Corroded keris

[jagabuwana]

Thank you Detlef and Alan.

Some questions:

1) What characterises a sepokal blade? The keris books I have on hand (Groneman and Solyom & Solyom) don't mention it. I have done some cursory research on Google and haven't been able to find any statements or descriptions of sepokal blades, and it seems that both keris luk and keris lurus can be keris sepokal. I could be wrong (maybe it's my eyes..) but from what I can see, keris sepokal are slightly convex, if one were to draw a line following the centre of the blade from peksi to penatas. Is my observation correct, a red herring, or entirely incorrect?

2) Without dressings, what features of this blade make you say it's Bugis? My question is not a challenge or a skepticism towards your assessment, and I am asking only so that I may learn. Interestingly, many blades (though not necessarily dressings) that I am drawn to are bugis keris. There is an aspect about them that I can only describe as bold, strong or aggressive to my eye and feeling.

[A. G. Maisey]

1) this "sepokal" thing seems to be something of a Peninsula naming convention. I do not know how the name came into usage, but it is popular with collectors in the Western World for use as a name for this type of blade.

In Jawa there is a dhapur named "sepokal", but it is supposed to be either a 13 luk or an 11 luk, I forget which. I've never seen one, but I have heard it mentioned.

The name used for the dhapur of the keris shown in this thread by specialist Bugis collectors is similar to "sepokal", it is "sapukala" and from what I can gather it simply refers to a straight blade, a blade that in Jawa we would call "lurus", so personally, I would tend to think of the name as a description rather than a dhapur.

2) in accordance with Javanese (ie, Solonese) tangguh naming conventions the form of a Bugis blade is "like a young bambu shoot", and the faces of the blade are flat, with wide, even kusen (gusen). Usually the gandhik is thin and low, the blumbangan shallow, the gonjo is short, there is no ada-ada, sogokan are very seldom seen. When it is clean you will most likely find that the iron has a texture like sand and if it has pamor --- which is probable --- that pamor will be coarse and white. It is essentially a tool designed to end life, it is not a work of art.

Detlef is absolutely correct, it is a Bugis style of blade and it would named as "sepokal" by most collectors in the Western World. But where it might be from it is very probably impossible to say.

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

The name used for the dhapur of the keris shown in this thread by specialist Bugis collectors is similar to "sepokal", it is "sapukala" and from what I can gather it simply refers to a straight blade, a blade that in Jawa we would call "lurus", so personally, I would tend to think of the name as a description rather than a dhapur.

I believe that Jagabuwana's observation is correct that blades that are considered sapukala or sepokal have a slight arch or curve to them so while they probably can be referred to as lurus they are not entirely straight. I do believe this is seen more as a dhapur that simply a description of any blade that is lurus.

[A. G. Maisey]

David, in Javanese terms a blade that lacks luk is considered to be straight.

Some blades that possess luk can be named as a specific dhapur or form, and that form will have the blade characteristics specified as well as the number of luk.

Where a blade is waved but is unable to be classified as a particular dhapur, it is simply referred to as a waved blade with so many luk:- "keris luk lima", for example.

Where a blade is straight but cannot be classified as a particular dhapur it is simply named as a straight blade:- "keris lurus".

OK, so now we need to look at what was published in "Senjata Pusaka Bugis", Ahmad Ubbe.

In his descriptions of Bugis keris with this "sepokal" style blade he uses the word "dapur" instead of "dhapur" to refer to the shape of a blade. In Indonesian "dapur" means "kitchen", in Javanese "dhapur" means "shape, form, design". It is reasonable to assume that he means "dhapur", so I think we can accept that he means design, not kitchen. "Dhapur" is a Javanese word, it is not a Bahasa Indonesia word.

He calls the keris of this "sepokal" form "Keris Sapukala", and in his explanation of "dapur" he gives "dapur" as "Sapukal", which he brings into Bahasa Indonesia as "Sapu Rata", in BI "sapu rata" can be understood as "flat broom".

So Ahmad Ubbe clearly considers the word "Sapukala" or "Sapukal" to be a dhapur.

This is the point at which I disagree with his understanding of exactly what the word dhapur means. Dhapur is a specification. It is not a generic description.

However, Ahmad Ubbe gives the dhapur of "Sapukala" to every straight blade included in Senjata Pusaka Bugis, thus it becomes a generic description, rather than a specification. The description "Sapukala" is given to all straight Bugis blades, it is not used only for those blades with the "young bambu shoot" profile.

Certainly we can accept that specialist collectors of Bugis keris consider the word "Sapukala" to be a dhapur --- even though they use the wrong word to refer to a keris specification --- but it seems clear to me that they do not really understand what the word dhapur means.

Thus "Sapukala" becomes generic, not specific. It becomes a description, not a specification.

Yes, I am being pedantic, and this was one of the thoughts behind my recent "Precision in use of language" thread. If we do not write what we mean, how can we be understood?

Here we have a large, good quality book that has been written by people who are accepted as expert in the Bugis keris, but it seems that they have had some difficulty in coming to terms with the very basic concept of exactly what the word "dhapur" means --- let alone how to spell it.

[jagabuwana]

1) So where we seem to arrive at now is that sapukala/sepokal is not a dhapur, it is instead generic description for keris lurus Bugis. The next question that comes to mind then is, can a Bugis sepokal blade also be classified with a dhapur, or is the generic term sepokal only used when it has not been fashioned according to a dhapur?

2) Thinking ahead here. Seeing as this is a Bugis style keris, would it be improper to dress it with components other than those that are typically Bugis such as a pistol grip ukiran? Is there a convention or ethic around selecting dressings according to the style or origin of the wilah?

For what it's worth, I too appreciate the precision in the use of language. Personally for me it makes for better learning and comprehension, and your point is understood clearly, Alan.

Best,

Novan

[A. G. Maisey]

Novan, to me the sepokal designation simply means a straight Bugis blade, but to others I suppose it could be taken as a dhapur, but if it is taken as a dhapur that then calls into question the meaning of the word dhapur. I was making a point in my previous post, but frankly I don't really care what we call it, I'm personally happy with calling it a straight Bugis style keris.

If we take it that Ahmad Ubbe's book represents the way in which specialist Bugis collectors view keris forms, it seems to me that they do not differentiate one straight blade form from another, and their idea of dhapur in a waved blade seems to begin and end with the number of luk. To me, this seems to indicate that within Bugis society the keris occupies a somewhat different position to the position that it occupies in Javanese society.

As for the appropriate dress for a Bugis blade, I think most collectors are in agreement that when a blade style can be identified it is correct to dress that blade in a scabbard and hilt that is societally correct. However, I have found Bugis, Madurese, and Balinese blades dressed in various forms of Javanese wrongko and hilt. This is because in the old days the lords of Jawa recruited mercenaries from Bali, Madura and from men of Bugis cultural background.

Bugis culture can be found in many places throughout SE Asia, and Bugis dress style varies slightly according to exactly where the Bugis community was/is located.

[ariel]

I am intrigued by the technique of de-rusting ( de - crusting:-) )the blade with vinegar.
Is it going to work on non-Indonesian blades? Say, Katars?

Can you be more specific about the strength of the vinegar, soaking/ non-soaking etc?

Thanks for any instructions.

[jagabuwana]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

As for the appropriate dress for a Bugis blade, I think most collectors are in agreement that when a blade style can be identified it is correct to dress that blade in a scabbard and hilt that is societally correct. However, I have found Bugis, Madurese, and Balinese blades dressed in various forms of Javanese wrongko and hilt. This is because in the old days the lords of Jawa recruited mercenaries from Bali, Madura and from men of Bugis cultural background.

Interesting - thank you. I don't consider myself a collector and was asking more from the perspective of metaphysical/cultural ethics. As you suggested about the Bugis, we Sundanese don't have the same relationship with the keris as Javanese society does. But if there was a rule or consideration to be applied to dressing blades that is of cultural or spiritual consequence, I'd like to adhere to it or at least be aware.

First thing's first though... win the auction

[Paul de Souza]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

1) this "sepokal" thing seems to be something of a Peninsula naming convention. I do not know how the name came into usage, but it is popular with collectors in the Western World for use as a name for this type of blade.

When I first started collecting keris in the late 1980s, if I recall correctly, keris like these were never described to me as sepukal but rather as keris lok 1. As long as there was a curve to the blade like a claw, it was keris lok 1. Sepukal seems to be a "newish" term to describe blades of this sort, coming in the vocabulary here in the 2000s. I am still in the habit of calling them keris lok 1.