Surakarta Pendok (Pendhok) Paper

[A. G. Maisey]

I have now looked very closely at this paper.

As I commented in my previous post, it would be very easy to be critical of it. The English has the sense of being a translation, but it is not noted as such; there is a peculiar usage of language, and it is sometimes not possible to know what the correct word should be, we can only guess. The writing has the appearance of being well researched, however, if we look closely at the sources used for research, some of those sources are questionable, and some of the statements that have flowed from the use of those sources seem to be influenced by the ongoing low level conflict between those aligned with Surakarta and those aligned with Yogyakarta. Some parts of the actual process of fabrication have been omitted, or perhaps were missed or misunderstood.

However, all of that petty and pedantic comment should be set to one side.

Nothing like this has been previously attempted, and as an overall description of the process and inclusive background information it is ground breaking work.

One could not use the information provided in this paper to make a pendok, but as an overview of the process involved it does give those with a general interest in the matters addressed a good foundation of understanding.

[Jean]

Frankly I found this paper interesting but some descriptions are not clear, for instance:
. The description of pendok slorok in page 123
. The mention of "galvanising" process in pages 127 & 128
The pictures of the pendok making process are very useful for illustrating the text but they are too small.
The author mentions the name "tangguh nom" (young period) for the Mataram period from 1584 to 1788 (page 118), or from 1614 to 1945 (page 117) but according to the EK for instance tangguh nom-noman or nem-neman rather covers the recent period from mid 19th century to WW2?
I don't feel ready to make a pendok yet
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Jean, this paper does have deficiencies, but nobody else, to my knowledge, has ever attempted anything like this. It had never even occurred to me to write something about it, even though I have seen a number of craftsmen doing this work, a number of times, both Solo and Jogja.

Also, it was written by (I believe) a graphic designer, not an historian, or somebody connected with keris, or even somebody familiar with metal working.

So it has holes in it.

But for the average collector, it gives him heaps more than he already has.

Nom-noman, nem-nemen, nam-naman (with the diacritic ring) is Sultan Agungan to present, well, at least that is what keris literate people in the 1970's &1980's in Solo reckoned it was. Sultan Agung assumed his role in 1614.

This "Kemardikan" classification is very recent, and an innovation of those who have controlled the keris trade in recent years. It is useful, certainly, and appropriate, but to my my mind it is a sub-division of nom-noman, just like HB, Koripan, Godean, Surakarta and so on.

It is true that keris manufacture stopped during the reign of PBXI, there were still pande, there were still people who could be referred to as "empu", but manufacture of weapons was prohibited under the Japanese occupation.

Thus, if we wish to end nom-noman (ie, "young" keris, nom from anom = young) classification prior to today, we should end it at 1939 or 1940. Or maybe in February 1939 when PBX left for a better place, or April 1939 when PBXI began occupation of the throne, or maybe from 1942 when the Japanese began occupation of the old Dutch East Indies. I reckon whatever date we pick, somebody will want to argue with us.

But one thing is true:- a "keris non-noman" is a "young keris", a keris that came off the bench yesterday cannot be anything other than young. According to my understanding "nom-noman" is Sultan Agungan to right now.

[David]

This shorter paper looks to have some of the same info in it along with some different stuff as well. Could serve as a good companion piece.

http://repository.isi-ska.ac.id/2419...RTA%20KRIS.pdf

Jean, these are in PDF form and you should be able to enlarge the page somewhat. While this still won't make the photos showing the making of a pendok extremely large i don't believe the intentional this paper was to be a how to for interested makers.

[David]

It can truly be amazing sometimes when you ask Uncle Google and he is there for you. This appears to be yet another academic paper on Surakarta Pendoks. While it is clear that this author is using many of the same sources there are still different illustrations and information to be found in this one as well.
I think i have a bit of reading to do.

[A. G. Maisey]

This new one looks to be better David, it has info. on how to identify pendok motifs. We know that most, if not all the pendok motifs come from batik motifs, often reworked, and this new paper seems to give info on that, which would be useful for keris people with no background in traditional Javanese motifs.

I have around a dozen books that deal with batik, and a couple of pendok pattern books that are foto-copies of maker's pattern books, if I cannot name a pendok motif from a pattern book, I then turn to the batik books.

I'll read this new one carefully as soon as I get a chance.

Jean, if you use Foxit Phantom to download the PDF you will find you can take enlargement up into several thousand magnifications, but the images you are talking about lose resolution after about 300X. Actually, the resolution is lousy no matter how low you take it, but I know what I'm looking at and my mind is filling in the spaces, I agree, if one is not familiar with this stuff, the images are pretty useless.

[A. G. Maisey]

David, your post #9.

Yep, got a copy of this too, pity it was not all left in BI.

I wonder if the original is on the net? That little bit of BI at the beginning seems to indicate it was.

[drdavid]

Same author on all of these. Alan, if you want a BI version you might get it by emailing the author who lists contact email
Drd