“Pulen” Iron

[gckaeng]

Thanks Alan for your kind response. So rich with insights.

I do feel embarrassed with my own circular reasoning, but as you have pointed out, it pretty much represents the indigenous keris worldview. I kept mentioning "local community" on my notes exactly so that this group knew where I was coming from. I do agree with you that the Javanese school curriculum often full of things detached from reality, as keris in indonesia and for indonesians is first and foremost anthropological than technical. Jakarta is probably more open. There the Museum Pusaka has just erected a Besalen dedicated to study the technical aspects of keris making and open for public scrutiny.

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Well, I do not think in terms of the old Javanese names applied to various visual presentations of ferric material, but if I see tightly grained, smooth iron in an old blade that has been subjected to some degree of erosion, I consider that material to have been properly worked, and thus, the blade that it is in was very likely forged by a competent smith.

I think that's my missing link. I think the degree of erosion what makes a tightly-grained-smooth-iron blades look different from the new ones of similar quality (assuming I know quality, or pointed out by museum curators). I was wondering how erosion by maintenance effects appearances.
I was wondering if that's where the 'Pulen' got its unique attribution from: very fine grain, well packed, smooth iron, with some degree of erosion.

As inferred from your notes, these attributes can still be objectively identified, thus can be objectively classified. The glorification of good old blade irons might have naturally motivated indigenous experts to make such identification, though I don't know when it exactly started, as most likely experts tastes changes from time to time.
Though I do agree that indigenous experts can vary their opinions on many different things, I have noticed when it comes to this subject I do not remember a memorable disagreements, of course within my limited exposure and experience.

Back to erosion, your story about pre-1600 kerises in european museum were indistinguishable from modern ones is because they had not gone through regular cleaning and staining.

Now my question, how erosion effects appearances, especially on irons characters being discussed?

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

This mystique of the number of layers is myth. It is a myth that some smiths like to perpetuate because for somebody who does not understand forge work it sounds pretty impressive. Another thing:- those final few welds are very easy to take, and to take perfectly. The most difficult welds are the first few, if the material is hot short as well as dirty, it can be exceedingly difficult to take the first few welds. So, why stop at even 12 welds, we can very easily raise the number of layers to stratospheric numbers with only a few more welds.

Your notes around welding and layering are so insightful, I thank you for that. In my mind it challenges the existing belief about old-masters layering. Though the indigenous belief about Majapahit/Sedayu layers as hung on the wall might have come from oral tradition on how old empus welded (how many folds thus number of layers, instead of actually counting of the layers), it might not signify anything important. I have too seen many allegedly Majapahit kerises with poor quality, thus drives your points home.
Probably as you said, it's just a myth.