Metuk (Iras) as an indicator of quality

A. G. Maisey · 29th December 2016, 09:42 PM

A few answers:-

1) the tombak without a metuk was originally fitted with one, there is not the slightest doubt about this. It is a Javanese tombak, and a tombak of this form and quality would most definitely have been fitted with a metuk. The metuk is necessary because the tombak is a thrusting weapon, and without the metuk to anchor the blade against the shaft there is insufficient resistance against a powerful thrust into the objective, be that human or animal. Without a metuk, either integral with the blade or mechanically fixed, a tombak lacks the necessary strength for use.

The crop I have posted below shows a shoulder that has been cut into the base of the blade, this shoulder may have originally been the anchor point for a metuk, but I am inclined to think that the metuk was lost, and then the tombak was used with just a steel washer as the anchor point for the blade, these shoulders permitting a firm anchor.

But whatever the story behind it is, this tombak would most definitely have had a metuk originally. No doubt at all in my mind about that.

2) I was given this story originally by a brother of Sinuhun (PBXII), but I have also read it somewhere, maybe Babad Tanah Jawi, but maybe Centini, in any case, it is more than 30 years since I read it and I've forgotten the details, this here below is from my notebook, as given by Sinuhun's brother.

"About kinatah given by Sultan Agung. The background was that the district ruler of Pati, which was a part of the Mataram Empire, refused to send taxes to the court of Mataram, a punitive force was raised and the erring Bupati (?) was punished. When the force returned to Mataram Sultan Agung gave the following gifts, which were in the form of kinatah that could be worn on a keris:-
A) to a mantri:- keris gonjo kinatah
B) to a penewu (leader of 1000 men), kinatah gonjo gajah-singo (elephant-lion)
C) to a bupati kliwon, kinatah kamarogan
D) to a pangeran and a bupati dalem kinatah anggrek, kinatah singo barong, and kinatah naga"

In this instance it can be understood that the keris was representative of its bearer, thus the battle honours were given to the keris as a representative of the bearer.

3) Kinatah anggrek is kinatah that uses a stylised representation of an orchid, to interpret the kinatah work shown on these tombak as "kinatah anggrek" I would need to look at several pattern books, all I can currently see are some rather poor quality generic kinatah ornamentations.
We cannot tie these tombak and their kinatah work to battle honours given by Sultan Agung to his officers, the Sultan Agung case was quite specific and had absolutely nothing at all to do with kinatah work on tombak or anything else, only on specific keris carried by specific men.

To determine the tangguh of a tombak is even more difficult than it is to to determine the tangguh of a keris. The general approach is that we try to envisage the tombak as if it were a keris, and attempt to identify similar indicators.The single major indicator is the shape of the metuk, but the variation in shape can often be so slight that it becomes almost impossible to use this from a photo.

In the case of the tombak without a metuk , it is possible that we are looking at a Senopaten classification.

The plain iron tombak with metuk iras is probably Bali.

The straight tombak might be Surakarta, or Surakarta influenced, I would need to handle it to form a firm opinion.

The tombak with two kembang kacang is peculiar, I am not at all certain that this metuk belongs with this tombak, and I think the tombak itself is relatively recent, perhaps after 1875.

From the tombak shown, only the one lacking a metuk might perhaps be a Mataram tombak that pre-dates Sultan Agung.

4) I think I said somewhere in this thread that the presence of a mechanically fixed metuk was one requisite feature for a tombak to be regarded as "high quality" according to Javanese standards.

I emphasise:- "Javanese standards", and the presence of this mechanically fixed metuk could well be based upon a cultural requirement, rather than anything to do with the actual objective appraisal of the functional or artistic qualities of the tombak:-
it is a "Javanese standard" --- with all that this implies.

Additionally, it is only one indicator amongst many. Just having a mechanically fixed metuk does not necessarily mean we are looking at a quality item, it only means that we might be looking at a quality item, and if the tombak is a really old one, or from some place other than Jawa, the metuk does not count at all as an indicator of quality.

Kulino · 30th December 2016, 12:12 PM

Another riddle to close of the year.
This looks like a miniature tumbak. Or it could be a bedor. A bit long to serve as bedor and it is different from the bedor I have seen before. So...?
It has metuk iras. Dapur?
The metuk doesn't have a bungkel. Looks more to what I have been told, like an 'older then SultanAgung metuk'.

A. G. Maisey · 30th December 2016, 08:09 PM

A talisman reshaped from an old badly eroded blade.

Kulino · 30th December 2016, 09:36 PM

Dear Alan,
I completely forgot to thank you for your extensive comments on the tumbak item and now again on this new item. Sorry to keep you occupied, but I hope you don't mind I'll keep posting new curiosities.
To all on this forum and specially to you, my best wishes for this coming New Year.

A. G. Maisey · 30th December 2016, 11:23 PM

Thanks Kulino.

My best wishes to you, and all, for the coming year, may it bring all that you could wish yourself.

29th December 2016, 09:42 PM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,990	A few answers:- 1) the tombak without a metuk was originally fitted with one, there is not the slightest doubt about this. It is a Javanese tombak, and a tombak of this form and quality would most definitely have been fitted with a metuk. The metuk is necessary because the tombak is a thrusting weapon, and without the metuk to anchor the blade against the shaft there is insufficient resistance against a powerful thrust into the objective, be that human or animal. Without a metuk, either integral with the blade or mechanically fixed, a tombak lacks the necessary strength for use. The crop I have posted below shows a shoulder that has been cut into the base of the blade, this shoulder may have originally been the anchor point for a metuk, but I am inclined to think that the metuk was lost, and then the tombak was used with just a steel washer as the anchor point for the blade, these shoulders permitting a firm anchor. But whatever the story behind it is, this tombak would most definitely have had a metuk originally. No doubt at all in my mind about that. 2) I was given this story originally by a brother of Sinuhun (PBXII), but I have also read it somewhere, maybe Babad Tanah Jawi, but maybe Centini, in any case, it is more than 30 years since I read it and I've forgotten the details, this here below is from my notebook, as given by Sinuhun's brother. "About kinatah given by Sultan Agung. The background was that the district ruler of Pati, which was a part of the Mataram Empire, refused to send taxes to the court of Mataram, a punitive force was raised and the erring Bupati (?) was punished. When the force returned to Mataram Sultan Agung gave the following gifts, which were in the form of kinatah that could be worn on a keris:- A) to a mantri:- keris gonjo kinatah B) to a penewu (leader of 1000 men), kinatah gonjo gajah-singo (elephant-lion) C) to a bupati kliwon, kinatah kamarogan D) to a pangeran and a bupati dalem kinatah anggrek, kinatah singo barong, and kinatah naga" In this instance it can be understood that the keris was representative of its bearer, thus the battle honours were given to the keris as a representative of the bearer. 3) Kinatah anggrek is kinatah that uses a stylised representation of an orchid, to interpret the kinatah work shown on these tombak as "kinatah anggrek" I would need to look at several pattern books, all I can currently see are some rather poor quality generic kinatah ornamentations. We cannot tie these tombak and their kinatah work to battle honours given by Sultan Agung to his officers, the Sultan Agung case was quite specific and had absolutely nothing at all to do with kinatah work on tombak or anything else, only on specific keris carried by specific men. To determine the tangguh of a tombak is even more difficult than it is to to determine the tangguh of a keris. The general approach is that we try to envisage the tombak as if it were a keris, and attempt to identify similar indicators.The single major indicator is the shape of the metuk, but the variation in shape can often be so slight that it becomes almost impossible to use this from a photo. In the case of the tombak without a metuk , it is possible that we are looking at a Senopaten classification. The plain iron tombak with metuk iras is probably Bali. The straight tombak might be Surakarta, or Surakarta influenced, I would need to handle it to form a firm opinion. The tombak with two kembang kacang is peculiar, I am not at all certain that this metuk belongs with this tombak, and I think the tombak itself is relatively recent, perhaps after 1875. From the tombak shown, only the one lacking a metuk might perhaps be a Mataram tombak that pre-dates Sultan Agung. 4) I think I said somewhere in this thread that the presence of a mechanically fixed metuk was one requisite feature for a tombak to be regarded as "high quality" according to Javanese standards. I emphasise:- "Javanese standards", and the presence of this mechanically fixed metuk could well be based upon a cultural requirement, rather than anything to do with the actual objective appraisal of the functional or artistic qualities of the tombak:- it is a "Javanese standard" --- with all that this implies. Additionally, it is only one indicator amongst many. Just having a mechanically fixed metuk does not necessarily mean we are looking at a quality item, it only means that we might be looking at a quality item, and if the tombak is a really old one, or from some place other than Jawa, the metuk does not count at all as an indicator of quality. Attached Images

30th December 2016, 12:12 PM	#2
Kulino Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 84	Tumbak or bedor? Another riddle to close of the year. This looks like a miniature tumbak. Or it could be a bedor. A bit long to serve as bedor and it is different from the bedor I have seen before. So...? It has metuk iras. Dapur? The metuk doesn't have a bungkel. Looks more to what I have been told, like an 'older then SultanAgung metuk'. Attached Images

30th December 2016, 08:09 PM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,990	A talisman reshaped from an old badly eroded blade.

30th December 2016, 09:36 PM	#4
Kulino Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 84	Dear Alan, I completely forgot to thank you for your extensive comments on the tumbak item and now again on this new item. Sorry to keep you occupied, but I hope you don't mind I'll keep posting new curiosities. To all on this forum and specially to you, my best wishes for this coming New Year.

30th December 2016, 11:23 PM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,990	Thanks Kulino. My best wishes to you, and all, for the coming year, may it bring all that you could wish yourself.