strange javanese

BluErf · 9th December 2007, 05:36 AM

Yap, its a "ganja hilang".

Lost its ganja. Sheath's not original too and probably lost one of its dauns.

Henk · 9th December 2007, 08:54 AM

Just like BluErf said. Gonjo is lost. Such a wavy gonjo is not uncommon, but I agree with you most gonjo's are straight.
Pamorless? I think the blade needs a cleaning and staining.

ganjawulung · 9th December 2007, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henk

Just like BluErf said. Gonjo is lost. Such a wavy gonjo is not uncommon, but I agree with you most gonjo's are straight.
Pamorless? I think the blade needs a cleaning and staining.

Agree too. The gonja's lost. It seems a good blade, probably with 5 luks of dhapur "pandawa lare" (five luks, with sekar kacang). It missed the "gonja wilut" (type of gonja with luks). If it is "pendawa lare", then it should have "greneng" in the end of the gonja...

I hope you won't throw the good blade away...

Ganjawulung

A. G. Maisey · 9th December 2007, 09:10 PM

Looks as if everybody is in agreement that the gonjo of this blade is missing.

Please accept my apologies for being a disagreeable old man.

From what I can see in the photo the form and proportion of the sorsoran is not as I would expect it if the gonjo were to be missing, additionally I have in the past owned a couple of blades that were similar to this one that were gonjo iras, not gonjo hilang.

Before I agree with everybody else, would it be possible to remove the hilt and let us have a look at the pesi, especially that part of the pesi which is close to the gonjo?

Alam Shah · 9th December 2007, 11:29 PM

It looks's like ganja iras to me too...

There seems to be a pejetan, (the depression on the blade where the blade is held between the thumb and the fore-finger), which suggest that there is a (sort of) demarkation of the blade and from the ganja iras...

... more like 'ganja siluman'

(term... does not exist)... you can see the ganja from the gandik side after that it fade into the blade, looking at the ganja profile and the pesi as Alan suggest to make it more definite.

Boedhi Adhitya · 10th December 2007, 12:42 AM

Well, I must agree with Pak Alan and Alam Shah, since the proportion of the sor-soran seems O.K. While it is not usual to have a ganja iras in kelap lintah, it is certainly possible. Not so 'unusual', I believe.

If the ganja was missing, then the pejetan/blumbangan will go acros the bottom end of the blade, making the neck of the ganja ('gulu meled') very thin if we see it from the cross-section view. If the pejetan deep enough then nothing we can do but to put a new ganja. 'Deep enough' in this case is simply an ordinary, well-defined pejetan. The part of pesi/tang which immediately connected to the base of the blade (where the ganja once resided) would be swollen/larger a bit, as it must have a snug-fitting to the ganja's hole. It was also protected by the ganja, so it might have the least worn-out compared to the rest of the pesi, and even more, to the rest of the blade.

Your blade, Mandaukudi, seems to have an appropriate size of gulu meled (neck). I bet for it, but would be better to see it from the top (or bottom?)/ cross-section view.

A. G. Maisey · 10th December 2007, 03:18 AM

Pak Ganja, you could well be right, however, we do need more images of this blade before we can be too certain of anything. I think I can see a distinct blumbangan, where the palemahan gradually rises up to the gonjo. If the gonjo were missing the palemahan would continue without a rise and give a sharp fall from the tampingan. If we had an image of the top of the gonjo, looking straight down onto it, we could see if we were looking at a gonjo, or at the end of a blade that had lost its gonjo. Similarly, if we had a nice clear close-up of the pesi where it enters the gonjo we would possibly be able to see evidence of a lost gonjo.

In respect of proportion, we need to understand the various proportions that can be correct for a blade. I agree with you totally, using the blade patterns that you have provided for comparison, the wadidang is far too short in the blade under discussion, however, your examples are one type of blade, the one we are discussing is a different type of blade.

The same proportions are not always correct for all blade styles.In fact, it is fairly usual for any gonjo iras blade to have a shorter wadidang than the wadidang to be found in a keris fitted with a gonjo. This is to a large degree unavoidable, because to forge the wadidang of a gonjo iras blade to the same length as the wadidang of a blade fitted with a gonjo, is very, very difficult; you need to increase the amount of material that you can forge out to form the wadidang to an unusual thickness, and this creates considerable difficulty in forging.To assess correctness or otherwise of proportion you need to look not just a part of the blade, but at the entire blade. Then of course, we need to consider the level of skill of the maker.

In any case, what we really need is more information. Then we might be able to be a little bit definite.

ganjawulung · 10th December 2007, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boedhi Adhitya

Well, I must agree with Pak Alan and Alam Shah, since the proportion of the sor-soran seems O.K. While it is not usual to have a ganja iras in kelap lintah, it is certainly possible. Not so 'unusual', I believe.

Dear Mas Boedhi,

Ganja "kelap lintah", or "wilut"? Or both are the same? These pictures are from Mr Bambang Harsri...

Ganjawulung

Mytribalworld · 11th January 2008, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boedhi Adhitya

Well, I must agree with Pak Alan and Alam Shah, since the proportion of the sor-soran seems O.K. While it is not usual to have a ganja iras in kelap lintah, it is certainly possible. Not so 'unusual', I believe.

If the ganja was missing, then the pejetan/blumbangan will go acros the bottom end of the blade, making the neck of the ganja ('gulu meled') very thin if we see it from the cross-section view. If the pejetan deep enough then nothing we can do but to put a new ganja. 'Deep enough' in this case is simply an ordinary, well-defined pejetan. The part of pesi/tang which immediately connected to the base of the blade (where the ganja once resided) would be swollen/larger a bit, as it must have a snug-fitting to the ganja's hole. It was also protected by the ganja, so it might have the least worn-out compared to the rest of the pesi, and even more, to the rest of the blade.

Your blade, Mandaukudi, seems to have an appropriate size of gulu meled (neck). I bet for it, but would be better to see it from the top (or bottom?)/ cross-section view.

After some trouble with our local customs ( that should be a thread worth on his own) the keris has arrived.
Strange object and the worse nightmare too see how "someone" has tried to glue the wranka , one thick bunch of hardened glue in there.
the wranka is not the original, or maybe worse, It seems that someone tried to file out the hole because with a those glue it didn't fit quite well!!!!

Silverwork sarong totallt destroyed by the "restore-expert:

The blade seems to me , but I'm no expert, no "missing ganja" type.
there's no thick lower part of the peksi and the patina shows good on the end of the blade.

It good be a compilated piece but why did they leave the pure gold mendak with semi-precious stones on it?

sorry for the bad pics I will try to make better ones.

ganjawulung · 10th December 2007, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Looks as if everybody is in agreement that the gonjo of this blade is missing.

Please accept my apologies for being a disagreeable old man.

From what I can see in the photo the form and proportion of the sorsoran is not as I would expect it if the gonjo were to be missing, additionally I have in the past owned a couple of blades that were similar to this one that were gonjo iras, not gonjo hilang.

Before I agree with everybody else, would it be possible to remove the hilt and let us have a look at the pesi, especially that part of the pesi which is close to the gonjo?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alam Shah

It looks's like ganja iras to me too...

There seems to be a pejetan, (the depression on the blade where the blade is held between the thumb and the fore-finger), which suggest that there is a (sort of) demarkation of the blade and from the ganja iras...

... more like 'ganja siluman'

(term... does not exist)... you can see the ganja from the gandik side after that it fade into the blade, looking at the ganja profile and the pesi as Alan suggest to make it more definite.

(1) The form of wadidang (the tail) is too short to be an iras type. Please compare to these pictures of five luks with sekar kacang, though not iras type, nor wilut type of ganja. And also the wilut type of 7 luks keris. Pls regard the proportion of the tail and also the gandhik. (2) The form of the wadidang's curve, seems like the end of a tail. (3) Five luks, iras tipe with no greneng? What should you call the dapur then? (4) The dubious one is the "blumbangan" or "pejetan". Is it original? One of the clue answer is here, I think...

Ganjawulung

9th December 2007, 05:36 AM	#1
BluErf Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,180	Yap, its a "ganja hilang". Lost its ganja. Sheath's not original too and probably lost one of its dauns.

9th December 2007, 08:54 AM	#2
Henk Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 1,209	Just like BluErf said. Gonjo is lost. Such a wavy gonjo is not uncommon, but I agree with you most gonjo's are straight. Pamorless? I think the blade needs a cleaning and staining.

9th December 2007, 09:10 PM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,015	Looks as if everybody is in agreement that the gonjo of this blade is missing. Please accept my apologies for being a disagreeable old man. From what I can see in the photo the form and proportion of the sorsoran is not as I would expect it if the gonjo were to be missing, additionally I have in the past owned a couple of blades that were similar to this one that were gonjo iras, not gonjo hilang. Before I agree with everybody else, would it be possible to remove the hilt and let us have a look at the pesi, especially that part of the pesi which is close to the gonjo?

9th December 2007, 11:29 PM	#5
Alam Shah Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,248	It looks's like ganja iras to me too... There seems to be a pejetan, (the depression on the blade where the blade is held between the thumb and the fore-finger), which suggest that there is a (sort of) demarkation of the blade and from the ganja iras... ... more like 'ganja siluman' (term... does not exist)... you can see the ganja from the gandik side after that it fade into the blade, looking at the ganja profile and the pesi as Alan suggest to make it more definite.

10th December 2007, 12:42 AM	#6
Boedhi Adhitya Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 103	Well, I must agree with Pak Alan and Alam Shah, since the proportion of the sor-soran seems O.K. While it is not usual to have a ganja iras in kelap lintah, it is certainly possible. Not so 'unusual', I believe. If the ganja was missing, then the pejetan/blumbangan will go acros the bottom end of the blade, making the neck of the ganja ('gulu meled') very thin if we see it from the cross-section view. If the pejetan deep enough then nothing we can do but to put a new ganja. 'Deep enough' in this case is simply an ordinary, well-defined pejetan. The part of pesi/tang which immediately connected to the base of the blade (where the ganja once resided) would be swollen/larger a bit, as it must have a snug-fitting to the ganja's hole. It was also protected by the ganja, so it might have the least worn-out compared to the rest of the pesi, and even more, to the rest of the blade. Your blade, Mandaukudi, seems to have an appropriate size of gulu meled (neck). I bet for it, but would be better to see it from the top (or bottom?)/ cross-section view.

10th December 2007, 03:18 AM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,015	Pak Ganja, you could well be right, however, we do need more images of this blade before we can be too certain of anything. I think I can see a distinct blumbangan, where the palemahan gradually rises up to the gonjo. If the gonjo were missing the palemahan would continue without a rise and give a sharp fall from the tampingan. If we had an image of the top of the gonjo, looking straight down onto it, we could see if we were looking at a gonjo, or at the end of a blade that had lost its gonjo. Similarly, if we had a nice clear close-up of the pesi where it enters the gonjo we would possibly be able to see evidence of a lost gonjo. In respect of proportion, we need to understand the various proportions that can be correct for a blade. I agree with you totally, using the blade patterns that you have provided for comparison, the wadidang is far too short in the blade under discussion, however, your examples are one type of blade, the one we are discussing is a different type of blade. The same proportions are not always correct for all blade styles.In fact, it is fairly usual for any gonjo iras blade to have a shorter wadidang than the wadidang to be found in a keris fitted with a gonjo. This is to a large degree unavoidable, because to forge the wadidang of a gonjo iras blade to the same length as the wadidang of a blade fitted with a gonjo, is very, very difficult; you need to increase the amount of material that you can forge out to form the wadidang to an unusual thickness, and this creates considerable difficulty in forging.To assess correctness or otherwise of proportion you need to look not just a part of the blade, but at the entire blade. Then of course, we need to consider the level of skill of the maker. In any case, what we really need is more information. Then we might be able to be a little bit definite.