Ladrang remodelled?

Gustav · 25th February 2024, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

4) For North Coast variations both original & modified from other forms, see here:-

https://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=13435

The way how this Pasisir sheath is carved leads me to think, that its front part could be original - the edges, or the "lip" are pointing downwards, at the same time have too much volume at the needed place for a standard Ladrangan with Angkup. Nevertheless, this one could be the only one sheath from all examples I presented (and have seen in person), where I would consider a complete recarving some longer time ago, because patina on all parts of Atasan is genuine.

A. G. Maisey · 25th February 2024, 08:02 PM

Nice photos Gustav.

I will comment on these as soon as I have time, at the moment I'm only a couple of days back from Bali & my inbox is over-flowing with money producing work, so when that is turned into folding stuff I'll post a comment or three.

However, I do have one question, you mention the "Pagaruyung keris", I do not know this keris, do you have a photo?

Pagaruyung is in Sumatera, it is a Minangkabau location.

Gustav · 25th February 2024, 08:31 PM

Alan, it is the Keris depicted together with its sheath and the well known dagger. Both were the heirlooms held in Pagarruyung (and still are?).

A. G. Maisey · 25th February 2024, 09:50 PM

Thanks Gustav, I can see what you mean now, yes, there are similarities between the "Pagaruyung Keris" and the Candi Panataran carving, and there is very little similarity between the Pagaruyung example & the Bugis form.

I will remark that many people who have seen the Candi Panataran example have formed the same opinion as have I about this scabbard, that is, that the Candi Panataran example bears a high degree of similarity to the Bugis scabbard form. Many of these people have formed that opinion without any knowledge of my photographs.

You might see this matter differently, & I have no problem with this.

Gustav · 26th February 2024, 11:48 AM

Alan, it doesn't wonder me at all, that people have formed an opinion about the similarity of Panataran carving to a Buginese sheath. Your picture was the first one where I clearly could discern the shape of Gandar, which is identical to Pagarruyung sheath. We also probably all have experienced the fact, that sometimes some details are much more easily noticed in a photograph then in real life.

What, I think, till now escapes many people, besides the Gandar shape, is the fact, that the front side of sheath in profile forms a straight line, like the sheath of Pagarruyung Keris.

Knowing Pagarruyung Keris and its sheath we even can tell, that a Jalak Budho or Bethok blade with Gandhik, not protruding outside the blade profile, will have a corresponding sheath with no protrusion where Gandhik is placed. (As we know, sheath is sometimes mimicking the details of the blade it houses, like Kruwingan.)The Keris from Panataran carving also seems to not have a protruding Gandhik.

The sheath from likely later Candi Sukuh carving shows a protruding front part, and that allows us to speculate, that Keris inside it also already would have a protruding Gandhik part.

A. G. Maisey · 26th February 2024, 11:49 AM

At the core of my comments in Post 18 is this statement:-

"Central Javanese ladrang forms that do have a defined angkup but that have lost this angkup are never original creations, a Central Javanese ladrangan without angkup is always the result of an alteration, the loss of the angkup makes the keris unsuited for formal wear & for court wear --- "

once this is understood everything else that we have wandered over might be considered to be somewhat superfluous.

However, we're here to exchange ideas, so here are a few more:-

Post 24 --- I have already commented upon one element of this post, but there is something else that I should mention.

The wrongko in the relief carving at Candi Sukuh, that I have shown in my Post #18 & that appears again but reversed in Post 24, does not have a widheng, what looks vaguely like a spiral in the photo is in fact the natural grain of weathered 15th century rock.

In respect of exactly what classification can be applied to the Candi Sukuh wrongko. Yes, it does have some characteristics of a modern ladrangan, and of a modern sandang walikat, and also of a modern jamprahan & certainly of some bancihan forms. However, we do not have even the vaguest idea of what the name was for this form in the 15th century. For a long time I was inclined to think of it as a ladrangan form, not so much because of the wrongko itself, but rather because of the scene in which it appears.

At the present time I would be inclined to accept what anybody, with some understanding of the relative fields, thought that they could see. My own opinions are rarely set in stone, they change continually, and depend upon what I have learnt.

Post 25 --- The Wrongko shown in Post 25 is a Jogja Bancihan form, it is not one of the six Jogja formal Ladrangan forms recognised for official wear. The word "bancihan" comes from the root "banci", which in Javanese means an effeminate man, ie, a man who is neither fully male but also not female. At the present time some people regard the bancihan wrongko forms as having a stigma attached to them, perhaps this is unreasonable, because by likening this wrongko form to an effeminate man, the implied understanding is that it is neither one thing nor the other, it is sort of stuck in the middle with nowhere to go.

Post 26 --- The wrongko shown in Post 26 is the Balinese Jamprahan form, in past times the Jamprahan wrongko form was worn by religious leaders. This defined use accounts for its comparative rarity. This wrongko form is not the equivalent of a Javanese ladrangan form.

Post 27 --- The wrongko shown in this post appears to be a North Javanese variation, not a Central Javanese form, it could be original, it could be an alteration. I have no idea what it might have been classified as in its place & time of origin, but in Central Jawa it would be called "bancihan".

A. G. Maisey · 26th February 2024, 12:01 PM

Re Post #31.

I have seen other keris with that little bit of floral carving at the end of the gandar, I've forgotten where they were from, I think probably Madura. They were old, not recent copies.

As for relating blade shape to wrongko shape, I've never given this any thought, its just not the sort of thing that interests me. But having said that, yes, you could well be right.

Gustav · 26th February 2024, 12:36 PM

Alan, in my post #9, to which you referred in #18, I wrote:

"I have seen one old Branggah from Yogyakarta without Angkup, which was, so far as I can tell, in its original state."

In #18 you wrote;

(...) a Central Javanese ladrangan without angkup is always the result of an alteration, (...)

in my post #25 I presented a picture of this Branggah without Angkup, which you call Yogyakarta Bancihan.

That's it from my perpective, and we probably can call it a day.

25th February 2024, 09:50 PM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	Thanks Gustav, I can see what you mean now, yes, there are similarities between the "Pagaruyung Keris" and the Candi Panataran carving, and there is very little similarity between the Pagaruyung example & the Bugis form. I will remark that many people who have seen the Candi Panataran example have formed the same opinion as have I about this scabbard, that is, that the Candi Panataran example bears a high degree of similarity to the Bugis scabbard form. Many of these people have formed that opinion without any knowledge of my photographs. You might see this matter differently, & I have no problem with this. Last edited by A. G. Maisey; 26th February 2024 at 11:36 AM. Reason: correction

26th February 2024, 11:48 AM	#5
Gustav Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,295	Alan, it doesn't wonder me at all, that people have formed an opinion about the similarity of Panataran carving to a Buginese sheath. Your picture was the first one where I clearly could discern the shape of Gandar, which is identical to Pagarruyung sheath. We also probably all have experienced the fact, that sometimes some details are much more easily noticed in a photograph then in real life. What, I think, till now escapes many people, besides the Gandar shape, is the fact, that the front side of sheath in profile forms a straight line, like the sheath of Pagarruyung Keris. Knowing Pagarruyung Keris and its sheath we even can tell, that a Jalak Budho or Bethok blade with Gandhik, not protruding outside the blade profile, will have a corresponding sheath with no protrusion where Gandhik is placed. (As we know, sheath is sometimes mimicking the details of the blade it houses, like Kruwingan.)The Keris from Panataran carving also seems to not have a protruding Gandhik. The sheath from likely later Candi Sukuh carving shows a protruding front part, and that allows us to speculate, that Keris inside it also already would have a protruding Gandhik part. Attached Images

26th February 2024, 11:49 AM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	At the core of my comments in Post 18 is this statement:- "Central Javanese ladrang forms that do have a defined angkup but that have lost this angkup are never original creations, a Central Javanese ladrangan without angkup is always the result of an alteration, the loss of the angkup makes the keris unsuited for formal wear & for court wear --- " once this is understood everything else that we have wandered over might be considered to be somewhat superfluous. However, we're here to exchange ideas, so here are a few more:- Post 24 --- I have already commented upon one element of this post, but there is something else that I should mention. The wrongko in the relief carving at Candi Sukuh, that I have shown in my Post #18 & that appears again but reversed in Post 24, does not have a widheng, what looks vaguely like a spiral in the photo is in fact the natural grain of weathered 15th century rock. In respect of exactly what classification can be applied to the Candi Sukuh wrongko. Yes, it does have some characteristics of a modern ladrangan, and of a modern sandang walikat, and also of a modern jamprahan & certainly of some bancihan forms. However, we do not have even the vaguest idea of what the name was for this form in the 15th century. For a long time I was inclined to think of it as a ladrangan form, not so much because of the wrongko itself, but rather because of the scene in which it appears. At the present time I would be inclined to accept what anybody, with some understanding of the relative fields, thought that they could see. My own opinions are rarely set in stone, they change continually, and depend upon what I have learnt. Post 25 --- The Wrongko shown in Post 25 is a Jogja Bancihan form, it is not one of the six Jogja formal Ladrangan forms recognised for official wear. The word "bancihan" comes from the root "banci", which in Javanese means an effeminate man, ie, a man who is neither fully male but also not female. At the present time some people regard the bancihan wrongko forms as having a stigma attached to them, perhaps this is unreasonable, because by likening this wrongko form to an effeminate man, the implied understanding is that it is neither one thing nor the other, it is sort of stuck in the middle with nowhere to go. Post 26 --- The wrongko shown in Post 26 is the Balinese Jamprahan form, in past times the Jamprahan wrongko form was worn by religious leaders. This defined use accounts for its comparative rarity. This wrongko form is not the equivalent of a Javanese ladrangan form. Post 27 --- The wrongko shown in this post appears to be a North Javanese variation, not a Central Javanese form, it could be original, it could be an alteration. I have no idea what it might have been classified as in its place & time of origin, but in Central Jawa it would be called "bancihan". Last edited by A. G. Maisey; 26th February 2024 at 12:02 PM.

25th February 2024, 08:02 PM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	Nice photos Gustav. I will comment on these as soon as I have time, at the moment I'm only a couple of days back from Bali & my inbox is over-flowing with money producing work, so when that is turned into folding stuff I'll post a comment or three. However, I do have one question, you mention the "Pagaruyung keris", I do not know this keris, do you have a photo? Pagaruyung is in Sumatera, it is a Minangkabau location.

25th February 2024, 08:31 PM	#3
Gustav Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,295	Alan, it is the Keris depicted together with its sheath and the well known dagger. Both were the heirlooms held in Pagarruyung (and still are?).

26th February 2024, 12:01 PM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	Re Post #31. I have seen other keris with that little bit of floral carving at the end of the gandar, I've forgotten where they were from, I think probably Madura. They were old, not recent copies. As for relating blade shape to wrongko shape, I've never given this any thought, its just not the sort of thing that interests me. But having said that, yes, you could well be right.

26th February 2024, 12:36 PM	#8
Gustav Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,295	Alan, in my post #9, to which you referred in #18, I wrote: "I have seen one old Branggah from Yogyakarta without Angkup, which was, so far as I can tell, in its original state." In #18 you wrote; (...) a Central Javanese ladrangan without angkup is always the result of an alteration, (...) in my post #25 I presented a picture of this Branggah without Angkup, which you call Yogyakarta Bancihan. That's it from my perpective, and we probably can call it a day.