Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

A. G. Maisey · 19th December 2007, 04:41 AM

Pak Boedhi, I am not proposing a linear descent to Surakarta style from Banten style.

What I am proposing is the stylistic proportion of the Majapahit blade transposed to the Surakarta blade. This does not mean that the Surakarta blade is the same in all respects to the Majapahit blade, but rather it uses the style of the Majapahit blade and fits it to the Surakarta blade.

Yes, there was a long and a close relationship between Surakarta and Sumenep, and there may have been some contributing influence to the Surakarta blade, but personally I cannot see it. The old Madura blades had a totally different pawakan to the Surakarta blade, and were usually quite upright with a rotan-like cross section; the blade tip after the last luk was long; the gandik was more often than not rather acutely angled; blumbangan proportion was quite different to that of the Surakarta blade, tending to squarish, and it was typically shallow and poorly defined; the kembang kacang was rather thin and spindly, and the gandik was typically short, low, thin and small; pamor was coarse and with a sand-like texture. However, they were well made blades for the purpose of weaponry. They were not works of art.

It is possible that one could get a similar feeling from an old Madura blade, and a Surakarta blade, but this different to physical appearance.

Blade proportion is anchored in the blumbangan, and the blumbangan in both the Majapahit blade and the Surakarta blade establish a related proportion. I am not using only the blumbangan as an indicator, rather I am saying that by using the same blumbangan, proportion is established which must follow the blumbangan, once that happens, the overall style follows.Actual physical size is not a consideration, as Blambangan, Banten and Bali blades---all inheritors of Majapahit keris tradition--- from the period immediately following Majapahit, are all of similar size to the Surakarta blade. Although we think of the Majapahit blade as a small blade, and although it is mentioned as a light blade in Centhini, let us not forget that Majapahit was already 400 years back in history when Centhini was written.In fact, the typical Majapahit blade is not a small blade, rather it is of medium size, but it is thin and light.

In one sense the Surakarta blade was "new" style, just as the HB blade was a "new" style, but where the HB style was influenced by Mataram, the Surakarta style was influenced by Majapahit.

19th December 2007, 04:41 AM	#44
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,697	Pak Boedhi, I am not proposing a linear descent to Surakarta style from Banten style. What I am proposing is the stylistic proportion of the Majapahit blade transposed to the Surakarta blade. This does not mean that the Surakarta blade is the same in all respects to the Majapahit blade, but rather it uses the style of the Majapahit blade and fits it to the Surakarta blade. Yes, there was a long and a close relationship between Surakarta and Sumenep, and there may have been some contributing influence to the Surakarta blade, but personally I cannot see it. The old Madura blades had a totally different pawakan to the Surakarta blade, and were usually quite upright with a rotan-like cross section; the blade tip after the last luk was long; the gandik was more often than not rather acutely angled; blumbangan proportion was quite different to that of the Surakarta blade, tending to squarish, and it was typically shallow and poorly defined; the kembang kacang was rather thin and spindly, and the gandik was typically short, low, thin and small; pamor was coarse and with a sand-like texture. However, they were well made blades for the purpose of weaponry. They were not works of art. It is possible that one could get a similar feeling from an old Madura blade, and a Surakarta blade, but this different to physical appearance. Blade proportion is anchored in the blumbangan, and the blumbangan in both the Majapahit blade and the Surakarta blade establish a related proportion. I am not using only the blumbangan as an indicator, rather I am saying that by using the same blumbangan, proportion is established which must follow the blumbangan, once that happens, the overall style follows.Actual physical size is not a consideration, as Blambangan, Banten and Bali blades---all inheritors of Majapahit keris tradition--- from the period immediately following Majapahit, are all of similar size to the Surakarta blade. Although we think of the Majapahit blade as a small blade, and although it is mentioned as a light blade in Centhini, let us not forget that Majapahit was already 400 years back in history when Centhini was written.In fact, the typical Majapahit blade is not a small blade, rather it is of medium size, but it is thin and light. In one sense the Surakarta blade was "new" style, just as the HB blade was a "new" style, but where the HB style was influenced by Mataram, the Surakarta style was influenced by Majapahit.