[A. G. Maisey]

Maurice, one of the problems that we sometimes face in this Forum is clarity of intent.

This is an English language Forum, but we have a very multi-cultural population of members, people for whom English is not their native language. I, and I am certain, all of us who are native English speakers very much appreciate the effort made by the non-native speakers of English who contribute to discussion, however, sometimes misunderstandings can occur. For example, I misread the tone of Michael's post on "order" as a directive to myself and others to proceed in discussion in a particular way that had already been decided upon by Michael. My interpretation was shown to be incorrect, as Michael subsequently pointed out, what he had written was only a clarification of his own preferences.

It seems a misunderstanding of my own intent may also have occurred. I thought that the content of my posts was clear, but apparently either the tone or the actual text has been misunderstood somewhere along the line so I'll try to clarify.

1)---I do not doubt that this type of sword can be found in many places throughout the Indonesian Archipelago.

2)---I do not doubt that it can be found in Lombok, even though there seems to be some evidence for its origin and existence in Southern Sumatera.

3)---My use of the phrase:- "my area of confusion" means exactly what it says, it not a polite way of casting doubt on anything; I am confused by the existence of this style of sword in both Southern Sumatera and Lombok.
Why?
Because the history of Lombok does not reveal any sociological link of substance that would explain the existence of this style of sword in these two widely placed locations. The Dutch were not really a contributing factor until the late 19th century, and did not gain any sort of substantial foothold until the early 20th century.
The Sasak are regarded as indigenous to Lombok and Islam became the general belief system during the 16th century; the island was not united and constant fighting existed between the Sasak, the Balinese colonised Lombok, and they brought it under control during the first half of the 19th century; the Bugis also established settlements in Lombok and challenged the Balinese. Nowhere can there be seen any input from South Sumatera, and the Dutch influence virtually did not exist until the early 20th century. However, Djelengga refers to this type of sword as a "traditional weapon of Lombok", and obviously a weapon of the Sasak people.

I wrote exactly what I meant:- I am confused; very often with the transference of material culture throughout the Indonesian Archipelago we can see clear and verifiable links. In the case of this item of material culture I cannot identify any such links, or even influences. Thus my confusion.
Incidentally, Djelengga calls this a "kelewang". In Jawa we'd call it a pedang. Using English I feel that "sword" is perhaps more appropriate.

I do hope that the above adequately clarifies what I meant in my previous post.

To respond to your comments, Maurice.

It seems that contrary to perhaps everybody else who has commented on this blade ornamentation, I do not find it to be particularly good. Previously I have referred to "this style" or "this type" of blade ornamentation, and by that I mean superficial applied silver ornamentation upon a very recently polished surface that has subsequently been false patinated. This type of work is most often produced by people who sell out of a particular market in Surabaya, and is also done in Jogja. The Surabaya source has been in existence for a very long time, the Jogja source for a shorter period, both have been producing since at least the 1950's.

It is rule of the trade in Jawa that when one had something that is very difficult to sell, for one reason or another, then action needs to be taken to enhance that object to make it a desirable product. This sword is badly damaged, and would be extremely difficult to find a buyer for in the Indonesian market, so it was enhanced to make it saleable. I do not know if the text on this particular sword is true text, or simply a mixture of symbols that looks like text, I can identify some characters, others seem to me like scribbles, but I am not at all qualified to give an opinion on this. However, whether it is true text, or whether it is a mockery of text, that does not alter the nature of this ornamentation, nor the reason it was done.


Maurice, you have requested that I post images of the sort of thing I am writing about.

I cannot do this. I wrote that I have seen this sort of thing, not that I possessed it. In fact I have very little interest in the various and sundry swords and daggers of Indonesia. My prime area of study is the keris, particularly of Jawa and Bali, and to a lesser degree the tombak. However, during any given year it is inevitable that I see and handle a very great number of keris, tombak, swords, daggers and other items of Indonesian material culture. I do not buy all these things, I simply look at them and buy a fraction of a percent.

Maurice, I do apologize for being brutal, but what I have written is my professional opinion, an opinion that has been formed by being a part of the Javanese keris trade for in excess of 30 years, and from being taught by a man who began dealing in keris and other traditional weapons in the late 1940's. What I am describing here has been going on since at least the late 19th century.


I think I should terminate my involvement in this thread. It seems that my presence here is only detracting from what would otherwise be a nice, mutually satisfactory exchange of opinions. Regrettably all opinions are not equal.