 'norms' and can thus be excluded from an 'idea' of, if you will, "Pattani-ness".

The ethnological approach requires a certain amount of honesty and clarity of explication. You can't speak definitively of something which is not definitely so and you have to be able to change your opinion in the light of subsequent evidence.

It also means that we cannot entirely divorce the blade from its dress as the dress is the most tangible evidence we have about the origins and history of a keris. This is consistent with the ethnological concept that an object can be "adopted" by the host culture. Even when the host may acknowledge the foreign origins of a piece, this does not diminish the fact that the object has become theirs. Thus a Javanese blade dressed in Terengganu style becomes, in a sense, a Terengganu keris.

In short a systematic approach is not a viable option here because first off, there is no system per-se and secondly the waters of evidence which we do have are so muddied we rarely can see things entirely clearly. What we have then is not necessarily a systematic understanding but a broader and richer picture of the reality, which is something in my opinion, of greater value anyway.

Alam Shah · 22nd October 2006, 03:20 PM

Quote:

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 · 23rd October 2006, 08:18 AM

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 · 25th October 2006, 08:12 AM

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

19th October 2006, 07:36 PM	#31
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,023	Welcome back Dave. I second Rick's sentiments. Hopefully you will find some time in your busy schedule to drop by more often.

20th October 2006, 01:03 AM	#32
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,697	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.

20th October 2006, 10:24 AM	#33
Mans Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: East Java Posts: 137	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.

22nd October 2006, 06:16 AM	#34
DAHenkel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 125	Actually, I'm afraid I don't think it is possible to come up with a "stylistic classification system" for dealing with the kerises of the "Malay World" (which I more narrowly define for the purposes of this discussion as, kerises of the Peninsula, Sumatra and parts of the Northern and Western coast of Borneo). At least not one that would be of any real use. There are simply too many variables and even more unknowns for it to be effective. First off, Pak Boedhi hits the nail squarely on the head when he notes that: 1. The keris maker must conform to the agreed 'special characteristic' norms. Alas, for the area under discussion these norms seem not to have existed in any concrete fashion. This is not to deny that there were not certain 'ideas' about what these norms constituted, simply that they varied according to any number of caprices including, but hardly limited to, personal preference, availability of materials and knowledge/skills etc. As in Java, what norms as there were probably existed most clearly in the "court". Even there though, outside the court, the rules appear to rapidly break down. In the case of Java the more clearly defined structure of the norms probably meant that there was greater conformity but at some point fuzziness begins to occur. Better by far that we should acknowledge this than to insist that there is some clearly definable 'norm'. As I have already noted, the fluidity of the Malay World and the mobility of groups and individuals within that world (to name just one example - and there are many - the infamous Raja Ismail of Siak and his followers were settled at different times in Siak, Palembang, Terengganu and Pulau Tujuh during a career which spanned the second half of the 18th century) not to mention the very kerises themselves, means that given the available evidence, even attempting to systematize the resulting mess becomes a suspect exercise. To complete the logic of Pak Boedi's insight: 2. The assessor (must) understand the(se) norm(s). However, we cannot understand such norms based simply upon the available evidence, which consists almost wholly extant examples of kerises, the vast majority of which have been divorced from their place and time of origin. In my opinion, the only way forward, as imperfect as it is, is an historical - ethnological approach which takes into account whatever verifiable evidence is available and extrapolates based on comparisons with what is known of other similar examples. What this most requires is evidence. The more evidence one has the better one is able to assess. Or to put it more plainly one must see, and hopefully handle, as many examples as possible. The more one does this, the better they will get at achieving some (admittedly imperfect) understanding. The first Pattani keris I saw seemed very weird to eyes accustomed to Javanese norms. After seeing thousands of examples however, I feel fairly confident in being able to spot a Pattani keris and even to differentiate their individual qualities. That said, things still surprise me and what I know now is not what I knew even a few short years ago. Many Kelantanese keris are so close to Pattani 'norms' that it is sometimes impossible to be certain (a matter much complicated by the fact that many Pattani keris migrated with their owners to Kelantan after the Siamese annexation). However some provenanced examples of Kelantanese keris conform to more Terengganu 'norms' and can thus be excluded from an 'idea' of, if you will, "Pattani-ness". The ethnological approach requires a certain amount of honesty and clarity of explication. You can't speak definitively of something which is not definitely so and you have to be able to change your opinion in the light of subsequent evidence. It also means that we cannot entirely divorce the blade from its dress as the dress is the most tangible evidence we have about the origins and history of a keris. This is consistent with the ethnological concept that an object can be "adopted" by the host culture. Even when the host may acknowledge the foreign origins of a piece, this does not diminish the fact that the object has become theirs. Thus a Javanese blade dressed in Terengganu style becomes, in a sense, a Terengganu keris. In short a systematic approach is not a viable option here because first off, there is no system per-se and secondly the waters of evidence which we do have are so muddied we rarely can see things entirely clearly. What we have then is not necessarily a systematic understanding but a broader and richer picture of the reality, which is something in my opinion, of greater value anyway.

23rd October 2006, 08:18 AM	#36
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,697	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.

25th October 2006, 08:12 AM	#37
VVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,637	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