Bugis Chieftain's Keris: does it exist?

[PenangsangII]

Battara, your example from Freebooter's for sale keris indeed looks like a chieftain to me, especially the gandar and buntut parts, but the sampir doesnt have the feel of a chieftain....

having read the characteristics of a chieftain's dress, may I ask what exactly constitute a keris blade / physical characteristics to be qualified as chieftain keris?

[khalifah muda]

Another fine example with Riau influence for discussion:

[BluErf]

Originally Posted by PenangsangII

Battara, your example from Freebooter's for sale keris indeed looks like a chieftain to me, especially the gandar and buntut parts, but the sampir doesnt have the feel of a chieftain....

having read the characteristics of a chieftain's dress, may I ask what exactly constitute a keris blade / physical characteristics to be qualified as chieftain keris?

I believe the term chieftain keris is a term loosely coined by collectors to describe kerises belonging to people of some status. Not very high ranking, but maybe a village headman or local military captain or the likes. And essentially, status in some cases was expressed through the size of the sheath, which then made the batang look proportionately short. The width of the batang also became wider, and this sort of keris seemed to fall under the loose term "chieftain keris". I don't think the original owners of such kerises called it by this term.

[BigG]

Originally Posted by BluErf

I believe the term chieftain keris is a term loosely coined by collectors to describe kerises belonging to people of some status. Not very high ranking, but maybe a village headman or local military captain or the likes. And essentially, status in some cases was expressed through the size of the sheath, which then made the batang look proportionately short. The width of the batang also became wider, and this sort of keris seemed to fall under the loose term "chieftain keris". I don't think the original owners of such kerises called it by this term.

Yep... ths is a plausible way of looking at it... a good angle with which to eplore the subject further

[Battara]

BluErf, this was the definition I had come to understand as a chieftain's keris. And thus wanted to know if there was any merit to it.

Khalifah Muda, a good example of what I am talking about. I noticed that the buntut on this one is made of ivory matching the hilt.

[Battara]

Another thought. Would it also be considered a chieftain's keris if it has some gold on it, say top and bottom like in the example I showed.

[Battara]

No answers to my question?

[PenangsangII]

Originally Posted by Battara

Another thought. Would it also be considered a chieftain's keris if it has some gold on it, say top and bottom like in the example I showed.

Up to 20th Century, any gold works on keris was strictly forbidden as it was reserved for the royalty.

[David]

Originally Posted by PenangsangII

Up to 20th Century, any gold works on keris was strictly forbidden as it was reserved for the royalty.

Was this true everywhere in the keris world, or just specific kingdoms?

[Alam Shah]

Originally Posted by BluErf

I believe the term chieftain keris is a term loosely coined by collectors to describe kerises belonging to people of some status. Not very high ranking, but maybe a village headman or local military captain or the likes. And essentially, status in some cases was expressed through the size of the sheath, which then made the batang look proportionately short. The width of the batang also became wider, and this sort of keris seemed to fall under the loose term "chieftain keris". I don't think the original owners of such kerises called it by this term.

However, let's have a look at some of the characteristics of this type of pieces.. ref: Edward Frey's, The Kris (3rd Ed), pg 64 and 67, Fig 24.. picture b and c. It is stated that these are Sulawesi-Bugis Keris. However, a few years back when checking with Sulawesi-based friends, collectors and dealers, these types are not found there. Personal findings indicated that these types are found in the Riau-Lingga archipelago. Some examples can be found in the collection of Malaysian museums and also at Asians Civilisations Museums in Singapore.

[A. G. Maisey]

Regrettably a lot of the info in Frey is very, very unreliable. When his first edition was published I wrote him a 14 page, hand written letter listing the things that were straight out wrong, ie , where he had misquoted a source, and things that he probably should look at again and perhaps come to a different conclusion. Additionally some photo captions were wrong. Some of these things were corrected in the second edition, some were not.

Frey's book is a nice little starter book for a new collector, its got a lot of nice pics, the broad span of text is OK for low level, general information, but don't rely on it for specifics.

[PenangsangII]

Originally Posted by Alam Shah

However, let's have a look at some of the characteristics of this type of pieces.. ref: Edward Frey's, The Kris (3rd Ed), pg 64 and 67, Fig 24.. picture b and c. It is stated that these are Sulawesi-Bugis Keris. However, a few years back when checking with Sulawesi-based friends, collectors and dealers, these types are not found there. Personal findings indicated that these types are found in the Riau-Lingga archipelago. Some examples can be found in the collection of Malaysian museums and also at Asians Civilisations Museums in Singapore.

Yes, for years collectors were under the impression that what was generally termed "Bugis keris" came from Sulawesi. The fact that even Buginese royalty in SulSel do not have in their possession that many keris of resembling to the book you mentioned struck me by surprise. We knew later that "sudanga", "alamang" and badik were more prominent within Bugis in SulSel realm, except recently (20th C?) where more keris were produced by the local pande. All along the antique keris in our possession have been peninsular or sumatran made, some even Cirebon made.

[Battara]

Although I don't think this piece is Bugis, would it still qualify as a chieftain's keris, once posted by BluErf? (or would it also be considered Bugis after all?)

[Battara]

Also Oriental-arms calls these Bugis keris chieftain's:

www.oriental-arms.com/photos.php?id=1306

www.oriental-arms.com/photos.php?id=2469

Any truth to this attribution?

[Battara]

I think it was Adni from Malay Gallery that said alluded to the width and size of the wrangka is what designates a chieftain's keris. What do you folks think (since I am not sure)?

[Alam Shah]

Originally Posted by Battara

Also Oriental-arms calls these Bugis keris chieftain's:

www.oriental-arms.com/photos.php?id=1306

www.oriental-arms.com/photos.php?id=2469

Any truth to this attribution?

Sheath form, looks like a Bugis Chieftain, but blade does not qualify as one. The second piece, I'm very familiar. It's in my possesion.. The blade although looks thick, the entire ensemble is small. (( see here for more details )) .

[Alam Shah]

Originally Posted by Battara

Although I don't think this piece is Bugis, would it still qualify as a chieftain's keris, once posted by BluErf? (or would it also be considered Bugis after all?)

As far as I could recall, that was a piece from a Malaysian museum, posted by Rasdan. It is attributed to Bugis, but imho, not from Sulawesi. It's origin is probably from Peninsular Malay, Sumatran or Riau-Lingga, based on the 'prada mas', painted sheath. It somewhat qualify as a Chieftain Keris..