[A. G. Maisey]

With respect Pangeran Datu, I disagree with you.

You have put forward a hypothetical argument based in logic, and from a purely logical basis, I am not able to disagree with you.But that logic is hypothetical, and measured against the reality of the keris in differing cultural contexts, it does not stand.

Even within Jawa there is disagreement as to the what the exact features are which should be present for a keris to conform to a particular dhapur, even within Jawa, it is safer to use the features contained in a keris to describe that keris, rather than to use a dhapur designation.Unless, of course, you are able to quote the pakem, thus you would describe the form as, for instance:- "sinom robyong, in accordance with (whatever) pakem".

When we move into a different culture, and we look at a keris which is not a Javanese keris, but that keris contains features that are also able to be found in a Javanese keris, then it is clearly erroneous to describe that keris from Sulawesi, or Sumatra, or Lombok in terms applicable to a Javanese keris. It is not a Javanese keris, thus it cannot be described as one. The names of the various ricikan in keris from various areas are often different from the names used in Jawa for those ricikan. Similarly, the names used to describe the keris form are often different from the name for a Javanese keris containing the same features, but with different names.The names of the various features , or ricikan, in a keris blade have everyday meanings, for instance, a "sogokan" is a long stick that you push things with, a "blumbangan" is a pond, and so on. These names of the keris features make sense to a Javanese person because he can see the connection between the name of the feature, and that thing in the real world. However, to somebody in another culture, using a different language, the Javanese names of the features could well make about as much sense as they do to a native English speaker. Thus, you will find that although the features in keris blades across several cultures could all be the same, the names of those features will sometimes vary.As the names of the features (ricikan) vary, so do the names of the forms (dhapur) carrying those features, and the word used in a local language to describe the form itself is no longer a Javanese word, but a word that is intelligible to the local user of that word.Thus, Lalu Djelengga, being from Lombok, uses (I guess) a Sasak word instead of Indonesian (bentuk) or Javanese (dhapur) when he is referring to keris from Lombok.

In respect of word meanings.

In Modern Javanese "dhapur" means "shape, form, design".

The word "dapur" does not exist in Javanese, it is an Indonesian word that means "kitchen".

The word "bentuk" is an Indonesian word that means "shape, form"; this word does not exist in Javanese.

The word "angun-angunan" is a problem. I really do not understand this word, so I am assuming it is a Sasak word which is a synonym of the Indonesian "bentuk" and the Javanese "dhapur", which is the context in which Djelengga has supplied it. In Javanese "angun", or "angun-angun" can mean a bull or it can mean wild; it is not a word found in Indonesian. Angun, angun-angun, and angun-angunan appear not to exist in Old Javanese.

I do not believe that we have any need to go back to olden times to understand what a modern author wrote in the 20th or 21st century. Lalu Djelengga gave us a choice of three words, all appearing to mean the same thing:- "bentuk" if we are speaking Indonesian, "dhapur" if we are speaking Javanese, or "angun-angunan" if we are speaking Sasak ( I assume). What he actually presents is a heading to a series of matrices which form a pakem; this heading reads:- NAMA DAN UNSUR CIRI (RICIKAN) BENTUK/ANGUN-ANGUNAN (DHAPUR).

Within the pakem supplied by Djelengga the keris form "sinom robyong" does not exist; the form "sinom" does, but not "sinom robyong".

Personally, I try to steer away from using Javanese words when I am talking about keris in English. Yes, I know, it can be very impressive to throw a whole heap of dhapurs and condong-leles and jejerans into one's discussion, if for no other reason than to remind people of one's erudition, but why use a Javanese word when there is a perfectly good English word, meaning the same thing, that everybody will understand without thinking? Why not use "form" instead of dhapur? Why not use "handle" instead of "ukiran" or "jejeran"?

I think I could precis my position on this matter by saying that I am of the opinion that we should try to maintain a degree of consistency in keris terminology which reflects the area of origin of the keris concerned, thus we would use Javanese terms for a Javanese keris, Sasak terms for a Lombok keris, and so on. Alternatively, we use English words which clearly convey our meaning to English speakers, and only use a Javanese/Balinese/Sasak word where we do not have an English word available. The only keris word I can think of that I do not have an English word available for is "gonjo".