Between Solo and Yogya

ganjawulung · 16th July 2007, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

I rather suspect that this blade could be something re-manufactured from a pedang blade, specifically for use in its original fittings.

Dear Alan,
Someday, if we'll meet I'll bring it to you. But I don't think it is a remanufacture. I am quite sure for that. You may see from the slorok -- that is not a (thick) slorok of a normal pedang. The slorok is as thin as keris slorok. It was regarded by many of my keris friend from Solo, Yogya, and according to them, it is "asli" (not fake or remake...)

The style of pamor -- is typically Mataram. (It is not possible to describe it by words), also the iron. A couple of "akhodiyat" (glitter pamor) in the beras wutah. But quite sure, that the metal material was especially made for such form of weapon. You may loop with your magnifying glass...

Anyway, thanks for your kind attention

Ganjawulung

ganjawulung · 16th July 2007, 08:33 AM

These are more pictures on keris sheaths made of "trembalo" wood, with different chatoyance. One Yogya gayaman with old silver pendhok, "bunton" type with "alas-alasan" motive (forest motive). And the other one is keris sheath, iras (one piece of wood) Yogya gayaman -- with brass pendhok, slewah or blewahan type.

Ganjawulung

A. G. Maisey · 16th July 2007, 08:59 AM

Pak Ganja, you have it in your hand, I do not, if you say it is asli, then it is asli.

However, it is a non-typical form, it is long rather than short, of light cross section, and it has a flat tang. In my experience, this type of blade is very likely to be re-manufactured. It is a waste of time looking at it to try to guess if it has been re-manufactured or not, it could have been done over 100 years ago, re-forged, cut and then reforged again.Let me start with a normal pedang suduk,and I could produce this blade , including the apparently thin slorok, myself.

But let me put it another way:- if came across this blade in the market place, I would assume it was re-manufactured and the price I paid for it would be based on that assumption.

Still, if you are convinced it is asli, then I bow to the wisdom of your judgement.

PenangsangII · 16th July 2007, 03:28 PM

Pak Ganja,

The type of weapon called "cis" you mentioned was as you said tangguh Mataram. May I ask who normally used it in the past - whether he was king, courtiers, Pangerans, Palace guards etc? How it was worn as definitely the bearer must also wear at least a keris?

ganjawulung · 16th July 2007, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PenangsangII

The type of weapon called "cis" you mentioned was as you said tangguh Mataram. May I ask who normally used it in the past - whether he was king, courtiers, Pangerans, Palace guards etc? How it was worn as definitely the bearer must also wear at least a keris?

Dear Penangsang,
Just call it, "tempius" -- because the form is resemble to that of Lombok weapon. And I dare not to say that it has tangguh Mataram. But the pamor and the iron, is the kind of keris's iron and pamor of tangguh Mataram.

What I had found, after visited the "Gedong Pusaka" (Room of Pusaka) of Keraton (Palace) Solo before it was destroyed by fire in 1985, I saw that the keraton had quite a number of uncommon forms of weapon with pamor. Such as, handful dagger (Pangeran Puger -- the Chief of Gedong Pusaka -- said, it was usually used as kind of secret weapon by the palace guard). Mr Mans (Hidayat) had shown us too, an uncommon weapon of "jantra" (arrows) in another thread a couple days ago. I also saw that the tip of the karaton (palace) umbrella had a tip of secret spear too. It is called as "menur" (usually without pamor, pointed point). It would be used by the king in the emergency situation. And also, secret weapon in the walking stick of kings. I hope this kind of 'Javanese tempius' is a such weapon...

Ganjawulung

A. G. Maisey · 17th July 2007, 12:45 AM

Pak Ganja, I beg your forgiveness because of my continuing pursuit of this trivial matter. I myself have often taken the position that in respect of South East Asian weaponry, names of the weapons, and for that matter other things, are not particularly important, because of the indisputable fact that names change from area to area, town to town, and village to village.

However, if we accept that this blade, which you originally described as a "cis", is indeed an old weapon, that was forged in its present mechanically inadequate form from the outset, and that we feel it may be appropriate to attribute it to Lombok as a "tempius", then let us look at what Pak Djelengga says about the tempius:-

"--- the form of the blade is round or square,there are also (ones) like a blimbing which have three corners (edges), four , or many corners (edges).---"

Pak Djelengga does not say that a tempius can have a flat blade with two edges, nor an ovoid blade; he is quite clear:- a tempius may have a round blade, or a blade with three or more edges.

Therefore, just as you have so wisely disqualified this "cis" as a "sendirung", because it has no metuk, I feel we must also disqualify it as a "tempius", because it has a blade of incorrect cross section.

Thus, we are left with a longish blade of light construction with a flat tang , not designed to withstand side pressures. This blade is made from old material , and it came in an old, broken , walking stick.

Please understand, I am not challenging the knowledge and judgement of either you, or your friends, when you tell us that this piece of wesi aji is without doubt in the form in which it was originally forged. I am certain that both you and your friends could mount an extremely convincing argument, possibly complete with evidence, that would dispel all doubt in respect of the correctness of your individual and joint opinions. So, if you say that this blade is original in all respects I accept without reservation that this is your opinion.

Equally, I accept that it might be difficult to prove that this exquisite piece of wesi aji never occupied a place of honour in the walking stick of a ruler. So since we cannot disprove this proposal, let us all accept it as a possibility.

I must say, this approach to the study the Javanese culture and its weaponry is certainly more interesting than the humourless pursuit of facts.

After all, what are facts?

Only those things that most people believe.

And we all know that the vast majority of people are easily led.

16th July 2007, 08:33 AM	#2
ganjawulung Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: J a k a r t a Posts: 991	Trembalo These are more pictures on keris sheaths made of "trembalo" wood, with different chatoyance. One Yogya gayaman with old silver pendhok, "bunton" type with "alas-alasan" motive (forest motive). And the other one is keris sheath, iras (one piece of wood) Yogya gayaman -- with brass pendhok, slewah or blewahan type. Ganjawulung Attached Images

16th July 2007, 08:59 AM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,988	Pak Ganja, you have it in your hand, I do not, if you say it is asli, then it is asli. However, it is a non-typical form, it is long rather than short, of light cross section, and it has a flat tang. In my experience, this type of blade is very likely to be re-manufactured. It is a waste of time looking at it to try to guess if it has been re-manufactured or not, it could have been done over 100 years ago, re-forged, cut and then reforged again.Let me start with a normal pedang suduk,and I could produce this blade , including the apparently thin slorok, myself. But let me put it another way:- if came across this blade in the market place, I would assume it was re-manufactured and the price I paid for it would be based on that assumption. Still, if you are convinced it is asli, then I bow to the wisdom of your judgement.

16th July 2007, 03:28 PM	#4
PenangsangII Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 401	Pak Ganja, The type of weapon called "cis" you mentioned was as you said tangguh Mataram. May I ask who normally used it in the past - whether he was king, courtiers, Pangerans, Palace guards etc? How it was worn as definitely the bearer must also wear at least a keris?

17th July 2007, 12:45 AM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,988	Pak Ganja, I beg your forgiveness because of my continuing pursuit of this trivial matter. I myself have often taken the position that in respect of South East Asian weaponry, names of the weapons, and for that matter other things, are not particularly important, because of the indisputable fact that names change from area to area, town to town, and village to village. However, if we accept that this blade, which you originally described as a "cis", is indeed an old weapon, that was forged in its present mechanically inadequate form from the outset, and that we feel it may be appropriate to attribute it to Lombok as a "tempius", then let us look at what Pak Djelengga says about the tempius:- "--- the form of the blade is round or square,there are also (ones) like a blimbing which have three corners (edges), four , or many corners (edges).---" Pak Djelengga does not say that a tempius can have a flat blade with two edges, nor an ovoid blade; he is quite clear:- a tempius may have a round blade, or a blade with three or more edges. Therefore, just as you have so wisely disqualified this "cis" as a "sendirung", because it has no metuk, I feel we must also disqualify it as a "tempius", because it has a blade of incorrect cross section. Thus, we are left with a longish blade of light construction with a flat tang , not designed to withstand side pressures. This blade is made from old material , and it came in an old, broken , walking stick. Please understand, I am not challenging the knowledge and judgement of either you, or your friends, when you tell us that this piece of wesi aji is without doubt in the form in which it was originally forged. I am certain that both you and your friends could mount an extremely convincing argument, possibly complete with evidence, that would dispel all doubt in respect of the correctness of your individual and joint opinions. So, if you say that this blade is original in all respects I accept without reservation that this is your opinion. Equally, I accept that it might be difficult to prove that this exquisite piece of wesi aji never occupied a place of honour in the walking stick of a ruler. So since we cannot disprove this proposal, let us all accept it as a possibility. I must say, this approach to the study the Javanese culture and its weaponry is certainly more interesting than the humourless pursuit of facts. After all, what are facts? Only those things that most people believe. And we all know that the vast majority of people are easily led.