Indonesian pedang for identification

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Gustav, that 575 picture is very similar.

A rudus Detlef? Just looked it up, seems its got a plethora of names, actually there is Javanese thing that has a blade like this too, but all the hilts I've seen on the Jawa ones are different to the hilt on this one.

Thing is this:- these blades don't just stay in one place, they move all over the entire region. I often feel that attaching a geographic location as point of manufacture is a little bit silly. Maybe the idea of "collected in" is a better way to describe things, or for stuff bought well outside the region where there are reliable examples from somewhere or other it could be "attributed to".

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Yes Gustav, that 575 picture is very similar.

Agreed!

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

A rudus Detlef? Just looked it up, seems its got a plethora of names, actually there is Javanese thing that has a blade like this too, but all the hilts I've seen on the Jawa ones are different to the hilt on this one.

Have a look to van Zonneveld's book on page 115 and for co jang at page 40.

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Thing is this:- these blades don't just stay in one place, they move all over the entire region. I often feel that attaching a geographic location as point of manufacture is a little bit silly. Maybe the idea of "collected in" is a better way to describe things, or for stuff bought well outside the region where there are reliable examples from somewhere or other it could be "attributed to".

Agree again with you Alan!

Regards,
Detlef

[kai]

Hello Alan,

Thing is this:- these blades don't just stay in one place, they move all over the entire region. I often feel that attaching a geographic location as point of manufacture is a little bit silly. Maybe the idea of "collected in" is a better way to describe things, or for stuff bought well outside the region where there are reliable examples from somewhere or other it could be "attributed to".

It is certainly advisable to be cautious with narrowing down the origin of pieces, especially if there are indications of mixed heritage.

It is well-known that blades or complete pieces got traded all over maritime SE Asia or got gifted between rulers. A good example may be the Aceh sikin panjang observed by Schmeltz in Banjarmasin.

However, whenever it seems possible to specifically place the blade and the hilt (as well as possibly any extant scabbard) to the same originating culture (and to reasonably exclude any other contenders), it seems a moot point not to address a piece as belonging to a given place/culture/period. (If component parts of any example can be attributed to different origins, it also seems preferable to discuss each in detail.)

In my humble opinion, neither the blade nor the hilt of this sword are from Sumatra. Both fit well with examples I believe to be indigenuous to Sulawesi. If pressed, I'd posit this could be from the SE areas; more research (and data from this blade) will be needed to corroborate this notion though.

Regards,
Kai

[A. G. Maisey]

Kai, as I wrote in my original post:-

This sort of broad, general weaponry is a bit outside my knowledge base, so what I'm putting up for consideration cannot be taken as any sort of expert opinion, only general knowledge based on experience.

There is a Batak sword like this that has a hollow grind --- ie, concave blade face --- it has a name something like rudos, or rodos or similar. Over the years I've had several, and quality and detail varies a lot.

This style of bifurcated hilt is usually associated with Sumatra, lots of stylistic variations, but in other places, including Sulawesi it is somewhere between rare and non-existent.

Forgive me.

I am old, I am tired, and I am sick to my guts as what I personally see as a rather ill-informed and unrealistic expectation that everything in the field of S.E. Asian material culture can be labelled and classified using information that is so incomplete and erroneous as to be laughable.

It would please me greatly if collectors and students in our particular field of study would cease the patently unrealistic and adopt a more measured approach.

In places where we can get half a dozen different names for the same object by going to half a dozen different houses a few kilometers apart, how wise is it to be too definite about anything?

We all know that material objects --- not just weapons, but all sorts of manufactured items --- move all over the region and have done so for more than a 1000 years.

Yes, it is in the nature of man to want to label things, but it would perhaps be more acceptable if we used attributions, or references, for instance :-

"A gizmo, collected 1995 Kaba-Kaba, Bali, Indonesia, location of origin:- attributed to Karanganyar, Jawa Tengah, circa 1893 (after Sutrisno)"

with this type of approach we say where we acquired the thing, we say where we think it might be from, we say what period we think it might be from, and we give the reference for our label:- Sutrisno.

There is a very nice little quote that I think is attributed to Lao Tzu:-

"The wise seem confused, knowing the imperfection of their understanding"

[A. G. Maisey]

Kai, I used the word "consideration".

In other words:- "think about this"

You, in your wisdom, and from your broad base of experience have been able say that without the slightest shadow of a doubt, this insignificant little piece of carved horn could not possibly have come from Sumatera.

I absolutely accept that this is your opinion.

I am not pushing any opinion at all on this item of Detlef's.

Please do not confuse keris in general with other items of material culture from S.E. Asia, such as tools & weapons. We cannot even mix keris with other items of tosan aji.

[kai]

Hello Alan,

You, in your wisdom, and from your broad base of experience have been able say that without the slightest shadow of a doubt, this insignificant little piece of carved horn could not possibly have come from Sumatera.

Please check back what I have been positing - I don't think your summary reflects what I actually wrote.

I don't think we need to have a debate here: I believe we talk about swords, not personalities.

Regards,
Kai

[kai]

Hello Alan,

I am old, I am tired, and I am sick to my guts as what I personally see as a rather ill-informed and unrealistic expectation that everything in the field of S.E. Asian material culture can be labelled and classified using information that is so incomplete and erroneous as to be laughable.

I agree that the name game often is a rather futile exercise. If you check, you'll note that I tend to be quite cautious with applying names, too. (In other threads - in this thread I haven't suggested any name for the sword being discussed...)

In places where we can get half a dozen different names for the same object by going to half a dozen different houses a few kilometers apart, how wise is it to be too definite about anything?

This is a non-sequitur: The name game may be futile but it doesn't follow that there can't be any discernible and reliable cultural differences.

I see where you’re coming from and the value in being cautious with attributions. My suggestion may eventually prove to be wrong. However, without putting out hypotheses for testing, learning will tend to be pretty slow.

For me, this sword (both, its blade and hilt) exhibits features that suggest an origin on Sulawesi. Granted, with this piece, it is more of a maximum likelihood approach rather than being able to offer absolute proof. Nor do i have the time to submit a thorough thesis which may convince more sceptic folks. I'm confident with my (if this helps: tentative) assessment though.

"A gizmo, collected 1995 Kaba-Kaba, Bali, Indonesia, location of origin:- attributed to Karanganyar, Jawa Tengah, circa 1893 (after Sutrisno)"

with this type of approach we say where we acquired the thing, we say where we think it might be from, we say what period we think it might be from, and we give the reference for our label:- Sutrisno.

Actually, that's pretty much what I did (without formally citing myself) if you care to check above. So, let me rephrase if this sounds any better:

A sword, collected 2019(?) by Detlef on ePray(?); origin of blade and hilt: attributed to Sulawesi, Indonesia (possibly East to southeastern regions including Buton, probably 19th century (after Kai 2019: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?p=241571); a resembling piece with more strongly curved hilt attributed to Tanimbar by Karel Sirag (in AvZ 2001: Fig. 575).

Regards,
Kai

[A. G. Maisey]

Kai, before writing my post #20 I did check back through all your posts to this thread, and I am of the opinion that what I have written in post #20 does indeed reflect what you have written in your earlier posts.

If you are referring to my Post #19 as my "summary", well, that is something I have felt like writing for a long time, it could as easily have appeared in any one of several hundred threads in this Forum, it just happened to surface in this one. Probably because I get more & more short tempered with every passing day.

So it seems that you are writing one thing, and I am reading something different.

But then, if I read what you have written:-

I don't think we need to have a debate here: I believe we talk about swords, not personalities.

It appears to be obvious to me that you are not reading that which I have written.

From my perspective I am not involved in any debate:- how could I be? I have not put forward any opinion, merely a suggestion for consideration by those who appear to know more than I do in this particular field.

As for names, of course you have not suggested any name for the item under discussion, and I have not commented that you have.

Yes, we are talking about tools and swords and other sharp pointy things, I can detect no shadow of comment on anybody's personality. I have complimented you, true, but that compliment is hardly discussion of personality.

If my compliments in any way disconcert or embarrass you, I most humbly apologise for causing you any discomfort.

I will make this one last point:-

Unless a person has dedicated a considerable part of his life to the study of certain aspects of a society it is not possible for that person to claim that a particular object originates from that society, nor that it bears a particular name within that society.

Those who engage in such study, frequently dedicate a considerable part of their life to actually living in the society under enquiry. A good example of this is the way in which many noted anthropologists have carried out their enquiries.

Thus, for those who are not a part of the target society and who wish to place any item within such society and its geographic location, and to name it in accordance with the accepted usage in the society of origin, that person needs to rely upon statistical sampling.

The samples used can be drawn from published works, or from reliably authenticated examples of the item under enquiry, such examples could perhaps be provided by museums and other public institutions.

In the case of maritime South East Asia the nature of the region, the variation in languages, the philosophy of language structure, and the well documented and lengthy trade links throughout the region make the verification of geographic point of origin, name, and meaning of a name very difficult to verify.

The objective of reasonable accuracy is further complicated by unreliability of the data base upon which any statistical sampling must rely. There are other difficulties in applying statistical sampling to this matter also, difficulties relating to the numbers of objects involved in the study and the variation applicable.

If what I have written above can be accepted as accurate, it follows that many, if not most opinions in respect of the identification for objects of material culture from Maritime South East Asia need to be qualified. Perhaps in some cases, heavily qualified.