Bugis Keris

[Jean]

Originally Posted by kai

Hello Ron,

While the blade is obviously influenced by "Bugis" style, the flow of lines does not seem to support an origin from Sulawesi; it does look Sumatran/Malay to me.

Kai

Hello Kai,
I agree with you, another point is that to my best knowledge these wide bevels are never (or at least very rarely) seen on Sulawesi Bugis blades, for instance this ricikan is not mentioned in the reference book "Senjata Pusaka Bugis" and none of the blades shown in the book includes this feature. This type of odd ganja is not commonly used in Sulawesi as well.
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

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.

[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

[David]

Originally Posted by kai

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

I agree that while revision is possible, i see no reason to believe this blade has been reshaped at anytime.
I did not see this blade when i visited this collection. Ron was hiding this one from me. But from the looks of the rest of the collection i believe most of these keris were collected some time ago in the late 1960s-80s. Not sure if Ron inquired about collection date from the guy or not, but hopefully he knows more or can ask the guy directly.

[Spunjer]

i'll see what i can find out about the history of this particular keris, meanwhile here are some more pictures that might help this very interesting discussion...

[A. G. Maisey]

Kai, please accept my apologies for making this matter more difficult than it need be.

The blade of the keris under discussion bears characteristics that make it utterly impossible to be classified as anything other than a Bugis blade.

I doubt that I need to identify these characteristics, but if anybody does need further clarification, please feel free to PM me.

However, there is one noticeable variation in these characteristics that has generated some comment.

That variation is the width of the gusen.

Variation in gusen width in any keris blade can be due to a wide range of factors.

One of those factors is the accidental widening of a gusen when it has become necessary to remove nicks from the edges of a blade. This cleaning up of the edges of a blade is regarded as normal maintenance.

Some owners of keris, and other weapons for that matter, require that the edge of a blade be raised to a higher level of sharpness. The sharpness of the edge of a blade depends upon blade geometry:- the wider the edge bevel, the sharper the edge.

If we consider both these factors together, and then look closely at the blade in question, based upon what is visible in the photographs, it is perfectly obvious that the bevels of this blade have been worked or reworked whilst the body of the blade has not been reworked since its initial fabrication.

Did the owner want a sharper edge?
Or were there nicks in the blade edge that needed to be removed?
Or just perhaps, the blade was made with wider bevels initially, in order to achieve a higher level of sharpness.

At this remove it is impossible to know with certainty exactly why the blade bevels are wider than normal, but my opinion --- I stress "opinion" --- is that the wider bevels are most probably the result of the normal maintenance procedure of removing nicks from the blade edge.

David, to clarify further, when I use the word "revision" I am not talking about a reshaping of the blade, but only the normal maintenance procedure that involves removing edge nicks by re-filing the gusen.



When the Bugis people spread from South Sulawesi into the Malay Peninsula and established a Bugis state there, they took their culture with them. The same thing happened when they moved into Riau. Yes, they often took Malay women as wives, and this in turn weakened the societal structure that had applied in the original Bugis society of South Sulawesi, so in this sense the Bugis societies that were established outside the Motherland of South Sulawesi were not pure in either societal construct or in genetic inheritance.

However, what we are discussing here is one element of the material culture of the Bugis people, and that element is the blade of a keris.

Wherever the Bugis people are found, the blade of the keris that is found with them bears the same physical characteristics. This is not to say that all these keris are identical, but they are all of the same style although they do bear minor regional interpretations of that style.

So, I say again:- this keris is a Bugis keris.

It may pay to clarify something here for those who are not familiar with the way the word "keris" is understood by the people who wear them.

The word "keris" is used to refer to only the blade, and it is used to also refer to the complete weapon, ie, blade + scabbard + hilt.

When we are using the English language, this distinction can be achieved by referring to the blade as the "keris", and the complete weapon as the "complete keris".

In what I have written above I am only talking about the keris. I am not talking about the complete keris.

But I will now address the complete keris.

In keris study it is essential to evaluate each component part of a complete keris separately.

It is absolutely unacceptable to attempt to affix geographic point of origin of a keris blade by accepting that the point of origin of the blade is the same as the point of origin of the scabbard or the hilt. No student of the keris would countenance this approach for one second.

The keris under discussion has a Bugis blade. Geographic point of origin is unknown, and may never be known.

The scabbard of this keris is what I would call "generic Bugis"; others may call it something else. I have no idea at all of its geographic point of origin.

Similarly with the hilt:- it really quite a beautiful hilt, and I feel that it is from Sumatera, but exactly where in Sumatera? I don't know.

The pendongkok? I don't know.

And from what I can read in all the preceding posts, neither does anybody else know.

We can hypothesise till the cows come home, but is there any supportable argument for solid identification of a geographic point of origin for scabbard, hilt, pendongkok?

So far I haven't seen this.

The blade is Bugis, but all the other component parts of this keris are simply the component parts that are now surrounding the blade.

All these parts could well come from different places.

Now, the icing on the cake is a gonjo unlike any that I have seen in the thousands of keris that have been through my hands, or the vastly greater number of keris that I have seen.

When I consider all of these factors I am drawn to one conclusion:- this keris is a marriage, and quite possibly a marriage that was made outside its society of origin.

This is my opinion. I think I've stated it reasonably clearly, and frankly I have no interest in whether anybody agrees with me or not:- we are all entitled to our own opinions, one of the benefits of living in a free society.

Whilst I am not seeking agreement, I would welcome conclusive evidence that clearly demonstrates that my opinion is in error

[Jean]

Ouch, what is hidden under the piece of white cloth surrounding the"peksi"? It may give some clues about the welded ganja.
Regards