What is this pamor?

Jean · 16th May 2011, 09:22 PM

Dear friends,

I bought this kris from Solo, the blade is attributed to tangguh Tuban/ Mataram by the seller, and the dapur is Tilam Upih. My pamor identification was the same a the seller and his friends but we are not sure about it, your opinion will be welcome.
Thank you and best regards
Jean

Rick · 17th May 2011, 12:06 AM

The pamor on the gonjo looks quite muted compared to the wilah .

I looked through Tammens2 and EK; didn't see anything like this .
It reminds me of bamboo a bit .

Sorry .

What do you think it is ?

Marcokeris · 17th May 2011, 01:34 PM

Very nice pamor

Never seen one like this

I agree: seems bambu (but not with inserts)
The blade, IMO, seems rather new (Madura?)
Also the gayaman is very nice

A. G. Maisey · 17th May 2011, 02:18 PM

Jean, I feel that this pamor is open to a number of interpretations.

Have a look at Haryoguritno and see how many pamors you can find that this one could be squeezed into.

What I was taught about pamor naming was that you cannot just stick a name on a pamor because it looks like a particular motif .

Nope. Not allowed to do that.

You need to try to understand how the pamor was made and what the maker was trying to do, then you measure that against the lexicon of motifs.

With this pamor we have a canvas of wos wutah that has been surface manipulated by repetitive punch marks, or possibly ground in dips, or maybe punched and ground --- too hard to tell from a picture.

When I see a line of this sort of dots running down a blade, my favorite nomination is banyu tetes, but there are other candidates, and like many things to do with keris and names, maybe what you call it depends upon the influences that rule you.

The form does seem to agree with Tuban, but not Tuban -Mataram. In Tuban-Mataram we expect to see a tungkakan, and a pamor motif like this in a Tuban blade is something I would not expect to see. I rather doubt that this is an old blade --- but it is quite a nice one.

Jean · 18th May 2011, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

The form does seem to agree with Tuban, but not Tuban -Mataram. In Tuban-Mataram we expect to see a tungkakan, and a pamor motif like this in a Tuban blade is something I would not expect to see. I rather doubt that this is an old blade --- but it is quite a nice one.

Hello Alan,
To be clear the seller did not mean Tuban/ Mataram transition period but a blade made in Tuban style (form) during the Mataram era, but I accept your opinion that the blade was probably made recently as shown by the complex pamor especially. Any opinion if this blade was made in Java or Madura?
Best regards
Jean

A. G. Maisey · 18th May 2011, 09:55 AM

Yes Jean, that's what Tuban-Mataram means:- made in Tuban during Mataram period; same as Tuban Pajajaran and Tuban Majapahit.

I know of nobody in Jawa who makes blades in this way. My guess is Sumenep, or if not Sumenep, a Sumenep craftsman living in Jawa, probably Surabaya-Malang area.

Jean · 17th May 2011, 02:42 PM

Hello Rick and Marco,

Thanks for your comments. First I apologize that the dapur type is Brojol and not Tilam Upih (there is no tikel alis).
Regarding the age of the blade, I don't think that is new but probably not very old and well maintained, there is some visible wear especially on top of the sor-soran on one side. It was recently cleaned and stained in Solo.
The pamor on the ganja is less bright than on the blade itself but it is not wulung and its colour shade is the same as the blade core.
Regarding the pamor, the best fitting style is Sumur Bandung although I agree that it does not constitute a perfect specimen. Any other opinion?
Best regards
Jean

A. G. Maisey · 18th May 2011, 01:54 AM

Jean, I do not think that this pamor can be sumur bandung.

The round areas in sumur bandung are empty, that is they do not contain pamor, but have been created by forging out a pimple in the blade, removing the pamor while that pimple is raised, and then forging the blade flat again. Usually this pamor has only 3 or four empty round areas on each side, I have heard it can have more, but I've never seen this.

Now, if we look at your blade, the round areas have been created by either one of two methods, they have either been punched into the blade surface, or ground into the blade surface, and then the blade forged flat again, but importantly, in most cases they have been allowed to retain pamor within the depressed area.

I suppose we could say that it is an imperfect sumur bandung, because of retention of pamor, or we could say it is an imperfect banyu tetes because in a couple of cases the pamor has not been retained. But then we have the number of round areas, which is one hell of a lot of circles for sumur bandung.

There is another problem with this pamor, when it comes to naming:- if we look at the flow of the grain, we can see that not only has a round punch ( or grinding ) been used, which is the usual process with banyu tetes, but it is possible that when the blade was forged flat again, a square punch was used to bring the blade back to flat surfaces. This is a variation in process from a simple banyu tetes process, so it is entirely possible that the maker was trying to create something new.

The visible lack of pamor depth in one area of the sorsoran was caused by the fact that that area of the blade had a badly centered core, and during the making, the maker was either lazy or insufficiently skilled to recenter the core before he shaped the blade. It is not age wear.

I think it was Rassers who theorised that all pamor motifs developed from an original five motifs. This might or might not be so, but what is so is that the older blades invariably have much more simple motifs than the more recent blades. In historic blades any blade with pamor miring is rare. Very rare. Any blades with surface manipulated pamors are also rare. As we move forward in time we find that both surface manipulated pamors and pamors made by miring process become not only more frequent, but also more perfect.

In all Tuban blades, we are looking at quite old blades, and in all genuine Tuban blades the pamors involved are invariably very simple pamors.

Here we have a blade that has some elements of Tuban form, and a pamor that has a number of elements in its construction that were not mastered until the current resurgence in keris making, which did not really get under way until around 1990.

We must never expect that any old blade will look like a recent blade when it comes to the techniques involved in pamor work.

semar · 18th May 2011, 05:37 AM

hallo Jean

this is one of my keris with sumur bandung
mebay the picteur can help a littel

regards semar

Jean · 18th May 2011, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Jean, I do not think that this pamor can be sumur bandung.

Hello Alan,
Thank you and best regards
Jean

16th May 2011, 09:22 PM	#1
Jean Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,740	What is this pamor? Dear friends, I bought this kris from Solo, the blade is attributed to tangguh Tuban/ Mataram by the seller, and the dapur is Tilam Upih. My pamor identification was the same a the seller and his friends but we are not sure about it, your opinion will be welcome. Thank you and best regards Jean Attached Images

18th May 2011, 05:37 AM	#9
semar Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 272	hallo Jean this is one of my keris with sumur bandung mebay the picteur can help a littel regards semar Attached Images

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

17th May 2011, 12:06 AM	#2
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,293	The pamor on the gonjo looks quite muted compared to the wilah . I looked through Tammens2 and EK; didn't see anything like this . It reminds me of bamboo a bit . Sorry . What do you think it is ?

17th May 2011, 01:34 PM	#3
Marcokeris Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Italy Posts: 928	Very nice pamor Never seen one like this I agree: seems bambu (but not with inserts) The blade, IMO, seems rather new (Madura?) Also the gayaman is very nice

17th May 2011, 02:18 PM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,892	Jean, I feel that this pamor is open to a number of interpretations. Have a look at Haryoguritno and see how many pamors you can find that this one could be squeezed into. What I was taught about pamor naming was that you cannot just stick a name on a pamor because it looks like a particular motif . Nope. Not allowed to do that. You need to try to understand how the pamor was made and what the maker was trying to do, then you measure that against the lexicon of motifs. With this pamor we have a canvas of wos wutah that has been surface manipulated by repetitive punch marks, or possibly ground in dips, or maybe punched and ground --- too hard to tell from a picture. When I see a line of this sort of dots running down a blade, my favorite nomination is banyu tetes, but there are other candidates, and like many things to do with keris and names, maybe what you call it depends upon the influences that rule you. The form does seem to agree with Tuban, but not Tuban -Mataram. In Tuban-Mataram we expect to see a tungkakan, and a pamor motif like this in a Tuban blade is something I would not expect to see. I rather doubt that this is an old blade --- but it is quite a nice one.

18th May 2011, 09:55 AM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,892	Yes Jean, that's what Tuban-Mataram means:- made in Tuban during Mataram period; same as Tuban Pajajaran and Tuban Majapahit. I know of nobody in Jawa who makes blades in this way. My guess is Sumenep, or if not Sumenep, a Sumenep craftsman living in Jawa, probably Surabaya-Malang area.

17th May 2011, 02:42 PM	#7
Jean Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,740	Hello Rick and Marco, Thanks for your comments. First I apologize that the dapur type is Brojol and not Tilam Upih (there is no tikel alis). Regarding the age of the blade, I don't think that is new but probably not very old and well maintained, there is some visible wear especially on top of the sor-soran on one side. It was recently cleaned and stained in Solo. The pamor on the ganja is less bright than on the blade itself but it is not wulung and its colour shade is the same as the blade core. Regarding the pamor, the best fitting style is Sumur Bandung although I agree that it does not constitute a perfect specimen. Any other opinion? Best regards Jean

18th May 2011, 01:54 AM	#8
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,892	Jean, I do not think that this pamor can be sumur bandung. The round areas in sumur bandung are empty, that is they do not contain pamor, but have been created by forging out a pimple in the blade, removing the pamor while that pimple is raised, and then forging the blade flat again. Usually this pamor has only 3 or four empty round areas on each side, I have heard it can have more, but I've never seen this. Now, if we look at your blade, the round areas have been created by either one of two methods, they have either been punched into the blade surface, or ground into the blade surface, and then the blade forged flat again, but importantly, in most cases they have been allowed to retain pamor within the depressed area. I suppose we could say that it is an imperfect sumur bandung, because of retention of pamor, or we could say it is an imperfect banyu tetes because in a couple of cases the pamor has not been retained. But then we have the number of round areas, which is one hell of a lot of circles for sumur bandung. There is another problem with this pamor, when it comes to naming:- if we look at the flow of the grain, we can see that not only has a round punch ( or grinding ) been used, which is the usual process with banyu tetes, but it is possible that when the blade was forged flat again, a square punch was used to bring the blade back to flat surfaces. This is a variation in process from a simple banyu tetes process, so it is entirely possible that the maker was trying to create something new. The visible lack of pamor depth in one area of the sorsoran was caused by the fact that that area of the blade had a badly centered core, and during the making, the maker was either lazy or insufficiently skilled to recenter the core before he shaped the blade. It is not age wear. I think it was Rassers who theorised that all pamor motifs developed from an original five motifs. This might or might not be so, but what is so is that the older blades invariably have much more simple motifs than the more recent blades. In historic blades any blade with pamor miring is rare. Very rare. Any blades with surface manipulated pamors are also rare. As we move forward in time we find that both surface manipulated pamors and pamors made by miring process become not only more frequent, but also more perfect. In all Tuban blades, we are looking at quite old blades, and in all genuine Tuban blades the pamors involved are invariably very simple pamors. Here we have a blade that has some elements of Tuban form, and a pamor that has a number of elements in its construction that were not mastered until the current resurgence in keris making, which did not really get under way until around 1990. We must never expect that any old blade will look like a recent blade when it comes to the techniques involved in pamor work.