Is it Raja Gundala?

[brekele]

Hi Alan, Thanks for your long words and also for Pangeran Datu.
(It takes me 2 hours to open a dictionary to understand it).

I remembered conversations with a friend in Lombok.
And He told me that most of OLD KERISES in Lombok are came/made from JAWA.
And I think, I believed it....because there is no BESALEN (I have no see till now)
in Lombok that can proof those Kerises was made in Lombok.
SO, I guess ....It is oke to jugde "DAPUR" also for Lombok's kerises instead of "Bentuk or Anggun-anggunan" only. Is it right Guys?
(Alan, It's only my opinion, I'm not even junior high school yet for this subject!
and I guess you are already in university same as Alam,David,P.Datu and more other Guys and even soon you became a Doctor's Keris, he...he...he.. )

BTW, I heard about a book from Djelenga. (hard to fine)
I wish to have this book to learn more about Lombok's keris.
Hi Alan, Is it teenie boy's budget can reach price of this book?
Thanks.

[David]

Brekele, i would not place myself in Keris University just yet. I tend to think of myself as being more in High School as well when it comes to these studies.
It has been my understanding that many "Old Kerises" in Lombok were more likely to originate in Bali which ruled over and influenced Lombok for many years. Not to say that a Javanese keris could not appear there as well. But i suspect that this last keris you have shown is neither very old, nor from Lombak, Bali or Jawa. I could be wrong, but i suspect it is a more recent Madurese creation made in the style of a Bali/Lombak keris. Since it is made in that style i think you have dressed it correctly, but i would agree with Alan that Javanese Dhapurs would not apply.

[A. G. Maisey]

Lombok was settled by various groups of people, from various different places.

The original people in Lombok are the Sasaks, who are Muslim, and their keris forms reflect a Javanese origin.

Bali had colonies on and control of Lombok for extended periods of time, and the people of Balinese origin who lived (and live ) in Lombok use keris forms that reflect their origins.

Bugis keris forms are also found in Lombok , and there are groups of people in Lombok who identify themselves as of Bugis origin.

In fact, there is no distinctive "Lombok" style of keris.However, the keris styles favoured by the Sasak people often tend to be extreme. The ricikan will be emphasised by high relief work, and in other than very high quality blades, it would be judged to be crude and "kasar" by traditional Javanese or Balinese standards. More like folk art than high art.

Keris blade production had ceased in Lombok prior to the end of the 19th century.

Yes, many old keris in Lombok would have originally come from Jawa, and this is true of old keris distributed throughout South East Asia. Back in Majapahit times, and through to probably as late as the end of the 18th century, Jawa exported blades of keris, swords, spears all over South East Asia, and even as far afield as Sri Lanka, and Southern India.

However, strictly, it is incorrect to describe a blade in the context of one culture, in this case Lombok, in terms constructed to apply to a blade in a different cultural context. For one thing, it is meaningless. In a Javanese blade the words used to describe the blade have a meaning to a Javanese person. They may have no meaning, or a different meaning, in a different language.

Djelenga uses as a synonym of "dhapur" the words "bentuk" which means "shape" in Indonesian, and "angun-angunan" which is a word in Javanese, but does not make sense when used as Djelenga uses it, so obviously has a different meaning in Lombok.Since Djelenga is from Lombok, I believe he would know the correct terms to use for a Lombok keris, and he seems to demonstrate that "dhapur" is not to be used instead of "bentuk" or "angun-angunan".

In 1994 the book "Keris (di) Lombok" was written by Ir. H. Lalu Djelenga. It was sponsored by Taman Mini Indonesia in Jakarta, and was never produced commercially but given as a souvenir to certain select people.I have a photo-copy of this book.

In 2000 Lalu Djelenga released an expanded and updated version of the 1994 book. This was a small local printing and was not ---as far as I know--- distributed through the book-seller distribution network. To obtain a copy it was a matter of who you knew. It took me years to get hold of a copy of this book.My most recent information is that stocks of this book are now exhausted.

[Alam Shah]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

... In 2000 Lalu Djelenga released an expanded and updated version of the 1994 book. This was a small local printing and was not ---as far as I know--- distributed through the book-seller distribution network. To obtain a copy it was a matter of who you knew. It took me years to get hold of a copy of this book.My most recent information is that stocks of this book are now exhausted.

I'm still looking, for about 2 years now.

[Mick]

There is one other keris book which is probably even harder to get then Djelenga's. That is "Keris Bali" by I B. Dibia. The content and material may not be as good as Djelenga's, but it is writen in Bahasa. English and French. Alas I only have a photocopy of this one just as I have of the 1993 Djelenga book.

The published (2000) edition of Djelenga's is much more complete than the original, but it uses what looks to be color xerox's as the basis for the photos. A trait which I wish they had gone a step beyond.

Haryono Haryoguritno's big book is the highest quality production that I have ever heard of in regard to the keris. It might even exceed the quality of the production on the "Kraton Surakarta" to a small degree.

[Alam Shah]

Originally Posted by Mick

... Haryono Haryoguritno's big book is the highest quality production that I have ever heard of in regard to the keris. It might even exceed the quality of the production on the "Kraton Surakarta" to a small degree.

Paper and printing quality are similar, but Haryono's book have better photography, graphics and artwork.

[Marcokeris]

I'm not shure, but mybe is possible to order Dibia's "Keris Bali" in the little bookshop "Ganesha" in Ubud (Bali)
Look at " www.ganeshabookbali.com "

[Pangeran Datu]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

......
However, strictly, it is incorrect to describe a blade in the context of one culture, in this case Lombok, in terms constructed to apply to a blade in a different cultural context. For one thing, it is meaningless. In a Javanese blade the words used to describe the blade have a meaning to a Javanese person. They may have no meaning, or a different meaning, in a different language.......

It depends.
If, say, 'Culture B' originally produced blades in strict accordance with the Pakem/protocol of 'Culture A' and adopted it as their own, then, no problem. One can use the Pakem of 'Culture A' on blades made by 'Culture B', as Pakem A will be identical to Pakem B
If, however, through time, either Pakem A, or Pakem B, or both evolve or change altogether, with respect to one another, then we strike trouble.
One first needs to be able to decide which Pakem has changed (or, indeed, if BOTH have changed). Then one may be able to proceed with some 'historical forensics' to determine the current relativity of one Pakem to the other.

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

......
Djelenga uses as a synonym of "dhapur" the words "bentuk" which means "shape" in Indonesian, and "angun-angunan" which is a word in Javanese, but does not make sense when used as Djelenga uses it, so obviously has a different meaning in Lombok.Since Djelenga is from Lombok, I believe he would know the correct terms to use for a Lombok keris, and he seems to demonstrate that "dhapur" is not to be used instead of "bentuk" or "angun-angunan".....

My understanding of the ancient (in your case, Jawa Kuna?) meanings:

Dapur = group/family/tree
Bentuk = shape/form/appearance
Angun-angunan = pattern/template

Given the ancients' pliant nature and penchant for symbolism , I can understand how the above terms may be used interchangeably for general classification (cf. biological taxonomy).

Cheers.

[brekele]

Uhh! The subject is getting hot and harder for me
I better listen explanations from those Docters Keris.

But Dave, the blade I posted is not recently maduranese creation. ( )
Common Dave!
But it's oke, I guess you and me don't have good eyes like Super(p)man.

Thanks Marcokeris for book's shop informations.
Those books are nice but those CDs are made me skyping a friend in Bali.

[David]

Thanks Alan, for this post on language as applied to the keris. It is really a facinating subject. I tend to agree with you that English, when possible, is a better choice in this context, though i actually prefer "hilt" to "handle".
Still, i am interested in learning traditional terminology whenever possible so i don't mind when people use such terms as long as they are willing to explain them. But there does seem to be a general "lazy" acceptance among keris collectors to default to Javanese terminology regardless of the origin of the blade. I agree that this is inappropriate.

Originally Posted by brekele

But Dave, the blade I posted is not recently maduranese creation. ( )

Perhaps, Brek, you can share with us exactly where and when you believe this blade originates. Frankly the eyes of a "superman" has very little to do with such opinions. Photographs are never a very good way to judge a keris and people can be very easily fooled by them, even Superman . Also, smiths in Madura have become quite expert not only at mimicing other styles and time periods of keris making, but have great skill at making blades look old. I am basing my suspicions on this knowledge and the feeling that this keris doesn't look quite right to me in material and finish to be from Bali or Lombok. I could very easily be wrong about this, as there are too many factors out of hand and i am simply unable to judge accurately from an internet photo. But i am sincerely interested in hearing why you are so sure my suspicions are incorrect. How old do you believe this keris is and where was it forged?

[A. G. Maisey]

Yeah, "hilt" is possibly more correct than "handle", when used in connection with an edged weapon. I guess you could probably put my preference for "handle" down to a bit of reverse snobbery.

[Megantoro]

Ra mudgengke

[David]

Originally Posted by Megantoro

Ra mudgengke

Welcome Megantoro. This is an English language forum. Could you please translate this?

[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".