Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

A. G. Maisey · 1st December 2014, 09:29 PM

I'm having a little bit of difficulty in understanding exactly where this discussion is going, and I would appreciate it if somebody could clarify for me the following:-

1) Do we accept that the designation of "Bugis", as applied to a keris blade, and to keris dress, refers to a style of blade that is associated with the Bugis people?

2) Do we accept that the diaspora of the Bugis people, which began in the 17th century, and continues until today, has seen the spread of Bugis cultural style and values, as well as Bugis genetic inheritance, to areas far removed from the homeland of the Bugis people in South West Sulawesi?

3) Do we accept that the characteristics displayed in items of material culture originating from a common cultural source can vary for many reasons ?

4) Do we accept that the existence of the dominant characteristics of any item of material culture determine the culture to which that item is to be assigned?

5) Do we agree that the designation of "Bugis" when applied to a keris blade is a cultural, rather than a geographic classification?

If we are in agreement in respect of the above, then there can be no doubt at all that the keris under discussion here is a Bugis keris.

My opinion is that this is not a Bugis "influenced" keris, nor is it a keris of Bugis "style".

It is a Bugis keris.

However there are several questions that remain unanswered:-

A) What is the geographic point of origin of the various components of this complete keris?

B) Is there a possibility that the peculiarities noted in the fabrication of the blade are the result of a blade revision?

C) If the response to B) is that this conjecture is a possibility, then where & when was this revision carried out?

The more I look at the images of this keris, the more I feel that I am looking at a marriage.

Is there the possibility that the edges of this blade were filed or ground to remove imperfections, and when this work was done, the width of the gusen increased?

If I look closely at the texture of the face of the blade and I compare it with the texture of the bevels of the blade, these bevels do not seem to share the same texture as is found on the face of the blade.

During my life I have handled thousands of keris of all types.

I have never seen a keris with a separately made gonjo that has been permanently fixed to the body of the blade.

There is a possibility that that this permanent fixture of the gonjo was the result of one man's idea for improvement, either the maker, or the man who placed the order with the maker, or some later owner.

When I consider all the questionable aspects of this complete keris, my present feeling is that this is a marriage that took place far away from the geographic point of origin of any of the components of this complete keris.

1st December 2014, 09:29 PM	#30
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,700	I'm having a little bit of difficulty in understanding exactly where this discussion is going, and I would appreciate it if somebody could clarify for me the following:- 1) Do we accept that the designation of "Bugis", as applied to a keris blade, and to keris dress, refers to a style of blade that is associated with the Bugis people? 2) Do we accept that the diaspora of the Bugis people, which began in the 17th century, and continues until today, has seen the spread of Bugis cultural style and values, as well as Bugis genetic inheritance, to areas far removed from the homeland of the Bugis people in South West Sulawesi? 3) Do we accept that the characteristics displayed in items of material culture originating from a common cultural source can vary for many reasons ? 4) Do we accept that the existence of the dominant characteristics of any item of material culture determine the culture to which that item is to be assigned? 5) Do we agree that the designation of "Bugis" when applied to a keris blade is a cultural, rather than a geographic classification? If we are in agreement in respect of the above, then there can be no doubt at all that the keris under discussion here is a Bugis keris. My opinion is that this is not a Bugis "influenced" keris, nor is it a keris of Bugis "style". It is a Bugis keris. However there are several questions that remain unanswered:- A) What is the geographic point of origin of the various components of this complete keris? B) Is there a possibility that the peculiarities noted in the fabrication of the blade are the result of a blade revision? C) If the response to B) is that this conjecture is a possibility, then where & when was this revision carried out? The more I look at the images of this keris, the more I feel that I am looking at a marriage. Is there the possibility that the edges of this blade were filed or ground to remove imperfections, and when this work was done, the width of the gusen increased? If I look closely at the texture of the face of the blade and I compare it with the texture of the bevels of the blade, these bevels do not seem to share the same texture as is found on the face of the blade. During my life I have handled thousands of keris of all types. I have never seen a keris with a separately made gonjo that has been permanently fixed to the body of the blade. There is a possibility that that this permanent fixture of the gonjo was the result of one man's idea for improvement, either the maker, or the man who placed the order with the maker, or some later owner. When I consider all the questionable aspects of this complete keris, my present feeling is that this is a marriage that took place far away from the geographic point of origin of any of the components of this complete keris.