[A. G. Maisey]

Pak Usmen,

I was taught that one of, if not the, prime indicator for tombak is the metuk.

There is considerable variation between metuk of different tangguh. Tombak are much more difficult to classify according to tangguh than are keris. With a keris, especially if you have a rondha, classification of a quality blade is really pretty easy, yes, it can become something to dispute if the blade is less than very good quality, but tangguh was never intended to be applied to substandard blades in any case. However, with a tombak, what you have is pawakan, material, metuk.Time can alter pawakan, material is often difficult to read, most especially from a photo, when it becomes virtually unreadable, what you are left with is the metuk.So, just as when we look at a keris, we home in on one feature first, rondha if its there, or maybe the blumbangan, or maybe the material, and then we ask what classification it can be if it possesses this feature, for instance, if that blumbangan is boto adeg, we know immediately that we are not looking at Mataram, bold heavy blade?---we know its not Maja---so what are we left with?We then attempt to confirm this with the other features.
Same thing with a tombak, the first thing I was taught to look at was the metuk, then I look at other features to try to confirm what it should be, based on that metuk.If the other featrures fail to confirm, then I've got problems.
To adequately assess the metuk you need to see it at a dead straight 90 degree angle, if you don't see it like this the shape and proportion can be inaccurate and you can be misled.
If a metuk has been changed, it might be a case of a new metuk being made for the blade, in which case you can expect the metuk to reflect the style of the time and place where it was made, or it might be a metuk from another tombak put on the one you're looking at. In the case of a metuk from a different tombak, its not that difficult to pick, usually---you look at the fit and alignment, same as you would with a changed over gonjo, with a new one made for the blade you need to rely on an assessment of material, and if this was done a long time ago you're probably just going to be guessing. But in any case, as I have already said:- tangguh was never intended for substandard pusakas, so it doesn't matter too much anyway if you cannot give a supportable tangguh with something that is substandard.

In respect of the tombak under discussion. This is a very nice tombak by any measure. To my eye, from the photo, it looks like 19th century Surakarta work, but I would not be definite about this without handling it.In all honesty, I am hesitant to even give this tentative classification:- tangguh is just too, too, difficult, if not impossible, from photos. You need to handle the things. Tangguh is not just matching the way something looks to a mental template, you need to be able to feel it as well.

As far as pamor goes, I feel that the people with whom I associate would simply call this "wos wutah", and then comment upon and discuss the way in which it had been made, rather than try to give a sub-classification of wos wutah, which can become contentious.I don't think we can call it ilining warih. I understand ilining warih to be a sub-classification of adeg, and adeg is pamor miring, this is clearly pamor mlumah.It does look as if it is a pamor nginden, but unless it is possible to tilt the blade to read the nginden pattern, it is impossible to comment further.