Massive Javan Golok Pandjang: Info needed!
 

Hi all, feeding my obcession for laminated blades I have rashly purchased this sword, which is totally outside of my comfort zone (LOL, the sword and spending money!).
Anyway, I've seen similar small knives/swords with clearly laminated blades like a Keris. This one though is just freaking huge!
The overall length is 102cm/40"

I'm desperate to know more about it, so Can't wait for daylight pictures!
Can anyone tell me anything?

Thanks
Gene

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c5...a/SDC10545.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c5...a/SDC10550.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c5...a/SDC10553.jpg

I have the feeling it is Javanese. Soenda area?
But it's just a feeling considering the handle and the scabbard..
The blade however is different!?!

Kind Regards,
Maurice

Thank you my friend.
I know nothing about these, but having been caught by the 'steel bug' I now crave pattern welded blades :o
Have you ever seen one this big?
Any information would be gladly received.

Best
Gene

Hullo Gene,

I would call it: Golok Soenda Pandjang Sintoeng Perah Pingping Hajam; or simply: Golok Pandjang Sintoeng

Best,

I have the same thoughts like Maurice, handle and scabbard look West Java. sorry, can't add more. :shrug:

Seems like Amuk Murugul give the answer!:)

Regards,

Detlef

Thanks, that's great :)

Are they unusual this size?

Best
Gene

Thanks Detlef :)

More the merrier, so it's Java?

:o I don't suppose you could elaborate a little on what those terms mean could you?
These really aren't my usual area.
Thank you
Gene

[QUOTE=Atlantia]:o I don't suppose you could elaborate a little on what those terms mean could you?
These really aren't my usual area.
Thank you
Gene[/QUOTE


"Pingping" means it is an expensive sword!

:D

I tend to agree with Maurice as well for exactly the same reasons(as his).

Yep. exactly my thought too.

And this is indeed exceptionally long for such a sword.

[QUOTE=Maurice]

LOL, like: 'Ker-Ching' and 'Bling-Bling'?

Thanks buddy, an expensive sword is good news as I took a risk on it.

I'll clean it up a bit and take some clear pictures in the daylight tomorrow.
I've never seen a blade of this type anywhere near this length before.
It must have been a hell of a job making it.

It would be safe to assume that I know almost nothing about these weapons.
So if anyone can tell me anything at all I'd be extremely greatful.
Stone says of 'golok' that they range in size up to about 2' and this sword of mine is over 3'.

Also this specific shape is unfamiliar to me. Despite my lack of knowledge, I do of course see weapons from this region regularly, and I've never seen one like this. I doubt it's rare, just outside of my experience.

So please feel free to educate me everyone :)


Best
Gene

[QUOTE=Atlantia]Yes Gene, like "blingbling" and "kerching", we now also have "pingping".. :-)

I looked at my database this morning to find you this image. I knew I had it somewhere but couldn't find it so soon, but finaly here it is!

This image are weapons of the regent of Bandung, and is made before 1880!
Look at the left sword. That one is also huge as I can see. Maybe nice to have restored the tip of the scabbard as it used to be?

Kind Regards,
Maurice

Nice
 

Great piece you've got there Gene, very nice.

Maurice, your access to these old collection images never ceases to amaze me...interesting to note the Kilij in there too...

Gav

Gav, it's not the access, but finding it again on my computer after copying it.. :)

Maurice

Gav, Thanks mate :)

Maurice,
Great picture, excellent find, thank you.
I would love to restore it completely. There are some scratches on the blade and it could do with a proper polish and etch. Is there something missing from the hilt also?



It has the feel of a large cavalry sword or hand-and-a-half sword. Anyone know what these large swords were intended for?

Here are some daylight pictures:

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c5...a/SDC10568.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c5...a/SDC10572.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c5...a/SDC10576.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c5...a/SDC10578.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c5...a/SDC10581.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c5...a/SDC10589.jpg

Maybe it was a kind of ferrule as the one Hans had in discussion on the forum:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=9780

You mean a little tiny silver ferrule?
Good link thanks.
What do you think of the sword now that you can see clearer pictures?

Best
Gene

Yes I mean the little tiny silver ferrule!
As you can see the base of Hans's blade has the same base as yours! With a little nick, where the silver ferrule "fells" behind.
I guess it could easily be the same ferrule, as it is a similar sword, with a similar blade base. And according the small recess in the handle it was not a big ferrule.

Rg,
Maurice

Hi,

here some examples of our national museums.

The size of the first one ( Tropenmuseum ) is sadly not mentioned

the descriptions give the places "Banten" and "West Java."

I'm curious about the balance of such a long thing, how does that feel?

the other one is 74 cm.

Arjan

Hello Arjan,

Thank you for coming in on this discussion.
Here is a picture of my sword balanced on a small plastic pot. Also are two other swords for scale, an 'average' sized Shamshir, and a large Tulwar.
The Golok weighs approximately 1260g, and is 102cm overall length.
It feels both heavy and front-heavy.
It could be swung one handed, but feels like it would suit large sweeping arcs or from horseback.

Do you know anything about this size of sword? Who and how it was used?

Have you come across any of this size 'in person' before?

Regards
Gene

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c5...a/SDC10593.jpg

Hullo again Gene,:)

I can't be 100% sure without actually handling the item, but yours looks like a Golok Soenda (NOT Djawa) Pandjang Sintoeng Soelangkar Perah Pingping Hajam; or simply, Golok Pandjang Soelangkar.
Originally such items were part of the prescribed implements of the Prboe (warrior) class (N.B. warrior CLASS, as opposed to WARRIOR). It formed half of a pair , the other half being a sword/sabre (not necessarily of the same length) similar to the first picture in Arjan's post.
These people were usually mounted, hence the length, which would have been of very limited use on foot.
The Golok was used for 'hacking/ chopping' (e.g through jungle growth) while the sabre was for the cut/thrust, hence it would have been much lighter.
Goloks/swords among the Soenda would normally not exceed 75-80cm in length, for ease and utility (as the Dutch found out when they were developing the 'Kalewang'). A more 'comfortable' length would be 40-60cm
BTW ..... Banten, Bandoeng, West Java, etc are all part of traditional Tatar Soenda.

Best,

Hi Amuk,

Thank you for your help.
I dare not try a translation of "Pandjang Sintoeng Soelangkar Perah Pingping Hajam", but is it correct that "Golok Pandjang Soelangkar" translates as 'long golok with lines in the steel'?
Also, you say that it is from Soenda?

What is your understanding of 'Golok'? In the UK the term is associated with machete's, which would fit with what you were saying about cutting the jungle back from horseback.
Do you think that this is just a machete and not a weapon? It would be very cumbersome to use as a machete as it's so long and heavy.

Thanks again
Gene

Thanks Maurice

I'm going to try and fix the scabbard first (while I think about how to do the ferrule) :)

The blade has seen some use and I'm not sure how 'deep' the original etch would have been. Do you know if the laminations are meant to be clear and visible with a high contrast etch?

Best
Gene

Hi Gene,

I am not 100% sure by this but it is very presumably. Mayby Amuk Murugul can confim this.

Regards,

Detlef

Hi Detlef,

You mean a high contrast dark etch?
Like some in this thread:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...umatran+pedang

Thanks
Gene

Generally speaking, yes.
Your style of golok is often referred to as 'Soemedangan'. (The picture above, showing the weaponry of Wiranatakoesoemah reminds one that Bandoeng used to be part of Soemedang)

At least up until the early 16thC it was an implement of the warrior class. Farmer-class implements which were similar were referred to as: Bedog. (The difference was mainly in quality and fittings). Since then, this demarcation has gradually become blurred. Today, the two words have become interchangeable.
This is mainly due to the rise and fall in the fortunes of people and places since then (leading to the erosion of tradition and blurring of history).
On a more general note, the golok is often confused with sword.
One must remember that no real universal standard for weapons existed. Each weapon was basically customised to the individual. Thus what constituted a golok or a sword was quite subjective, the main difference being the primary function (viz. one may be required to do battle with a sword for hours, on foot and/or mounted).

The Soenda are traditionally a very utilitarian people. They try to maximise the utility of anything.
So, of course the golok was not just a machete, even though that may have been its primary function.

If the throat is brass, then the ferrule should also be of brass, capping the bottom of the handle up to the ridge and allowing a hole for the tang.

Traditionally, the Soenda do not do this; the Djawa do. Normal blade-cleaning sufficed.
However, on the occasions that the Soenda did 'etch' a blade, it was done to to clean it and apply poison.
(An implement with such a use was often referred to as 'Salam Noenggal'/Single Greeting/Greets Once. One only has to be 'nicked' by it to 'kiss Mother Earth: Goodbye'.;))

Best,

Amuk Murugul give the answer already! :) And this is something new for me as well and shows again how different Soenda and Djawa.


Regards,

Detlef

Hello Amuk,

thank you very much for this information. What is with Kudis like in your avatar? They also not etched?

Regards,

Detlef