Between Solo and Yogya

ganjawulung · 16th July 2007, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PenangsangII

The type of weapon called "cis" you mentioned was as you said tangguh Mataram. May I ask who normally used it in the past - whether he was king, courtiers, Pangerans, Palace guards etc? How it was worn as definitely the bearer must also wear at least a keris?

Dear Penangsang,
Just call it, "tempius" -- because the form is resemble to that of Lombok weapon. And I dare not to say that it has tangguh Mataram. But the pamor and the iron, is the kind of keris's iron and pamor of tangguh Mataram.

What I had found, after visited the "Gedong Pusaka" (Room of Pusaka) of Keraton (Palace) Solo before it was destroyed by fire in 1985, I saw that the keraton had quite a number of uncommon forms of weapon with pamor. Such as, handful dagger (Pangeran Puger -- the Chief of Gedong Pusaka -- said, it was usually used as kind of secret weapon by the palace guard). Mr Mans (Hidayat) had shown us too, an uncommon weapon of "jantra" (arrows) in another thread a couple days ago. I also saw that the tip of the karaton (palace) umbrella had a tip of secret spear too. It is called as "menur" (usually without pamor, pointed point). It would be used by the king in the emergency situation. And also, secret weapon in the walking stick of kings. I hope this kind of 'Javanese tempius' is a such weapon...

Ganjawulung

A. G. Maisey · 17th July 2007, 12:45 AM

Pak Ganja, I beg your forgiveness because of my continuing pursuit of this trivial matter. I myself have often taken the position that in respect of South East Asian weaponry, names of the weapons, and for that matter other things, are not particularly important, because of the indisputable fact that names change from area to area, town to town, and village to village.

However, if we accept that this blade, which you originally described as a "cis", is indeed an old weapon, that was forged in its present mechanically inadequate form from the outset, and that we feel it may be appropriate to attribute it to Lombok as a "tempius", then let us look at what Pak Djelengga says about the tempius:-

"--- the form of the blade is round or square,there are also (ones) like a blimbing which have three corners (edges), four , or many corners (edges).---"

Pak Djelengga does not say that a tempius can have a flat blade with two edges, nor an ovoid blade; he is quite clear:- a tempius may have a round blade, or a blade with three or more edges.

Therefore, just as you have so wisely disqualified this "cis" as a "sendirung", because it has no metuk, I feel we must also disqualify it as a "tempius", because it has a blade of incorrect cross section.

Thus, we are left with a longish blade of light construction with a flat tang , not designed to withstand side pressures. This blade is made from old material , and it came in an old, broken , walking stick.

Please understand, I am not challenging the knowledge and judgement of either you, or your friends, when you tell us that this piece of wesi aji is without doubt in the form in which it was originally forged. I am certain that both you and your friends could mount an extremely convincing argument, possibly complete with evidence, that would dispel all doubt in respect of the correctness of your individual and joint opinions. So, if you say that this blade is original in all respects I accept without reservation that this is your opinion.

Equally, I accept that it might be difficult to prove that this exquisite piece of wesi aji never occupied a place of honour in the walking stick of a ruler. So since we cannot disprove this proposal, let us all accept it as a possibility.

I must say, this approach to the study the Javanese culture and its weaponry is certainly more interesting than the humourless pursuit of facts.

After all, what are facts?

Only those things that most people believe.

And we all know that the vast majority of people are easily led.

17th July 2007, 12:45 AM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	Pak Ganja, I beg your forgiveness because of my continuing pursuit of this trivial matter. I myself have often taken the position that in respect of South East Asian weaponry, names of the weapons, and for that matter other things, are not particularly important, because of the indisputable fact that names change from area to area, town to town, and village to village. However, if we accept that this blade, which you originally described as a "cis", is indeed an old weapon, that was forged in its present mechanically inadequate form from the outset, and that we feel it may be appropriate to attribute it to Lombok as a "tempius", then let us look at what Pak Djelengga says about the tempius:- "--- the form of the blade is round or square,there are also (ones) like a blimbing which have three corners (edges), four , or many corners (edges).---" Pak Djelengga does not say that a tempius can have a flat blade with two edges, nor an ovoid blade; he is quite clear:- a tempius may have a round blade, or a blade with three or more edges. Therefore, just as you have so wisely disqualified this "cis" as a "sendirung", because it has no metuk, I feel we must also disqualify it as a "tempius", because it has a blade of incorrect cross section. Thus, we are left with a longish blade of light construction with a flat tang , not designed to withstand side pressures. This blade is made from old material , and it came in an old, broken , walking stick. Please understand, I am not challenging the knowledge and judgement of either you, or your friends, when you tell us that this piece of wesi aji is without doubt in the form in which it was originally forged. I am certain that both you and your friends could mount an extremely convincing argument, possibly complete with evidence, that would dispel all doubt in respect of the correctness of your individual and joint opinions. So, if you say that this blade is original in all respects I accept without reservation that this is your opinion. Equally, I accept that it might be difficult to prove that this exquisite piece of wesi aji never occupied a place of honour in the walking stick of a ruler. So since we cannot disprove this proposal, let us all accept it as a possibility. I must say, this approach to the study the Javanese culture and its weaponry is certainly more interesting than the humourless pursuit of facts. After all, what are facts? Only those things that most people believe. And we all know that the vast majority of people are easily led.