Methuk To Mendak

A. G. Maisey · 5th November 2010, 12:39 AM

Below are 15 mendak.

Numbers 1 to 8 are cast, I believe in bronze, but some could be either brass or copper. These are all very early mendak, mostly excavated, they are solid cast, and I believe were the early mendak form that took the place of the methuk.

Number 9 is iron with kinatah work, again from an early period, my guess is possibly Mataram.

All the mendak from 1 to 9 are strong, functional mendak that would support the base of the hilt and help to prevent it cracking during use. Without this mendak, the base of the hilt would impact upon the top of the gonjo, the edges and irregular form of which could encourage failure of the hilt under pressure.

Numbers 10 to 14 show what the mendak became when it changed to a decorative accessory, rather than a functional part of a weapon that was required to withstand sometimes severe or jolting forces during a strike.

Number 15 shows how the methuk changed to a decorative form in Bali.

Often we find that Balinese hilts do not have a mendak (uwer), so we might ask the question of why those Balinese hilts without mendak (uwer) did not split. If we look at the form of the base of a Bali hilt, where it comes down to the gonjo, it is slightly rounded, which brings the contact point of the hilt to a slight radius and that radius is what contacts the top of the gonjo, which automatically removes or at least greatly reduces the risk of splitting.

The Javanese hilts seem to have gone in a different direction and opted to retain the spacing of the hilt from the gonjo, which would indicate a different method of use.

The above is only theoretical and in the absence of a time machine it could be argued backwards and forth till the cows come home, but it is perhaps one reasonable explanation of how this loss of the methuk occurred.

A. G. Maisey · 5th November 2010, 12:41 AM

And the last three.

David · 5th November 2010, 12:52 AM

Nice Alan, thank you!

Rick · 5th November 2010, 01:04 AM

So, might we conclude that the Methuk seen on archaic Keris forms are indeed the progenitors of the evolution of the Mendak ?

Or do I rush to judgement ?

BluErf · 5th November 2010, 05:32 AM

Thanks for the pictures and your thoughts on this issue. I've never seen cast bronze Javanese mendak, though I have some cast brass(?) pendoko for Bugis kerises. There are some similarities, though size is certainly not one of them, and the age of these Bugis pendoko are probably not as great as the Javanese examples here.

A. G. Maisey · 6th November 2010, 10:44 PM

I think you're right Rick.

5th November 2010, 12:39 AM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,019	Below are 15 mendak. Numbers 1 to 8 are cast, I believe in bronze, but some could be either brass or copper. These are all very early mendak, mostly excavated, they are solid cast, and I believe were the early mendak form that took the place of the methuk. Number 9 is iron with kinatah work, again from an early period, my guess is possibly Mataram. All the mendak from 1 to 9 are strong, functional mendak that would support the base of the hilt and help to prevent it cracking during use. Without this mendak, the base of the hilt would impact upon the top of the gonjo, the edges and irregular form of which could encourage failure of the hilt under pressure. Numbers 10 to 14 show what the mendak became when it changed to a decorative accessory, rather than a functional part of a weapon that was required to withstand sometimes severe or jolting forces during a strike. Number 15 shows how the methuk changed to a decorative form in Bali. Often we find that Balinese hilts do not have a mendak (uwer), so we might ask the question of why those Balinese hilts without mendak (uwer) did not split. If we look at the form of the base of a Bali hilt, where it comes down to the gonjo, it is slightly rounded, which brings the contact point of the hilt to a slight radius and that radius is what contacts the top of the gonjo, which automatically removes or at least greatly reduces the risk of splitting. The Javanese hilts seem to have gone in a different direction and opted to retain the spacing of the hilt from the gonjo, which would indicate a different method of use. The above is only theoretical and in the absence of a time machine it could be argued backwards and forth till the cows come home, but it is perhaps one reasonable explanation of how this loss of the methuk occurred. Attached Images

5th November 2010, 12:41 AM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,019	And the last three. Attached Images

5th November 2010, 12:52 AM	#3
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,219	Nice Alan, thank you!

5th November 2010, 01:04 AM	#4
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,339	So, might we conclude that the Methuk seen on archaic Keris forms are indeed the progenitors of the evolution of the Mendak ? Or do I rush to judgement ?

5th November 2010, 05:32 AM	#5
BluErf Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,180	Thanks for the pictures and your thoughts on this issue. I've never seen cast bronze Javanese mendak, though I have some cast brass(?) pendoko for Bugis kerises. There are some similarities, though size is certainly not one of them, and the age of these Bugis pendoko are probably not as great as the Javanese examples here.

6th November 2010, 10:44 PM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,019	I think you're right Rick.