Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

gckaeng · 5th February 2019, 03:21 AM

Thanks Alan for the note.
In regard to the Pulen characteristic, it appears that my physical understanding of it is close, except around the color. I always consider black pulen is mesmerizing, somehow it is sticks to my head. Lets take color out of the equation.

To re-emphasize your points, my understanding of Pulen is also attributed to the visual and feel perception, not composition.
Thanks for your note which states that different compositions and ages can result in the same look.

I might understand the reason you are trying to stay away from the name game as the community is surrounded by names/terms/jargon as a result of traditional javanese's classifications which tend to be subjective of the Empu/elite, then became standard of Keraton, then often confused modern people, including myself. However, pardon my stubborn amateur reasoning, I still need name to mention the wesi indicators being discussed.

lets agree on the indicators you mentioned, at least we have an agreeable basis to continue the discussion.

1. On your note, there's probably a hint of quality, but you have not clearly mentioned whether or not Pulen signifies quality. I might just ask you now. So next time I see one, I can glorify it.

2. Pardon my stubbornness: in the local community Pulen has never been attributed to anything new (never heard for kamardikan, but not sure of nom-noman). May be because of the characteristic of lempung/liat which might be a sign of antiquity. I kind of agree, because in my amateur eyes, tightly-packed irons between antique and modern can still be distinguished. The later is just smooth and shiny missing the lempung look. I used to enter a museum and scanned it between tightly-packed olds and news, I could tell the difference. This is something I need to understand more, does Pulen bears antiquity indication to it or not, which might help me to identify good old kerises.

Let me share my discussion with Empu Sungkowo Harumbrodjo, and see what you think. For those who know him he doesnt talk much, so I am not sure whether I understood his opinion precisely.
In his besalen in Yogyakarta, there's a framed table chart on the wall about number of folds between different old tangguhs (I hope the picture shows up below). There mentioned that Majapahit has 2048 layers and Sedayu has 4098 layers, both with the highest amount of iron compared to other tangguhs. It intrigued me to ask him whether such high number of folds partly responsible to the amazing pulen look of Sedayu, so people often indicates Sedayu by such look? He said may be.
I then asked whether he can produce the same look by using similar folding with as close iron type as possible? His answer was No. Not only the failure rate is high, he can not produce the look because pulen has antiquity character. He said "niku mung ngentek-enteki wesi mawon" (it's a waste of iron) yet produce the same look and feel as 256 layers.

Your thought?

5th February 2019, 03:21 AM	#6
gckaeng Member Join Date: Jan 2019 Posts: 4	Pulen Thanks Alan for the note. In regard to the Pulen characteristic, it appears that my physical understanding of it is close, except around the color. I always consider black pulen is mesmerizing, somehow it is sticks to my head. Lets take color out of the equation. To re-emphasize your points, my understanding of Pulen is also attributed to the visual and feel perception, not composition. Thanks for your note which states that different compositions and ages can result in the same look. I might understand the reason you are trying to stay away from the name game as the community is surrounded by names/terms/jargon as a result of traditional javanese's classifications which tend to be subjective of the Empu/elite, then became standard of Keraton, then often confused modern people, including myself. However, pardon my stubborn amateur reasoning, I still need name to mention the wesi indicators being discussed. lets agree on the indicators you mentioned, at least we have an agreeable basis to continue the discussion. 1. On your note, there's probably a hint of quality, but you have not clearly mentioned whether or not Pulen signifies quality. I might just ask you now. So next time I see one, I can glorify it. 2. Pardon my stubbornness: in the local community Pulen has never been attributed to anything new (never heard for kamardikan, but not sure of nom-noman). May be because of the characteristic of lempung/liat which might be a sign of antiquity. I kind of agree, because in my amateur eyes, tightly-packed irons between antique and modern can still be distinguished. The later is just smooth and shiny missing the lempung look. I used to enter a museum and scanned it between tightly-packed olds and news, I could tell the difference. This is something I need to understand more, does Pulen bears antiquity indication to it or not, which might help me to identify good old kerises. Let me share my discussion with Empu Sungkowo Harumbrodjo, and see what you think. For those who know him he doesnt talk much, so I am not sure whether I understood his opinion precisely. In his besalen in Yogyakarta, there's a framed table chart on the wall about number of folds between different old tangguhs (I hope the picture shows up below). There mentioned that Majapahit has 2048 layers and Sedayu has 4098 layers, both with the highest amount of iron compared to other tangguhs. It intrigued me to ask him whether such high number of folds partly responsible to the amazing pulen look of Sedayu, so people often indicates Sedayu by such look? He said may be. I then asked whether he can produce the same look by using similar folding with as close iron type as possible? His answer was No. Not only the failure rate is high, he can not produce the look because pulen has antiquity character. He said "niku mung ngentek-enteki wesi mawon" (it's a waste of iron) yet produce the same look and feel as 256 layers. Your thought?