ID for Ancient Kujang / Kudi? Hindu /Siam/Persian influence?

doecon · 9th May 2006, 02:01 PM

See below for pics.

Found recently eastern java. Roughly a 1000 yrs old (with a 300 yr margin) Blade 8” and tang 4”. Tang is square, like early Keris Budha (if you have one pls do add your picture for reference to compare tang). The shape seems to be complete, but the tip might have been broken off. Looks like a farming tool, but it seems not useful for harvesting rice (add a handle to it and it becomes a to long to reach, plus the blade is somewhat heavy)

Have seen slightly similar shapes in some Durga Mahisasuramardini statues (9th 10th century mid/east java). The most nearest example however is in the in the relief of sukuh (see below). The sukuh example seems to be a more sophisticated blade, so maybe this is the more earlier and primitive version. Looking for some clues, maybe similar shaped blades in other region and/or more recent “cousins” of this blade. Any opinion or comment welcome. See below for additional pics.

doecon · 9th May 2006, 02:04 PM

oops, forget the sukuh relief

Andrew · 9th May 2006, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doecon

See below for pics.

Found recently eastern java. Roughly a 1000 yrs old (with a 300 yr margin) Blade 8” and tang 4”. Tang is square, like early Keris Budha (if you have one pls do add your picture for reference to compare tang). The shape seems to be complete, but the tip might have been broken off. Looks like a farming tool, but it seems not useful for harvesting rice (add a handle to it and it becomes a to long to reach, plus the blade is somewhat heavy)

Have seen slightly similar shapes in some Durga Mahisasuramardini statues (9th 10th century mid/east java). The most nearest example however is in the in the relief of sukuh (see below). The sukuh example seems to be a more sophisticated blade, so maybe this is the more earlier and primitive version. Looking for some clues, maybe similar shaped blades in other region and/or more recent “cousins” of this blade. Any opinion or comment welcome. See below for additional pics.

Very interesting. How do you know this is 1000 years old? Do you intend to sell this?

doecon · 9th May 2006, 02:43 PM

It is indeed intresting. As mentioned I roughtly estimated it somewhere between 7th and 13th century. As far as I know the details on the tang havent been seen/made like this since the 14th century. As mentioned the "cousin" in the relief above looks already more sophisticated. So its clearl before 14th c, unfortunatly I dont have further refference to close in a more exact timeframe.

I think I'll keep this piece for a while, so its not for sale

Battara · 9th May 2006, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew

Very interesting. How do you know this is 1000 years old?

I understand Andrew's question. They have been making some of the same style and type of pieces for centuries without much alteration (if any at all). I agree the style and type is the same, but is this actual piece 1000 years old or so (rust not with standing since something 20 years in acid soil would look the same)?

ariel · 9th May 2006, 10:10 PM

What's hanging between the legs of the leftmost figure?
A kora?
Can't see any elephant features (as in the middle one) to suspect a trunk, and it is a bit too optimistic(?) for anything else...

doecon · 9th May 2006, 10:18 PM

As far as I know there is no modern version around (here), so it couldnt have been put in acid for 20 years. I think there is enough pictures already to show that its indeed an old piece. (No need also to put something in acid for 20 years if nobody knows what it is right?)

But if you know a modern version then please share it with us, I'm seriously intrested. In case you know examples that have been around for century's, then please indicate where (with link if posible).

doecon · 9th May 2006, 10:23 PM

Ariel, the relief is indeed near so called "fertility" cult place

Check : Candi Sukuh, Mount Lawu, Java for more optimistic details.

ariel · 9th May 2006, 10:29 PM

They certainly have an exaggerated opinion about their accoutrements.
As to the original one, this is the first "Dhu-l-Fiqar" phallus in medical history...

doecon · 9th May 2006, 11:10 PM

Thanks for your opinion on the shape of the phallus

But I'm actually more intrested in the shape of the blade..Any persian relatives ?

Andrew · 10th May 2006, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doecon

As far as I know there is no modern version around (here), so it couldnt have been put in acid for 20 years.

I disagree. This defies logic. Because you are unaware of any modern version certainly does not mean one (or many) do not exist.

Quote:

I think there is enough pictures already to show that its indeed an old piece.

In my opinion, pictures alone are insufficient to use in determining the age of any artifact.

Quote:

(No need also to put something in acid for 20 years if nobody knows what it is right?)

I'm not sure what you mean, doecon. Is this an otherwise unknown form? In any event, I think Battara was suggesting that even an innocent exposure to an acidic environment could make an iron item look quite old.

Quote:

But if you know a modern version then please share it with us, I'm seriously intrested. In case you know examples that have been around for century's, then please indicate where (with link if posible).

Personally, my skepticism arises from the extreme rarity of 1000 year old weapons, rather than the existence (or non-existence) of contemporary examples. Further, we have all seen and handled objects in similar condition which have been artificially aged.

You've definitely given me some support for your position that the form is ancient but, I'm afraid that, without some solid provenance, I will continue to be a skeptic as to the age of this particular item.

B.I · 10th May 2006, 12:52 AM

hi,
i agree with a lot of what andrew says, although i think 'solid provenance' could be asking too much. maybe a more convincing arguement is what is needed.
i seem to recall a relatively recent thread on artificially aged keris (i think). i found this fascinating as i know virtually nothing about this culture, and the forum members here posted a few generic examples which had been aged to decieve, and so it was very informative. all of these examples had this greyish patina from the acid used.
in my ignorance of the subject, this seems to have a similar patina.
i dont have a problem with whether 'ancient' or antique weapons were reproduced, even unknown forms such as this apparantly is.
with the advent of the internet, weapon collecting has become more popular and easier to aquire (not only do you not need to leave your country, but you dont even have to leave your armchair anymore). so much so, there has been a steady increase of fakes and forgeries and a photograph can hide a multitude of lies. there is no point making a fake that is well known and will be spotted straight away, a point that seems to have gone past certain chinese ebay sellers.
i am not saying that this is the case here, but it seems that because of this increase in fraudulant pieces, the ability to assume has now gone and the pressure is on to prove authenticity past a personal opinion.
i hope that doecon will take up the 'challenge' to substantiate his claims, as it will be a good learning curve for us involved in other cultures (you know, the ones quite low down on the recent poll!

)
however, we are a suspicious lot and it will have to be more convincing than what's already been stated

Rick · 10th May 2006, 01:41 AM

I have a very hard time believing that a thousand year old piece could survive in the soil of Jawa that long without disintegrating .

A. G. Maisey · 10th May 2006, 02:04 AM

The object referred for comment by Doecon has a strong probability to be archaic.

I possess a number of similar objects, and archaic Javanese forge work has been something of particular interest to me for many years.

I have seen groups of these objects fresh from excavation, rusted into a single inseparable mass, I have also seen, handled, and acquired a number of others.

Although these objects are relatively scarce, in the market place they have a comparatively low value, and as such are not worthwhile the attention of forgers.

No current tools or weapons are made of similar form nor material.

The texture, colour and general presentation of the iron in the item shown in the photo appears to be correct for this class of archaic object.

The Candi Sukuh stele is possibly the most famous single piece of Javanese sculpture.
Some years ago --possibly ten or fifteen years--- it was transported to the USA for exhibition.
The figures shown in the Sukuh stele have been subjected to varying interpretations; the central figure has been intrepreted as a representation of Ganesha, but it could also be a sangkala ( a figural date able to be translated in accordance with the Javanese numerical system), if it is a sangkala it could be given as "gajah wiku anahut buntut :elephant monk hold animal=1378jav., 1456AD). The two other figures in the stele are noblemen, and could be representations of descendants of gods. The man on the left side is at an anvil, and on this anvil is a keris (this of course cannot be seen in the photo); the man on the right side is working bellows (ububan).

The relief carvings in the Candi Sukuh precinct carry many representations of objects similar to that referred by Doecon.

Over the years I have visited Candi Sukuh perhaps more than 100 times, as it is quite close to my residence when I am in Jawa.

Candi Sukuh is a holy place, and levity of any form should not be used in connection with anything at all connected with this place.

Pangeran Datu · 10th May 2006, 02:24 AM

Hi All,
This may help the quest for information. IMVHO, Kujang and Kudi have similar shapes, but the kujang is mainly a cut-n-thrust implement,while the kudi is a tombak or short throwing spear. The Kudi is a traditonal implement found mainly on Java and Madura, while the Kujang is a traditional implement peculiar to the Sunda people of West Java ( mainly in the area known as Parahyangan). I believe that the Kujang was first produced circa 13-14C., during the Pajajaran kingdom. With regard to the tang, I must admit that in my very limited experience, I've only ever seen round ones on old pieces ( new ones tend to have rectangular ones). That is not to say , rectangular ones weren't used in old pieces

With respect to the piece in the picture, I have seen similar shapes in the following collections:

- Yayasan Pangeran Sumedang, Sumedang, West Java, Indonesia.

- Peninggalan Sejarah Sukapura, Tasikmalaya, West Java, Indonesia.

Hope it helps.

Andrew · 10th May 2006, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

The object referred for comment by Doecon has a strong probability to be archaic.

I possess a number of similar objects, and archaic Javanese forge work has been something of particular interest to me for many years.

I have seen groups of these objects fresh from excavation, rusted into a single inseparable mass, I have also seen, handled, and acquired a number of others.

Although these objects are relatively scarce, in the market place they have a comparatively low value, and as such are not worthwhile the attention of forgers.

No current tools or weapons are made of similar form nor material.

The texture, colour and general presentation of the iron in the item shown in the photo appears to be correct for this class of archaic object.

The Candi Sukuh stele is possibly the most famous single piece of Javanese sculpture.
Some years ago --possibly ten or fifteen years--- it was transported to the USA for exhibition.
The figures shown in the Sukuh stele have been subjected to varying interpretations; the central figure has been intrepreted as a representation of Ganesha, but it could also be a sangkala ( a figural date able to be translated in accordance with the Javanese numerical system), if it is a sangkala it could be given as "gajah wiku anahut buntut :elephant monk hold animal=1378jav., 1456AD). The two other figures in the stele are noblemen, and could be representations of descendants of gods. The man on the left side is at an anvil, and on this anvil is a keris (this of course cannot be seen in the photo); the man on the right side is working bellows (ububan).

The relief carvings in the Candi Sukuh precinct carry many representations of objects similar to that referred by Doecon.

Over the years I have visited Candi Sukuh perhaps more than 100 times, as it is quite close to my residence when I am in Jawa.

Candi Sukuh is a holy place, and levity of any form should not be used in connection with anything at all connected with this place.

I stand corrected.

nechesh · 10th May 2006, 04:49 AM

It is, of course, pure speculation, but i wonder if these impliments didn't have some kind of talismanic purpose in the act of forging or just in general. Obviously they are of some special significance or the carvers of the Candi Sukuh stele and other reliefs in the area wouldn't have bothered to include them in the reliefs. Alan, do you recall the context in which the other examples appear, i.e., are they also being held? In similar fashion?
Some competent photographer need to take a trip to Jawa and do a careful and detailed photographic study of these carvings. I will be accepting travel funding in all forms beginning immediately.

A. G. Maisey · 10th May 2006, 08:17 AM

When it is suspected that forgery and deception are rife in a particular area, it is very easy to assume that many things from that area are forged or falsified when in fact they are not. Particularly so when extreme is age is involved. In fact, there is very little actual forgery in the field of wesi aji. There is an enormous amount of misrepresentation, there is some falsification, but forgery per se is rare.
In the case of the object under discussion here, its market value is simply not sufficiently high for any forger to be even remotely interested in producing it.Additionally, the field of archaic Javanese iron implements is a very rareified field of study; there is to the best of my knowledge virtually nothing published that is of any assistance, it is not a very popular field for collection, even in Jawa. The only guide is experience, and because of the scarcity of these objects, that experience can take a very long time to accumulate.
It is perfectly understandable that somebody with no, or limited experience in this field could be misled into assuming that the object under discussion is not as it is represented.

David, I do not think that we can introduce talismanic connections for these implements. There are many everyday implements included in the Sukuh reliefs, and other Javanese reliefs at other sites. Just because something is depicted in a Candi relief does not make it special.

There are many reliefs at Candi Sukuh, the most notable is the Sudamala, but there are other reliefs as well, on columns and pillars.These objects are well distributed throughout the reliefs. I cannot recall precisely where and under what circumstances, but they have always struck me as objects that were essentially agricultural implements that could be put to use as a weapon, much the same as the arit has been employed in more recent times.My memory is that mostly they are held, but a few may be stuck into a belt or sash.
These objects probably appear in other old reliefs as well. Possibly a search of Prambanan and Panataran would provide examples, and they could well be found at other sites.
I have never regarded them as of particular interest , except for the fact that they are ancient. There are several different patterns, all clearly related. It is possible that they may originally have been known as "wedun(g)" , this being Old Javanese for a type of axe with a wide blade. This is pure hypothesis on my part.

I actually have many photographs of the Sukuh carvings, but looking at them will not reveal any secrets.

Some years ago a team from a major US university visited Candi Panataran and photographed everything. I also have photographs of most of the Panataran carvings, but the study of this type of thing is a very specialised field and the end result of any analysis is perhaps only of interest to academics specialising in this field.

doecon · 10th May 2006, 08:26 AM

Quote

“ No current tools or weapons are made of similar form nor material.

The texture, colour and general presentation of the iron in the item shown in the photo appears to be correct for this class of archaic object. “

Thank you A. G. Maisey

It saves a lot of time, not having to explain why it’s indeed an ancient object. (again I hope). I understand (some of) the skepticism on the board, but it’s a complete waste of energy to go trough “prove-that-this-is-real-procedure” , before getting to the point of discussing the item itself. On top of that I think I have been reasonably enough to indicate that its 1000yrs with a 300r margin.

Maybe we can move on to the features of the tool/weapon.

Pangeran Datu , regarding the rectangular tang; Early versions of the keris (Keris budha) have a similar tang. Some believe (forgot where I found that) that the earlier shape tang indicated that it wasn’t originally used as a trusting weapon, but more as a slash and cut weapon (borabodur shows some relief where the keris is held in an upper arm grip as well). So the square tang kept the blade from turning in his hilt when the goal was hit.

There are indeed big differences with the Kujang and Kudi. However there is still the possibility that these to variations have been developed from this shape. As var as I know they are both considered later versions of what was a farming tool before. On top of that this one is found in east, not in west, java.

But then again, this item doesn’t seem “handy” for farming at all. As mentioned its to heavy for cutting grass or harvesting rice, plus the length itself (tang 4” without hilt) would make it hard to handle.

As Neshech already asked, at the Sukuh relief the blades (except the one held by Bima) are indeed not hold or handled, the relief represents partly a smith workplace, the blades are in the background (see picture above). Durga statues however (9-11th c east and middle java) do show her holding weapons in one of her 6-8 arms. Among more easily recognizable chakras, fly whisks and other weapons, she sometimes holds a weapon that looks similar (a bit).

Other point is that Sukuh (14th/15th C) is middle java and item is of east java origin (and probably different time). Around the 10th and 11th century there were (trade) relations between the eastjava kingdoms and Persia, Siam and India. Therefore I was hoping to see some similar blades in these cultures around this time.

In case some of you are seriously interested, I will make a more detailed (photo) study of the blades on the relief and statues and publish it here in a few weeks. Unlike Neshech I can fund myself (just kidding

.

I understand that Candi Sukuh and Durga statues have a religious value for some, by using these for study reference I don’t intend to disrespect any belief or faith.

For BI, I don’t know what cultural learning curve your pointing at. In case you are assuming anything related to my culture, then please don’t, since you have probably no clue what my cultural background is.

doecon · 10th May 2006, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

. It is possible that they may originally have been known as "wedun(g)" , this being Old Javanese for a type of axe with a wide blade. This is pure hypothesis on my part.

An axe blade might make sense indeed, as a hypothesis. Will look into this.
Thanks for your kind assistance in this case and sharing your knowledge with us.

I do however think that a "popular" study of the ancient (distinct) weapons, might be usefull for some of us. Eventhough these items are rare, it certainly can be helpfull for studying more recent weapons, their features as well as handling techniques and their history ect. On top of it, there is very little known about the keris history in early ages, this "popular" field is probably usefull for others as well, not only the academic audience.

B.I · 10th May 2006, 09:21 AM

''In case you are assuming anything related to my culture, then please don’t, since you have probably no clue what my cultural background is.''

by culture, i meant the weapon and not yourself (how can i presume where you are from?). some of us are caught up collecting and studying other 'cultures' and so posts like this which involve someone having to prove his point are very informative for us, as you take the breakdown of your opinion to a very basic level. as collectors we need to know why something is fake, or what makes it real. its all a learning curve.
your point was valid, but it needed more explanation for a novice to understand and accept, which was nicely provided.

A. G. Maisey · 10th May 2006, 10:16 AM

Quote:-
"Pangeran Datu , regarding the rectangular tang; Early versions of the keris (Keris budha) have a similar tang. Some believe (forgot where I found that) that the earlier shape tang indicated that it wasn’t originally used as a trusting weapon, but more as a slash and cut weapon (borabodur shows some relief where the keris is held in an upper arm grip as well). So the square tang kept the blade from turning in his hilt when the goal was hit. "

In "Origin of the Keris etc," which may be found here:-

http://www.vikingsword.com/ethsword/maisey/index.html

I wrote the following.

Quote:-
"Further evidence that the keris buda was used as, and developed from a weapon used with an overarm stabbing action, is to be found in the tang. The tang of the keris buda is of square section. Such a tang was necessary to prevent the blade from turning in the handle, something very undesirable in a weapon used with a powerful overarm, downwards stabbing action. Conversely, the tang of the modern keris is round, which allows adjustment of the orientation of the blade to the grip, to suit the individual user, a desirable feature of the keris used as a thrusting weapon, which is unimportant where the weapon is used overarm."

I am not aware that any researcher has proposed that the square tang demonstrated that the proto-type keris was used as a slashing weapon.

In fact, I consider that such use would be highly unlikely, as the proto-type keris was much shorter than the modern keris, and there are no monumental depictions of any object even vaguely resembling a keris, being used as a slashing weapon.

The relief carvings where overarm use of the proto-type keris can be seen are at Candi Prambanan.

There is no representation of any keris or keris-like weapon or object at Candi Borobudur

drdavid · 10th May 2006, 10:29 AM

Thank you for a very interesting discussion, there is a great deal to consider here. Please excuse my novice question here but is it easier to forge a square tang or a round tang, because it would seem easier to make a round hole than a square hole in the piece of wood that is used as a handle. Perhaps there is a reason other than the function of the item that determines some of its physical characteristics?
DrD

nechesh · 10th May 2006, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Some years ago a team from a major US university visited Candi Panataran and photographed everything. I also have photographs of most of the Panataran carvings, but the study of this type of thing is a very specialised field and the end result of any analysis is perhaps only of interest to academics specialising in this field.

I'm not surprised that you do Alan....But how will i ever get funding for MY trip if you tell everyone!

Just to be clear , when i used the word "forging" i was not referring to "forgery", but to the actual act of making the blade.

As Alan has pointed out, the forgery of such an artifact would be pointless.
Perhaps these were meant to be axe heads, but to me they look very similar to a type of herb gathering knife with a scythe-like blade that can be found in many parts of the world.
I wasn't really assuming any talismanic purpose Alan, just throwing it out there. Still i would think that there must be some significance that it is being held in this manner by a nobleman who might be a descendant of the gods. I would imagine that whatever it's purpose it must have been somewhat important, whether for mundane or spiritual reasons. Why would he be holding it otherwise and not some other type of blade or implement?

A. G. Maisey · 10th May 2006, 02:39 PM

Yes, it probably is easier to forge square than round. At least it is quicker.

However, I would put it to you that form follows function.

The job is identified, and the tool is produced to do the job.

If we want a handle to turn easily, we provide a round tang.

If we do not want a handle to turn, we provide a tang with sides.

Pangeran Datu · 10th May 2006, 02:47 PM

Just to put in a further "two-bob's", one must remember that the kudi is a traditional implement of the WHOLE of Java and Madura, while the Kujang is a traditional implement of West Java only. Because of the similarity in shape, it is not surprising that in West Java, the difference between the two implements is somewhat esoteric.
I have just looked at an old and small photo of part of the Sumedang collection. It shows blades of similar shapes but with many variations, attached to ceremonial lances.

Digressing to tangs; as far as I know, there are four types of pesi/tang for kerises:
- round
- round at the ganja end and becoming square at the hilt end
- round at the ganja end and becoming flat with a hole at the hilt end (lika a needle)
- twisted, like a corkscrew
From what I know of the manufacturing process, it would not make much difference whether one makes the tang round or rectangular, but then, neither am I an Empu nor a metallurgist.

I apologise if I have made things more convoluted.

doecon · 10th May 2006, 07:41 PM

Maisey thanks for sharing, again. I was a bit off with the location of the relief, but thanks for correcting me.

Regarding the square tang, I agree indeed that it’s for blade stability. (Its probably easier to create as well). I have indeed read our article, but I came to a different conclusion. Combination of a larger tang and a square tang would be optimal for any (half) circular movement (up-down or sideways) with the arm (or arms), in my opinion this includes “slashing”. (many slashing weapons do have a square tang, right?). This doesn’t include the keris budha, of course, since it seems rather useless to slash with a short blade.

Mentioning the item being a possible axe helped a lot. I honestly didn’t see that before.
After some quick and rough research I came across a “axe-dagger” or “axe-knife” which has very similar features, originating from the Gujarat area India. (Java was a regular destination for traders from the Gujarat area in those days, shipments included iron and damaststeel).

The axe I’m referring to is called Bhuj (after the city) or Kutti (Kuttai means to cut). It has a tang and is placed on a larger stick (3 times bladesize) so it indicates a doublehand grip..and indeed used for “circular movements”. It comes very near this actual example, but I have to admit that the one in the Sukuh relief has better resemblance (maybe the tip of mine has indeed broken off). It also explains why the tang is rather long and maybe…just maybe..it sounds a bit similar to Kudi (which is probably a late cousin of this blade)

I do not think the name “wedung” is proper for this blade, but I haven’t found a better one yet myself. So I guess its kudi, till proven better

BI: sorry for the misunderstanding
Drdavid: A round hole is indeed easier to make in a smaller pommel, so probably a smaller pommel required a round tang as well. Good point.
Pangeran: Thanks for your comments, I stick to “Kudi” for this blade, but as mentioned probably an early form, looking forward however to see the “needle” tang.

A. G. Maisey · 11th May 2006, 12:39 AM

Regarding round tangs and tangs with sides:- if you are going to forge round, you draw down to square first, so a tang with sides is faster to forge, however, the tang in a modern keris is not forged round, it is made round by stock removal.What I wrote on the tang of Buda style keris was only intended to apply to those implements. One may be able to extend reasoning into another dimension, but my comments were specific to the keris Buda alone.

The implement under discussion cannot be named with any certainty, nor can the suggestion of a possible name be discounted. The language we are dealing with is Old Javanese, which has not been in use since the 1600`s. In Old Javanese one of the words for an axe is "wedun(g)". This implement may be a wedun(g), or it may not be. Certainly it bears no similarity to the knife that we presently know as a wedung, but this modern knife is purely ceremonial in function, indicating the willingness of the wearer to cut a way through the jungle for his lord.However, it is not valid to discount a name, nor attempt to affix with any certainty a name, for any archaic object, basing that attempt upon present day names for present day objects.
Of course, for simplification of reference we can call this object anything we wish, but that does not mean that we are using the name by which it was called by the people who made and used it.However, in Old Javanese a kudhi was a knife with a curved blade used to cut grass and that had a bulge in the blade near to the handle; I do not think that this definition is suitable to describe the object under discussion.
I have some difficulty in understanding why we need to give this object a name at all. It is obvious that we cannot name it correctly.

Any bhuj that I have ever seen bears not the smallest resemblance to the object under discussion, in any case, there is little or no validity in comparison of a 19th century Indian object with a Javanese object from the far distant past.

I do not understand why we are attempting to link this archaic Javanese object with objects from other places. It is a tool, or perhaps a tool/weapon, its origin is Jawa, and Jawa did have an indigenous culture of its own, prior to contact with the Indian subcontinent, and subsequently with other parts of the world. The nature of Javanese society and culture is that it has continually absorbed and modified input from other cultures, so it may well be that this humble little iron implement did have a progenitor from some other culture, or it could be that it is something uniquely Javanese. To settle this question would require an immense amount of very dedicated and intense research, at the end of which, no answer may be able to be provided.In any case, this object is one of a class of objects. These objects bear similarities in construction and form, but all are different.

Based upon the objects of similar form that I have seen over the years, I am inclined to consider this type of object something that was fairly widely spread throughout Jawa for a considerable length of time. The Early Classical period in Jawa was to roughly 1000AD, after which there was a shift of power to East Jawa, we had a procession of kingdoms in East Jawa, culminating with Majapahit which was finished prior to 1525, the Islamic kingdoms followed Majapahit, and the move back to the interior came with Pajang, followed by the foundation of the House of Mataram, which is still with us today. From this, it can be seen that there is a continuity to Javanese culture that is not based simply upon the place where the ruler happens to be at any one time. In fact, the influence of the East Jawa kingdom of Majapahit extended into Central Jawa, and the Lord of Pengging, located near present day Kartasura, was in fact one of Majapahit`s most influential nobles.Candi Sukuh, which is only a short distance from Pengging, was built during the Majapahit era, and in an area that was under the control and influence of Majapahit. To draw a distinction between Sukuh`s Central Javanese location and an East Javanese center of power is a fallacious exercise.

I have seen objects similar to the one under discussion that were discovered in Central Jawa, I have also seen such objects that were discovered in East Jawa.

Why should it be necessary for these objects to have originated from some outside source?

Did the Javanese people not have a need for tools throughout history?

And would they not have developed tools suitable to their needs?

David, the figures shown at Sukuh with these type of implements are---as near as I can recall---not noblemen. The mention I made of noblemen was in relation to the figures depicted in the stele, one acting as smith, the other operating the bellows.

If we forget all about the fact that this is an archaic iron implement. Lets say we stumbled across it in a local hardware store. What use might we be able to put it to? I would suggest that the hooked blade would be perfect for lopping small branches from trees, as with a pruning hook, or the modern Javanese bendo, and the axe-like section of the blade would be perfect for chopping those branches into smaller pieces.The form of this implement would make it a very useful tool.

doecon · 11th May 2006, 10:05 PM

Alan, its very kind that you have taken the time and effort to answer and share your professional view and knowledge. I had no serious intention in “naming” the object, but was trying to keep it out of the “Unnamed Forged Object” category.

The wedungs I have seen are indeed of the last few centuries, I’m unaware of the earlier type you referred to. In case you have some guidance of its whereabouts, I would love to take a look.

I agree that Javanese were perfectly capable to create their own tools and weapons. The item discussed can well be such a tool. The reason I assumed that it could have been a “migrated” (as in; influenced by Indian design, in this case) object is merely a result of my own limited logical reasoning.

In my humble opinion the origin of tools and weapons can be either from local developed (as in created for the job and then adapted in changing times) or migrated/intergrated from a foreigner source (and then again adapted, changed or rejected in time). Since the object itself is no longer in existence and since its “lifetime” on java was limited, I assumed a foreigner source.

In the first case (local) you would find a whole range of developments, improvements changes and adaptations for such an object. Your article referred to above describes this very clearly, regarding the Keris.

In the second case (foreigner source) I would assume the item is either quickly adapted (for doing the job), changed to local customs (doing the job, but better) or rejected after a short lifetime (replaced by a locally created better adapted tool).

Since this item obviously had a shorter lifetime I assumed it belonged to the second group. But again this is just my own basic theory to simplify the complex world.

Forgive me my ignorance, but I’m still left with some questions before I put my reasoning with the garbage. I hope you can bring some lights on the following;.

There are obvious differences of experience between Java and India, concerning the creation of iron tools. In India for example the history of creating Iron tools goes back to approx 1000 BC. Isn’t this kind of “superiority” in combination with “close” contact (Hindu settlers, occupiers for centuries in Java) a reason to take migration of tools serious?

Iron and later damaststeel was shipped from India to Java. Is it not possible to assume that some blade designs might have well been shipped and/or exchanged as well?

I do see a very strong correlation with weapons displayed on 9th C and 10th C durga statues in java and their “cousins” in India in the same time. As mentioned before the Chackra among others is clearly visible. Is this maybe a sign that some of those weapons were indeed “migrated”, rather then developed locally?

Now back to this ugly axe of mine: )
As you mentioned it would indeed be very useful to chop off small wood. If this would indeed be the main purpose and people still need to chop small wood, then why did it no longer exist in the last few centuries ?

Finally a question a bit of topic, but something that puzzled me after reading your article on the history of the keris. You mention that the shape of keris (pommel, blade etc) was adapted (as from what I understand in relatively short time) to fit better with the local dress and way to handle the weapon (I’m not trying to quote).

It implies that the first type keris did not yet adapt very well yet. I’m seriously curios, why wouldn’t they have created a keris in the first time that fits in the dress and is easy to draw? (Did the dress really change that much? Wasn’t their enough periods of conflicts before? ) Or is there still a slight possibility that the keris originated from a foreigner source and was not yet adapted to local customs?

I hope you can enlighten be a bit.

A. G. Maisey · 12th May 2006, 01:53 AM

Quote:-

"--- I’m unaware of the earlier type you referred to. In case you have some guidance of its whereabouts, I would love to take a look.---"

I claim no knowledge of the form of the implement known in Old Javanese as "wedung". I know only that the word "wedung" in Old Javanese refers to a type of axe.
I apologise for being insufficiently clear in my expression.

I have no problem with the transmigration of styles of tools or other objects, however, an object such as the one under discussion is most likely from the common people, and is one of a class of objects, all bearing similarities, but all having stylistic differences one from the other. The form of some of these objects can still be recognised in current tools; the form of other of these objects seems to be unique to the object.

Hindu culture entered Jawa, and other parts of Maritime South East Asia through the courts. There was no migration of Hindu settlers. There was limited trade contact up until the end of the first millenium AD, and these traders would have sometimes had to stay in coastal regions waiting for the wind to change before they could begin a return journey. So, first contact was probably through traders, followed by Brahmins who probably arrived in the courts at the invitation of the rulers.

After about 1000AD there was increasing trade contact, not only with the Indian sub-continent, but also with China , the middle east, and other parts of South East Asia.

The object under discussion probably dates from the period prior to 1500, so, yes, it could be the result of influence from some outside culture, however, I submit that to determine this with any degree of certainty at this remove could prove to be almost impossible. Consider:- an archaic iron tool of unknown age, unknown use, from an unknown location ( yes, I know:- "East Jawa", but where in East Jawa? And it is now irretreviably removed from its precise point of discovery); no known association with a court culture.
This object could well be the production of a single smith for a single customer; it could be a type that was used in one small area; we do not have fifty or a hundred of these objects all of precisely the same design, we have one, which is from a class of similar objects.

As stated above, there was no close contact between settlers from the Indian Sub-Continent, and Jawa. Hindu culture entered Jawa through the courts. If this object is the product of influence from a culture outside Jawa, it is more likely to be through the medium of trade than through the medium of direct transference of design from one person to another.

However,whatever we may hypothesise in the case of this implement, it is pure speculation that cannot be supported with evidence or logical argument.

Quote:-

" I do see a very strong correlation with weapons displayed on 9th C and 10th C durga statues in java and their “cousins” in India in the same time. As mentioned before the Chackra among others is clearly visible. Is this maybe a sign that some of those weapons were indeed “migrated”, rather then developed locally?"

There can be no doubt that Indian weapon forms are to be found in Javanese carvings, both statuary and relief, however, bear in mind the subject matter of the carvings, and bear in mind the connection with court culture.

Early Javanese writings do not deal with the common people, only with the courts. Cultural focus is on the courts, so what we have are two separate, but related cultural entities. A reading of Theodore Pigeaud: "Java in the Fourteenth Century" could assist with an understanding of this.

Quote:-

" As you mentioned it would indeed be very useful to chop off small wood. If this would indeed be the main purpose and people still need to chop small wood, then why did it no longer exist in the last few centuries ?"

For the same reasons that many objects in many places throughout the world have disappeared with the passing of time.

In respect of the matter of development of the form of the modern keris.

Nothing in what I wrote in "Origin" was implied. I wrote precisely what I meant to say. The changes that took place in the fore runners of the modern keris were part of a process that occurred over a period of time. These changes took place as most changes do,gradually, and to accommodate changes in the environment. Those environmental changes included such things as societal changes and technological changes.

The question has been once again been raised as to the possibility of origin of the keris being somewhere other than Jawa.

For those who consider this to be a serious possibility I encourage them to undertake the research necessary to establish this.

Until a place of origin other than Jawa is established, I believe that we must accept the available evidence that the keris did originate in Jawa. Actually, I thought this had been accepted by serious students of the keris long before I ever wrote on the subject.

9th May 2006, 02:01 PM	#1
doecon Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 63	ID for Ancient Kujang / Kudi? Hindu /Siam/Persian influence? See below for pics. Found recently eastern java. Roughly a 1000 yrs old (with a 300 yr margin) Blade 8” and tang 4”. Tang is square, like early Keris Budha (if you have one pls do add your picture for reference to compare tang). The shape seems to be complete, but the tip might have been broken off. Looks like a farming tool, but it seems not useful for harvesting rice (add a handle to it and it becomes a to long to reach, plus the blade is somewhat heavy) Have seen slightly similar shapes in some Durga Mahisasuramardini statues (9th 10th century mid/east java). The most nearest example however is in the in the relief of sukuh (see below). The sukuh example seems to be a more sophisticated blade, so maybe this is the more earlier and primitive version. Looking for some clues, maybe similar shaped blades in other region and/or more recent “cousins” of this blade. Any opinion or comment welcome. See below for additional pics. Attached Images

9th May 2006, 02:04 PM	#2
doecon Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 63	oops, forget the sukuh relief Attached Images

9th May 2006, 10:10 PM	#6
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	What's hanging between the legs of the leftmost figure? A kora? Can't see any elephant features (as in the middle one) to suspect a trunk, and it is a bit too optimistic(?) for anything else... Last edited by ariel; 9th May 2006 at 10:20 PM.

10th May 2006, 01:41 AM	#13
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,293	Speaking Plainly I have a very hard time believing that a thousand year old piece could survive in the soil of Jawa that long without disintegrating .

10th May 2006, 08:26 AM	#19
doecon Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 63	Quote “ No current tools or weapons are made of similar form nor material. The texture, colour and general presentation of the iron in the item shown in the photo appears to be correct for this class of archaic object. “ Thank you A. G. Maisey It saves a lot of time, not having to explain why it’s indeed an ancient object. (again I hope). I understand (some of) the skepticism on the board, but it’s a complete waste of energy to go trough “prove-that-this-is-real-procedure” , before getting to the point of discussing the item itself. On top of that I think I have been reasonably enough to indicate that its 1000yrs with a 300r margin. Maybe we can move on to the features of the tool/weapon. Pangeran Datu , regarding the rectangular tang; Early versions of the keris (Keris budha) have a similar tang. Some believe (forgot where I found that) that the earlier shape tang indicated that it wasn’t originally used as a trusting weapon, but more as a slash and cut weapon (borabodur shows some relief where the keris is held in an upper arm grip as well). So the square tang kept the blade from turning in his hilt when the goal was hit. There are indeed big differences with the Kujang and Kudi. However there is still the possibility that these to variations have been developed from this shape. As var as I know they are both considered later versions of what was a farming tool before. On top of that this one is found in east, not in west, java. But then again, this item doesn’t seem “handy” for farming at all. As mentioned its to heavy for cutting grass or harvesting rice, plus the length itself (tang 4” without hilt) would make it hard to handle. As Neshech already asked, at the Sukuh relief the blades (except the one held by Bima) are indeed not hold or handled, the relief represents partly a smith workplace, the blades are in the background (see picture above). Durga statues however (9-11th c east and middle java) do show her holding weapons in one of her 6-8 arms. Among more easily recognizable chakras, fly whisks and other weapons, she sometimes holds a weapon that looks similar (a bit). Other point is that Sukuh (14th/15th C) is middle java and item is of east java origin (and probably different time). Around the 10th and 11th century there were (trade) relations between the eastjava kingdoms and Persia, Siam and India. Therefore I was hoping to see some similar blades in these cultures around this time. In case some of you are seriously interested, I will make a more detailed (photo) study of the blades on the relief and statues and publish it here in a few weeks. Unlike Neshech I can fund myself (just kidding. I understand that Candi Sukuh and Durga statues have a religious value for some, by using these for study reference I don’t intend to disrespect any belief or faith. For BI, I don’t know what cultural learning curve your pointing at. In case you are assuming anything related to my culture, then please don’t, since you have probably no clue what my cultural background is.

9th May 2006, 02:43 PM	#4
doecon Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 63	It is indeed intresting. As mentioned I roughtly estimated it somewhere between 7th and 13th century. As far as I know the details on the tang havent been seen/made like this since the 14th century. As mentioned the "cousin" in the relief above looks already more sophisticated. So its clearl before 14th c, unfortunatly I dont have further refference to close in a more exact timeframe. I think I'll keep this piece for a while, so its not for sale

9th May 2006, 10:18 PM	#7
doecon Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 63	As far as I know there is no modern version around (here), so it couldnt have been put in acid for 20 years. I think there is enough pictures already to show that its indeed an old piece. (No need also to put something in acid for 20 years if nobody knows what it is right?) But if you know a modern version then please share it with us, I'm seriously intrested. In case you know examples that have been around for century's, then please indicate where (with link if posible).

9th May 2006, 10:23 PM	#8
doecon Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 63	Ariel, the relief is indeed near so called "fertility" cult place Check : Candi Sukuh, Mount Lawu, Java for more optimistic details.

9th May 2006, 10:29 PM	#9
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	They certainly have an exaggerated opinion about their accoutrements. As to the original one, this is the first "Dhu-l-Fiqar" phallus in medical history...

9th May 2006, 11:10 PM	#10
doecon Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 63	Thanks for your opinion on the shape of the phallus But I'm actually more intrested in the shape of the blade..Any persian relatives ?

10th May 2006, 12:52 AM	#12
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi, i agree with a lot of what andrew says, although i think 'solid provenance' could be asking too much. maybe a more convincing arguement is what is needed. i seem to recall a relatively recent thread on artificially aged keris (i think). i found this fascinating as i know virtually nothing about this culture, and the forum members here posted a few generic examples which had been aged to decieve, and so it was very informative. all of these examples had this greyish patina from the acid used. in my ignorance of the subject, this seems to have a similar patina. i dont have a problem with whether 'ancient' or antique weapons were reproduced, even unknown forms such as this apparantly is. with the advent of the internet, weapon collecting has become more popular and easier to aquire (not only do you not need to leave your country, but you dont even have to leave your armchair anymore). so much so, there has been a steady increase of fakes and forgeries and a photograph can hide a multitude of lies. there is no point making a fake that is well known and will be spotted straight away, a point that seems to have gone past certain chinese ebay sellers. i am not saying that this is the case here, but it seems that because of this increase in fraudulant pieces, the ability to assume has now gone and the pressure is on to prove authenticity past a personal opinion. i hope that doecon will take up the 'challenge' to substantiate his claims, as it will be a good learning curve for us involved in other cultures (you know, the ones quite low down on the recent poll! ) however, we are a suspicious lot and it will have to be more convincing than what's already been stated

10th May 2006, 02:04 AM	#14
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,896	The object referred for comment by Doecon has a strong probability to be archaic. I possess a number of similar objects, and archaic Javanese forge work has been something of particular interest to me for many years. I have seen groups of these objects fresh from excavation, rusted into a single inseparable mass, I have also seen, handled, and acquired a number of others. Although these objects are relatively scarce, in the market place they have a comparatively low value, and as such are not worthwhile the attention of forgers. No current tools or weapons are made of similar form nor material. The texture, colour and general presentation of the iron in the item shown in the photo appears to be correct for this class of archaic object. The Candi Sukuh stele is possibly the most famous single piece of Javanese sculpture. Some years ago --possibly ten or fifteen years--- it was transported to the USA for exhibition. The figures shown in the Sukuh stele have been subjected to varying interpretations; the central figure has been intrepreted as a representation of Ganesha, but it could also be a sangkala ( a figural date able to be translated in accordance with the Javanese numerical system), if it is a sangkala it could be given as "gajah wiku anahut buntut :elephant monk hold animal=1378jav., 1456AD). The two other figures in the stele are noblemen, and could be representations of descendants of gods. The man on the left side is at an anvil, and on this anvil is a keris (this of course cannot be seen in the photo); the man on the right side is working bellows (ububan). The relief carvings in the Candi Sukuh precinct carry many representations of objects similar to that referred by Doecon. Over the years I have visited Candi Sukuh perhaps more than 100 times, as it is quite close to my residence when I am in Jawa. Candi Sukuh is a holy place, and levity of any form should not be used in connection with anything at all connected with this place.

10th May 2006, 02:24 AM	#15
Pangeran Datu Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 79	Hi All, This may help the quest for information. IMVHO, Kujang and Kudi have similar shapes, but the kujang is mainly a cut-n-thrust implement,while the kudi is a tombak or short throwing spear. The Kudi is a traditonal implement found mainly on Java and Madura, while the Kujang is a traditional implement peculiar to the Sunda people of West Java ( mainly in the area known as Parahyangan). I believe that the Kujang was first produced circa 13-14C., during the Pajajaran kingdom. With regard to the tang, I must admit that in my very limited experience, I've only ever seen round ones on old pieces ( new ones tend to have rectangular ones). That is not to say , rectangular ones weren't used in old pieces With respect to the piece in the picture, I have seen similar shapes in the following collections: - Yayasan Pangeran Sumedang, Sumedang, West Java, Indonesia. - Peninggalan Sejarah Sukapura, Tasikmalaya, West Java, Indonesia. Hope it helps.

10th May 2006, 04:49 AM	#17
nechesh Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 940	It is, of course, pure speculation, but i wonder if these impliments didn't have some kind of talismanic purpose in the act of forging or just in general. Obviously they are of some special significance or the carvers of the Candi Sukuh stele and other reliefs in the area wouldn't have bothered to include them in the reliefs. Alan, do you recall the context in which the other examples appear, i.e., are they also being held? In similar fashion? Some competent photographer need to take a trip to Jawa and do a careful and detailed photographic study of these carvings. I will be accepting travel funding in all forms beginning immediately.

10th May 2006, 08:17 AM	#18
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,896	When it is suspected that forgery and deception are rife in a particular area, it is very easy to assume that many things from that area are forged or falsified when in fact they are not. Particularly so when extreme is age is involved. In fact, there is very little actual forgery in the field of wesi aji. There is an enormous amount of misrepresentation, there is some falsification, but forgery per se is rare. In the case of the object under discussion here, its market value is simply not sufficiently high for any forger to be even remotely interested in producing it.Additionally, the field of archaic Javanese iron implements is a very rareified field of study; there is to the best of my knowledge virtually nothing published that is of any assistance, it is not a very popular field for collection, even in Jawa. The only guide is experience, and because of the scarcity of these objects, that experience can take a very long time to accumulate. It is perfectly understandable that somebody with no, or limited experience in this field could be misled into assuming that the object under discussion is not as it is represented. David, I do not think that we can introduce talismanic connections for these implements. There are many everyday implements included in the Sukuh reliefs, and other Javanese reliefs at other sites. Just because something is depicted in a Candi relief does not make it special. There are many reliefs at Candi Sukuh, the most notable is the Sudamala, but there are other reliefs as well, on columns and pillars.These objects are well distributed throughout the reliefs. I cannot recall precisely where and under what circumstances, but they have always struck me as objects that were essentially agricultural implements that could be put to use as a weapon, much the same as the arit has been employed in more recent times.My memory is that mostly they are held, but a few may be stuck into a belt or sash. These objects probably appear in other old reliefs as well. Possibly a search of Prambanan and Panataran would provide examples, and they could well be found at other sites. I have never regarded them as of particular interest , except for the fact that they are ancient. There are several different patterns, all clearly related. It is possible that they may originally have been known as "wedun(g)" , this being Old Javanese for a type of axe with a wide blade. This is pure hypothesis on my part. I actually have many photographs of the Sukuh carvings, but looking at them will not reveal any secrets. Some years ago a team from a major US university visited Candi Panataran and photographed everything. I also have photographs of most of the Panataran carvings, but the study of this type of thing is a very specialised field and the end result of any analysis is perhaps only of interest to academics specialising in this field.

10th May 2006, 09:21 AM	#21
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	''In case you are assuming anything related to my culture, then please don’t, since you have probably no clue what my cultural background is.'' by culture, i meant the weapon and not yourself (how can i presume where you are from?). some of us are caught up collecting and studying other 'cultures' and so posts like this which involve someone having to prove his point are very informative for us, as you take the breakdown of your opinion to a very basic level. as collectors we need to know why something is fake, or what makes it real. its all a learning curve. your point was valid, but it needed more explanation for a novice to understand and accept, which was nicely provided.

10th May 2006, 10:16 AM	#22
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,896	Quote:- "Pangeran Datu , regarding the rectangular tang; Early versions of the keris (Keris budha) have a similar tang. Some believe (forgot where I found that) that the earlier shape tang indicated that it wasn’t originally used as a trusting weapon, but more as a slash and cut weapon (borabodur shows some relief where the keris is held in an upper arm grip as well). So the square tang kept the blade from turning in his hilt when the goal was hit. " In "Origin of the Keris etc," which may be found here:- http://www.vikingsword.com/ethsword/maisey/index.html I wrote the following. Quote:- "Further evidence that the keris buda was used as, and developed from a weapon used with an overarm stabbing action, is to be found in the tang. The tang of the keris buda is of square section. Such a tang was necessary to prevent the blade from turning in the handle, something very undesirable in a weapon used with a powerful overarm, downwards stabbing action. Conversely, the tang of the modern keris is round, which allows adjustment of the orientation of the blade to the grip, to suit the individual user, a desirable feature of the keris used as a thrusting weapon, which is unimportant where the weapon is used overarm." I am not aware that any researcher has proposed that the square tang demonstrated that the proto-type keris was used as a slashing weapon. In fact, I consider that such use would be highly unlikely, as the proto-type keris was much shorter than the modern keris, and there are no monumental depictions of any object even vaguely resembling a keris, being used as a slashing weapon. The relief carvings where overarm use of the proto-type keris can be seen are at Candi Prambanan. There is no representation of any keris or keris-like weapon or object at Candi Borobudur

10th May 2006, 10:29 AM	#23
drdavid Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 371	Thank you for a very interesting discussion, there is a great deal to consider here. Please excuse my novice question here but is it easier to forge a square tang or a round tang, because it would seem easier to make a round hole than a square hole in the piece of wood that is used as a handle. Perhaps there is a reason other than the function of the item that determines some of its physical characteristics? DrD

10th May 2006, 02:39 PM	#25
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,896	Yes, it probably is easier to forge square than round. At least it is quicker. However, I would put it to you that form follows function. The job is identified, and the tool is produced to do the job. If we want a handle to turn easily, we provide a round tang. If we do not want a handle to turn, we provide a tang with sides.

10th May 2006, 02:47 PM	#26
Pangeran Datu Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 79	Just to put in a further "two-bob's", one must remember that the kudi is a traditional implement of the WHOLE of Java and Madura, while the Kujang is a traditional implement of West Java only. Because of the similarity in shape, it is not surprising that in West Java, the difference between the two implements is somewhat esoteric. I have just looked at an old and small photo of part of the Sumedang collection. It shows blades of similar shapes but with many variations, attached to ceremonial lances. Digressing to tangs; as far as I know, there are four types of pesi/tang for kerises: - round - round at the ganja end and becoming square at the hilt end - round at the ganja end and becoming flat with a hole at the hilt end (lika a needle) - twisted, like a corkscrew From what I know of the manufacturing process, it would not make much difference whether one makes the tang round or rectangular, but then, neither am I an Empu nor a metallurgist. I apologise if I have made things more convoluted.

10th May 2006, 07:41 PM	#27
doecon Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 63	Maisey thanks for sharing, again. I was a bit off with the location of the relief, but thanks for correcting me. Regarding the square tang, I agree indeed that it’s for blade stability. (Its probably easier to create as well). I have indeed read our article, but I came to a different conclusion. Combination of a larger tang and a square tang would be optimal for any (half) circular movement (up-down or sideways) with the arm (or arms), in my opinion this includes “slashing”. (many slashing weapons do have a square tang, right?). This doesn’t include the keris budha, of course, since it seems rather useless to slash with a short blade. Mentioning the item being a possible axe helped a lot. I honestly didn’t see that before. After some quick and rough research I came across a “axe-dagger” or “axe-knife” which has very similar features, originating from the Gujarat area India. (Java was a regular destination for traders from the Gujarat area in those days, shipments included iron and damaststeel). The axe I’m referring to is called Bhuj (after the city) or Kutti (Kuttai means to cut). It has a tang and is placed on a larger stick (3 times bladesize) so it indicates a doublehand grip..and indeed used for “circular movements”. It comes very near this actual example, but I have to admit that the one in the Sukuh relief has better resemblance (maybe the tip of mine has indeed broken off). It also explains why the tang is rather long and maybe…just maybe..it sounds a bit similar to Kudi (which is probably a late cousin of this blade) I do not think the name “wedung” is proper for this blade, but I haven’t found a better one yet myself. So I guess its kudi, till proven better BI: sorry for the misunderstanding Drdavid: A round hole is indeed easier to make in a smaller pommel, so probably a smaller pommel required a round tang as well. Good point. Pangeran: Thanks for your comments, I stick to “Kudi” for this blade, but as mentioned probably an early form, looking forward however to see the “needle” tang.

11th May 2006, 12:39 AM	#28
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,896	Regarding round tangs and tangs with sides:- if you are going to forge round, you draw down to square first, so a tang with sides is faster to forge, however, the tang in a modern keris is not forged round, it is made round by stock removal.What I wrote on the tang of Buda style keris was only intended to apply to those implements. One may be able to extend reasoning into another dimension, but my comments were specific to the keris Buda alone. The implement under discussion cannot be named with any certainty, nor can the suggestion of a possible name be discounted. The language we are dealing with is Old Javanese, which has not been in use since the 1600`s. In Old Javanese one of the words for an axe is "wedun(g)". This implement may be a wedun(g), or it may not be. Certainly it bears no similarity to the knife that we presently know as a wedung, but this modern knife is purely ceremonial in function, indicating the willingness of the wearer to cut a way through the jungle for his lord.However, it is not valid to discount a name, nor attempt to affix with any certainty a name, for any archaic object, basing that attempt upon present day names for present day objects. Of course, for simplification of reference we can call this object anything we wish, but that does not mean that we are using the name by which it was called by the people who made and used it.However, in Old Javanese a kudhi was a knife with a curved blade used to cut grass and that had a bulge in the blade near to the handle; I do not think that this definition is suitable to describe the object under discussion. I have some difficulty in understanding why we need to give this object a name at all. It is obvious that we cannot name it correctly. Any bhuj that I have ever seen bears not the smallest resemblance to the object under discussion, in any case, there is little or no validity in comparison of a 19th century Indian object with a Javanese object from the far distant past. I do not understand why we are attempting to link this archaic Javanese object with objects from other places. It is a tool, or perhaps a tool/weapon, its origin is Jawa, and Jawa did have an indigenous culture of its own, prior to contact with the Indian subcontinent, and subsequently with other parts of the world. The nature of Javanese society and culture is that it has continually absorbed and modified input from other cultures, so it may well be that this humble little iron implement did have a progenitor from some other culture, or it could be that it is something uniquely Javanese. To settle this question would require an immense amount of very dedicated and intense research, at the end of which, no answer may be able to be provided.In any case, this object is one of a class of objects. These objects bear similarities in construction and form, but all are different. Based upon the objects of similar form that I have seen over the years, I am inclined to consider this type of object something that was fairly widely spread throughout Jawa for a considerable length of time. The Early Classical period in Jawa was to roughly 1000AD, after which there was a shift of power to East Jawa, we had a procession of kingdoms in East Jawa, culminating with Majapahit which was finished prior to 1525, the Islamic kingdoms followed Majapahit, and the move back to the interior came with Pajang, followed by the foundation of the House of Mataram, which is still with us today. From this, it can be seen that there is a continuity to Javanese culture that is not based simply upon the place where the ruler happens to be at any one time. In fact, the influence of the East Jawa kingdom of Majapahit extended into Central Jawa, and the Lord of Pengging, located near present day Kartasura, was in fact one of Majapahit`s most influential nobles.Candi Sukuh, which is only a short distance from Pengging, was built during the Majapahit era, and in an area that was under the control and influence of Majapahit. To draw a distinction between Sukuh`s Central Javanese location and an East Javanese center of power is a fallacious exercise. I have seen objects similar to the one under discussion that were discovered in Central Jawa, I have also seen such objects that were discovered in East Jawa. Why should it be necessary for these objects to have originated from some outside source? Did the Javanese people not have a need for tools throughout history? And would they not have developed tools suitable to their needs? David, the figures shown at Sukuh with these type of implements are---as near as I can recall---not noblemen. The mention I made of noblemen was in relation to the figures depicted in the stele, one acting as smith, the other operating the bellows. If we forget all about the fact that this is an archaic iron implement. Lets say we stumbled across it in a local hardware store. What use might we be able to put it to? I would suggest that the hooked blade would be perfect for lopping small branches from trees, as with a pruning hook, or the modern Javanese bendo, and the axe-like section of the blade would be perfect for chopping those branches into smaller pieces.The form of this implement would make it a very useful tool.

11th May 2006, 10:05 PM	#29
doecon Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 63	Alan, its very kind that you have taken the time and effort to answer and share your professional view and knowledge. I had no serious intention in “naming” the object, but was trying to keep it out of the “Unnamed Forged Object” category. The wedungs I have seen are indeed of the last few centuries, I’m unaware of the earlier type you referred to. In case you have some guidance of its whereabouts, I would love to take a look. I agree that Javanese were perfectly capable to create their own tools and weapons. The item discussed can well be such a tool. The reason I assumed that it could have been a “migrated” (as in; influenced by Indian design, in this case) object is merely a result of my own limited logical reasoning. In my humble opinion the origin of tools and weapons can be either from local developed (as in created for the job and then adapted in changing times) or migrated/intergrated from a foreigner source (and then again adapted, changed or rejected in time). Since the object itself is no longer in existence and since its “lifetime” on java was limited, I assumed a foreigner source. In the first case (local) you would find a whole range of developments, improvements changes and adaptations for such an object. Your article referred to above describes this very clearly, regarding the Keris. In the second case (foreigner source) I would assume the item is either quickly adapted (for doing the job), changed to local customs (doing the job, but better) or rejected after a short lifetime (replaced by a locally created better adapted tool). Since this item obviously had a shorter lifetime I assumed it belonged to the second group. But again this is just my own basic theory to simplify the complex world. Forgive me my ignorance, but I’m still left with some questions before I put my reasoning with the garbage. I hope you can bring some lights on the following;. There are obvious differences of experience between Java and India, concerning the creation of iron tools. In India for example the history of creating Iron tools goes back to approx 1000 BC. Isn’t this kind of “superiority” in combination with “close” contact (Hindu settlers, occupiers for centuries in Java) a reason to take migration of tools serious? Iron and later damaststeel was shipped from India to Java. Is it not possible to assume that some blade designs might have well been shipped and/or exchanged as well? I do see a very strong correlation with weapons displayed on 9th C and 10th C durga statues in java and their “cousins” in India in the same time. As mentioned before the Chackra among others is clearly visible. Is this maybe a sign that some of those weapons were indeed “migrated”, rather then developed locally? Now back to this ugly axe of mine: ) As you mentioned it would indeed be very useful to chop off small wood. If this would indeed be the main purpose and people still need to chop small wood, then why did it no longer exist in the last few centuries ? Finally a question a bit of topic, but something that puzzled me after reading your article on the history of the keris. You mention that the shape of keris (pommel, blade etc) was adapted (as from what I understand in relatively short time) to fit better with the local dress and way to handle the weapon (I’m not trying to quote). It implies that the first type keris did not yet adapt very well yet. I’m seriously curios, why wouldn’t they have created a keris in the first time that fits in the dress and is easy to draw? (Did the dress really change that much? Wasn’t their enough periods of conflicts before? ) Or is there still a slight possibility that the keris originated from a foreigner source and was not yet adapted to local customs? I hope you can enlighten be a bit.

12th May 2006, 01:53 AM	#30
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,896	Quote:- "--- I’m unaware of the earlier type you referred to. In case you have some guidance of its whereabouts, I would love to take a look.---" I claim no knowledge of the form of the implement known in Old Javanese as "wedung". I know only that the word "wedung" in Old Javanese refers to a type of axe. I apologise for being insufficiently clear in my expression. I have no problem with the transmigration of styles of tools or other objects, however, an object such as the one under discussion is most likely from the common people, and is one of a class of objects, all bearing similarities, but all having stylistic differences one from the other. The form of some of these objects can still be recognised in current tools; the form of other of these objects seems to be unique to the object. Hindu culture entered Jawa, and other parts of Maritime South East Asia through the courts. There was no migration of Hindu settlers. There was limited trade contact up until the end of the first millenium AD, and these traders would have sometimes had to stay in coastal regions waiting for the wind to change before they could begin a return journey. So, first contact was probably through traders, followed by Brahmins who probably arrived in the courts at the invitation of the rulers. After about 1000AD there was increasing trade contact, not only with the Indian sub-continent, but also with China , the middle east, and other parts of South East Asia. The object under discussion probably dates from the period prior to 1500, so, yes, it could be the result of influence from some outside culture, however, I submit that to determine this with any degree of certainty at this remove could prove to be almost impossible. Consider:- an archaic iron tool of unknown age, unknown use, from an unknown location ( yes, I know:- "East Jawa", but where in East Jawa? And it is now irretreviably removed from its precise point of discovery); no known association with a court culture. This object could well be the production of a single smith for a single customer; it could be a type that was used in one small area; we do not have fifty or a hundred of these objects all of precisely the same design, we have one, which is from a class of similar objects. As stated above, there was no close contact between settlers from the Indian Sub-Continent, and Jawa. Hindu culture entered Jawa through the courts. If this object is the product of influence from a culture outside Jawa, it is more likely to be through the medium of trade than through the medium of direct transference of design from one person to another. However,whatever we may hypothesise in the case of this implement, it is pure speculation that cannot be supported with evidence or logical argument. Quote:- " I do see a very strong correlation with weapons displayed on 9th C and 10th C durga statues in java and their “cousins” in India in the same time. As mentioned before the Chackra among others is clearly visible. Is this maybe a sign that some of those weapons were indeed “migrated”, rather then developed locally?" There can be no doubt that Indian weapon forms are to be found in Javanese carvings, both statuary and relief, however, bear in mind the subject matter of the carvings, and bear in mind the connection with court culture. Early Javanese writings do not deal with the common people, only with the courts. Cultural focus is on the courts, so what we have are two separate, but related cultural entities. A reading of Theodore Pigeaud: "Java in the Fourteenth Century" could assist with an understanding of this. Quote:- " As you mentioned it would indeed be very useful to chop off small wood. If this would indeed be the main purpose and people still need to chop small wood, then why did it no longer exist in the last few centuries ?" For the same reasons that many objects in many places throughout the world have disappeared with the passing of time. In respect of the matter of development of the form of the modern keris. Nothing in what I wrote in "Origin" was implied. I wrote precisely what I meant to say. The changes that took place in the fore runners of the modern keris were part of a process that occurred over a period of time. These changes took place as most changes do,gradually, and to accommodate changes in the environment. Those environmental changes included such things as societal changes and technological changes. The question has been once again been raised as to the possibility of origin of the keris being somewhere other than Jawa. For those who consider this to be a serious possibility I encourage them to undertake the research necessary to establish this. Until a place of origin other than Jawa is established, I believe that we must accept the available evidence that the keris did originate in Jawa. Actually, I thought this had been accepted by serious students of the keris long before I ever wrote on the subject.