What is this pamor?

Jean · 17th May 2011, 01:42 PM

Hello Rick and Marco,

Thanks for your comments. First I apologize that the dapur type is Brojol and not Tilam Upih (there is no tikel alis).
Regarding the age of the blade, I don't think that is new but probably not very old and well maintained, there is some visible wear especially on top of the sor-soran on one side. It was recently cleaned and stained in Solo.
The pamor on the ganja is less bright than on the blade itself but it is not wulung and its colour shade is the same as the blade core.
Regarding the pamor, the best fitting style is Sumur Bandung although I agree that it does not constitute a perfect specimen. Any other opinion?
Best regards
Jean

A. G. Maisey · 18th May 2011, 12:54 AM

Jean, I do not think that this pamor can be sumur bandung.

The round areas in sumur bandung are empty, that is they do not contain pamor, but have been created by forging out a pimple in the blade, removing the pamor while that pimple is raised, and then forging the blade flat again. Usually this pamor has only 3 or four empty round areas on each side, I have heard it can have more, but I've never seen this.

Now, if we look at your blade, the round areas have been created by either one of two methods, they have either been punched into the blade surface, or ground into the blade surface, and then the blade forged flat again, but importantly, in most cases they have been allowed to retain pamor within the depressed area.

I suppose we could say that it is an imperfect sumur bandung, because of retention of pamor, or we could say it is an imperfect banyu tetes because in a couple of cases the pamor has not been retained. But then we have the number of round areas, which is one hell of a lot of circles for sumur bandung.

There is another problem with this pamor, when it comes to naming:- if we look at the flow of the grain, we can see that not only has a round punch ( or grinding ) been used, which is the usual process with banyu tetes, but it is possible that when the blade was forged flat again, a square punch was used to bring the blade back to flat surfaces. This is a variation in process from a simple banyu tetes process, so it is entirely possible that the maker was trying to create something new.

The visible lack of pamor depth in one area of the sorsoran was caused by the fact that that area of the blade had a badly centered core, and during the making, the maker was either lazy or insufficiently skilled to recenter the core before he shaped the blade. It is not age wear.

I think it was Rassers who theorised that all pamor motifs developed from an original five motifs. This might or might not be so, but what is so is that the older blades invariably have much more simple motifs than the more recent blades. In historic blades any blade with pamor miring is rare. Very rare. Any blades with surface manipulated pamors are also rare. As we move forward in time we find that both surface manipulated pamors and pamors made by miring process become not only more frequent, but also more perfect.

In all Tuban blades, we are looking at quite old blades, and in all genuine Tuban blades the pamors involved are invariably very simple pamors.

Here we have a blade that has some elements of Tuban form, and a pamor that has a number of elements in its construction that were not mastered until the current resurgence in keris making, which did not really get under way until around 1990.

We must never expect that any old blade will look like a recent blade when it comes to the techniques involved in pamor work.

semar · 18th May 2011, 04:37 AM

hallo Jean

this is one of my keris with sumur bandung
mebay the picteur can help a littel

regards semar

David · 18th May 2011, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semar

hallo Jean

this is one of my keris with sumur bandung
mebay the picteur can help a littel

regards semar

Oh, i like that Semar. Any shots from a straight on angle?

A. G. Maisey · 18th May 2011, 05:26 AM

Semar, sumur bandung is a confusing pamor, it is confusing because it has the form of several empty round circles, or a couple of empty oblong circles separated by a puser. Two distinct forms, with the main characteristic of a framed area of blade that is empty of pamor.

You have shown us the second type, with framed empty oblong areas separated by a puser.

Jean has shown us a blade with a series of dots, which if one has never actually seen a sumur bandung pamor, and only had book pictures to refer to, could possibly be mistaken for the second type of sumur bandung.

In fact, in Jean's example the dots are not big enough, not few enough, and not distinct enough to be read as sumur bandung. But from a book reference, could easily be mistaken for this pamor.

PS --- if you would like confirmation of what I have said, I have just checked Ensiklopedi, and Harsrinuksmo says just about the same as I have said. Page 446.

Jean · 18th May 2011, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Jean, I do not think that this pamor can be sumur bandung.

Hello Alan,
Thank you and best regards
Jean

18th May 2011, 04:37 AM	#3
semar Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 272	hallo Jean this is one of my keris with sumur bandung mebay the picteur can help a littel regards semar Attached Images

18th May 2011, 05:26 AM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,056	Semar, sumur bandung is a confusing pamor, it is confusing because it has the form of several empty round circles, or a couple of empty oblong circles separated by a puser. Two distinct forms, with the main characteristic of a framed area of blade that is empty of pamor. You have shown us the second type, with framed empty oblong areas separated by a puser. Jean has shown us a blade with a series of dots, which if one has never actually seen a sumur bandung pamor, and only had book pictures to refer to, could possibly be mistaken for the second type of sumur bandung. In fact, in Jean's example the dots are not big enough, not few enough, and not distinct enough to be read as sumur bandung. But from a book reference, could easily be mistaken for this pamor. PS --- if you would like confirmation of what I have said, I have just checked Ensiklopedi, and Harsrinuksmo says just about the same as I have said. Page 446. Last edited by A. G. Maisey; 18th May 2011 at 05:28 AM. Reason: Addition

17th May 2011, 01:42 PM	#1
Jean Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,740	Hello Rick and Marco, Thanks for your comments. First I apologize that the dapur type is Brojol and not Tilam Upih (there is no tikel alis). Regarding the age of the blade, I don't think that is new but probably not very old and well maintained, there is some visible wear especially on top of the sor-soran on one side. It was recently cleaned and stained in Solo. The pamor on the ganja is less bright than on the blade itself but it is not wulung and its colour shade is the same as the blade core. Regarding the pamor, the best fitting style is Sumur Bandung although I agree that it does not constitute a perfect specimen. Any other opinion? Best regards Jean

18th May 2011, 12:54 AM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,056	Jean, I do not think that this pamor can be sumur bandung. The round areas in sumur bandung are empty, that is they do not contain pamor, but have been created by forging out a pimple in the blade, removing the pamor while that pimple is raised, and then forging the blade flat again. Usually this pamor has only 3 or four empty round areas on each side, I have heard it can have more, but I've never seen this. Now, if we look at your blade, the round areas have been created by either one of two methods, they have either been punched into the blade surface, or ground into the blade surface, and then the blade forged flat again, but importantly, in most cases they have been allowed to retain pamor within the depressed area. I suppose we could say that it is an imperfect sumur bandung, because of retention of pamor, or we could say it is an imperfect banyu tetes because in a couple of cases the pamor has not been retained. But then we have the number of round areas, which is one hell of a lot of circles for sumur bandung. There is another problem with this pamor, when it comes to naming:- if we look at the flow of the grain, we can see that not only has a round punch ( or grinding ) been used, which is the usual process with banyu tetes, but it is possible that when the blade was forged flat again, a square punch was used to bring the blade back to flat surfaces. This is a variation in process from a simple banyu tetes process, so it is entirely possible that the maker was trying to create something new. The visible lack of pamor depth in one area of the sorsoran was caused by the fact that that area of the blade had a badly centered core, and during the making, the maker was either lazy or insufficiently skilled to recenter the core before he shaped the blade. It is not age wear. I think it was Rassers who theorised that all pamor motifs developed from an original five motifs. This might or might not be so, but what is so is that the older blades invariably have much more simple motifs than the more recent blades. In historic blades any blade with pamor miring is rare. Very rare. Any blades with surface manipulated pamors are also rare. As we move forward in time we find that both surface manipulated pamors and pamors made by miring process become not only more frequent, but also more perfect. In all Tuban blades, we are looking at quite old blades, and in all genuine Tuban blades the pamors involved are invariably very simple pamors. Here we have a blade that has some elements of Tuban form, and a pamor that has a number of elements in its construction that were not mastered until the current resurgence in keris making, which did not really get under way until around 1990. We must never expect that any old blade will look like a recent blade when it comes to the techniques involved in pamor work.