[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks for that clarification Kai, and thanks for the link to the old thread David.

So your "pekaka" in Post #20 was just a typo, Kai? It was that typo that roused my curiosity.

I've just had a look at "Spirit of Wood" --- great book. It seems that the authors consistently refer to the entire keris as "Keris Tajong", P120:-

"The most important keris form to originate in the Kelantan-Terengganu-Pattani region is the tajong."

This confirms what I suspected, and I thank you Kai for reminding me of SofW.

The word "tajong" is actually the name of a kind of fishing boat, and the form of a keris tajong scabbard is very similar to this boat, so I think we will find that the keris gains its name from the scabbard:- it is a tajong scabbard, and a tajong keris --- just like Jawa terminology:- a ladrangan wrongko, thus a ladrangan keris.

But what sort of hilt is it?

Regrettably the authors of this wonderful book do not give the hilt a name, they refer to it as "hilt, keris tajong" or "hulu keris tajong", in other words the hilt of a keris tajong, so the name tajong hilt is actually a descriptor rather than a name.

Prior to 1936 Gardner wrote this about the hilt now known as the hilt for a keris tajong:-

"The hilt developed a big head with such a long nose that it has been mistaken for a kingfisher; but it is really intended to be human, and there will often be found tiny arms clasped around the body"

It is clear that Gardner knew exactly what he was writing about, and that people in Malaya prior to 1936 did refer to this hilt as a pekakak. It is equally clear that he was familiar with the hilt now known as a perkaka but he had no name for this, he just referred to it as the Northern Type Jawa Demam.

Very clear indeed that Gardner wrote exactly what he intended to write and simply reported what he heard from people living in Malaya at that time. The Two Niks seem to think he was confused, I'm sorry , but I see no confusion.

Gardner did not suggest that the pekakak hilt form was based upon a bird, he was well aware that it was a representation in the wayang art form of a human, what he said was that it was mistaken for a kingfisher, not that it was one.

I do accept this:- at the present time the hilt previously known as the pekakak (pekaka) form is known as the hilt for a keris tajong.
In light of what I read in both SofW and Gardner as well as several Indonesian publications, I cannot justify holding an opinion that this hilt form was never known as a pekakak form in Malaya.

Similarly, I have not previously seen nor heard this Northern Jawa Demam form referred to as anything other than Jawa Demam, however, if at the present time it is believed that the correct name is "perkaka" , I do accept this as correct current terminology. However, looking at this Jawa Demam form and trying to see any resemblance to a kingfisher is totally beyond my powers of imagination.

I note that The Two Niks have used "perkaka". Although Indonesian is a form of Malay, and the two languages are mutually intelligible, I do not speak or write formal Malay, so I needed to go to several Malay dictionaries to check "perkaka". I could not find the word, so either we are looking at a printing error, or an error in the original text, or local dialect, or perhaps a newly invented word constructed to apply to this Jawa Demam hilt form.

~~~~~~~~~~~

About Bugis and Malay hilt form terms.

Again my thanks Kai, Bugis term : Malay term, yes, or course, I did not even consider this, I was thinking in strictly Bugis terms, for, as we are aware, when we speak of the Bugis people we speak of a culture , rather than a geographical location.

What you say about the "perkaka" form being absent from Bugis usage, might well be true, even though it would seem that Bugis keris do exist that use this form of hilt. I was coming to the same opinion as yourself, but there are a couple of pics of hilts in the Bugis book that look like pekaka type to me, but I'm probably wrong, because the camera angle doesn't show enough of the hilt for certainty.