“Pulen” Iron

[gckaeng]

Dear community,
This is my first post. I thank the admin for allowing me to join the group.
I have been having this question: what does ‘pulen’ Iron (wesi pulen) signifies?

Here’s what I meant by pulen (this is my own understanding, which might be inaccurate). a type of look of keris iron which people always refer to as “lempungan” (muddy) look, usually pitch black, fine grained, smooth, shiny, most said a result of high-folding forging. In the keris community it often signifies a high quality piece. If it was from Majapahit tangguh and pamorless some people liked to refer it to Sedayu.

My question can then be rephrased as the following: is it true that pulen signifies high quality wesi? Does it also signifies antiquity? if it does how old? Can kamardikan and nom-noman produce such look?

Thank you

[Jean]

Hello,
I frankly do not know this term but may be Alan will be aware about it.
Could you please show us a picture of a blade with such a pamor?
Regards

[David]

Hi gckaeng, welcome to the forum.
Like Jean i am also not familiar with the term "pulen" or . I have not seen the term “lempungan” in regards to keris, though i can see how the word could be used as a reference to describe a quality of pamor. I have seen the name "Sedayu" before, but as a place, not a pamor.
The closest i seem to be able to come to understand what you mean is pamor kelengan. Is this the same as what you mean?

[Jean]

Originally Posted by David

Hi gckaeng, welcome to the forum.
I have seen the name "Sedayu" before, but as a place, not a pamor.

AFAIK Pangeran (Prince) Sendang Sedayu (also called empu Supa?) was a famous empu from the Majapahit period.
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

My understanding of "wesi pulen" is that it is very finely grained iron, it is not open grain, it is not porous, the surface presents as well packed and smooth.

In keris belief there is whole range of names for supposedly different types of iron, I have yet to meet anybody who can give a consistent opinion on all these various presentations of iron.

The problem is this:- iron can have varying appearances or presentations depending on a number of factors:- a piece of iron can be open pored and yellowish if treated in one way, but if treated in a different way it can be tightly packed, smooth and a prestigious blue-black. In fact, depending on how it is stained, it can even display green or red tones.

In my opinion, the various names given to iron in keris belief refer to the visual perception, and sometimes the tonal (sound) perception, or even the feel of the surface, they cannot refer to the composition or analysis or origin of the iron.

So, in the case of wesi pulen, I feel it is rather unwise to attribute this name on the basis of colour, rather, it might be wiser to use only the tightness of perceived grain as the indicator.

However, it might be even more wise to forget about the names altogether and learn the appearance of iron that is likely to be of good quality, well worked, well preserved.

If we take modern mild steel and work it well in the forge, and pack it well, it will present a smooth, tightly packed surface.

If we take good quality 200 year old wrought iron --- often this type of iron was used in carriage strapping --- fold it 8 or 10 times, pack it well, that 200 year old wrought iron will also present a smooth tightly packed surface.

The colour of both can be varied according to the staining process.

The only way to really know what an iron is, is by using laboratory analysis.

I have not mentioned the "Name Game" for a long time. I was being accused of having a fixation on this propensity of collectors to want to stick a name on everything. However, knowing a lot of names and strange words is not a substitute for being able to recognise quality. To my mind it is not particularly important what we name something, it is much more important that we can recognise it for what it truly is.

[gckaeng]

Thanks Alan for the note.
In regard to the Pulen characteristic, it appears that my physical understanding of it is close, except around the color. I always consider black pulen is mesmerizing, somehow it is sticks to my head. Lets take color out of the equation.

To re-emphasize your points, my understanding of Pulen is also attributed to the visual and feel perception, not composition.
Thanks for your note which states that different compositions and ages can result in the same look.

I might understand the reason you are trying to stay away from the name game as the community is surrounded by names/terms/jargon as a result of traditional javanese's classifications which tend to be subjective of the Empu/elite, then became standard of Keraton, then often confused modern people, including myself. However, pardon my stubborn amateur reasoning, I still need name to mention the wesi indicators being discussed.

lets agree on the indicators you mentioned, at least we have an agreeable basis to continue the discussion.

1. On your note, there's probably a hint of quality, but you have not clearly mentioned whether or not Pulen signifies quality. I might just ask you now. So next time I see one, I can glorify it.

2. Pardon my stubbornness: in the local community Pulen has never been attributed to anything new (never heard for kamardikan, but not sure of nom-noman). May be because of the characteristic of lempung/liat which might be a sign of antiquity. I kind of agree, because in my amateur eyes, tightly-packed irons between antique and modern can still be distinguished. The later is just smooth and shiny missing the lempung look. I used to enter a museum and scanned it between tightly-packed olds and news, I could tell the difference. This is something I need to understand more, does Pulen bears antiquity indication to it or not, which might help me to identify good old kerises.

Let me share my discussion with Empu Sungkowo Harumbrodjo, and see what you think. For those who know him he doesnt talk much, so I am not sure whether I understood his opinion precisely.
In his besalen in Yogyakarta, there's a framed table chart on the wall about number of folds between different old tangguhs (I hope the picture shows up below). There mentioned that Majapahit has 2048 layers and Sedayu has 4098 layers, both with the highest amount of iron compared to other tangguhs. It intrigued me to ask him whether such high number of folds partly responsible to the amazing pulen look of Sedayu, so people often indicates Sedayu by such look? He said may be.
I then asked whether he can produce the same look by using similar folding with as close iron type as possible? His answer was No. Not only the failure rate is high, he can not produce the look because pulen has antiquity character. He said "niku mung ngentek-enteki wesi mawon" (it's a waste of iron) yet produce the same look and feel as 256 layers.

Your thought?