[kai]

Hello Alan,

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?

Yup, peoples originating in SW Sulawesi: Bugis, Makassarese, etc. (Not including the Toraja from central Sulawesi, of course.)

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?

Yep.

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

Sure.

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?

Define dominant and Bugis...

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

Yes. However, once cultures start to mix, the "pure" origin is lost and it may be preferable to speak of influences, cross-over styles, etc.

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.

From an outside position this is an understandable POV. From what I understand from insiders of the main diaspora areas (southern Malay peninsula and Melacca Straits archipelago including ports of eastern Sumatra), there often is a clear difference of a "pure Bugis" blade as found in SW Sulawesi (and also often as trade blade or gift in other SEA areas) and blades commonly crafted in the Malay diaspora regions (obviously influenced by the SW Sulawesi style but with a different flow of lines due to added influences from other keris cultures). Even Bugis descendants in these diasporas seem to agree with this notion. Granted, there will have been expat Bugis bladesmiths who followed their traditional style - thus, we can expect to label some blades as Sulawesi style that were crafted elsewhere: it is a cultural definition rather than a strict geographic, indeed.

However there are several questions that remain unanswered:-

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

As posited above, IMHO the scabbard gives the best clue. Moreover, none of the other parts seem to contradict the Straits/Jambi notion. I agree, however, that this is a mere working hypothesis open to discussion/rebuttal considering the pretty unique nature of the components. Unless we find more examples with similar features, that is.

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?

Certainly possible. I don't see a need to invoke any revision though.

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.

At the sorsoran area, the corrosion on the face/plateau is somewhat deeper than along the bevels; if you look further down the blade, this difference is much less pronounced. If a keris is kept in polish (with emphasis along the edges) but allowed to develop a topographical etch, this difference seems not too suspicious to me.

I understand that this keris comes from an older collection - Ron, do you know when it was acquired by the former owner?

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.

Yes, I guessed this being a pretty unique feature. If not done with modern techniques revealing a recent revision, this won't help us much though.

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.

Certainly a possibility. As is the opposite. I'm keeping an open mind, especially without having examined this keris in person.

What we haven't yet established, is how well the parts fit each other (not that this will allow any conclusive reasoning): Ron, could you please post close-ups showing how well the blade fits the scabbard? Did you (carefully!) tried to remove the hilt?

Regards,
Kai