Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

A. G. Maisey · 12th May 2011, 11:07 AM

Simple answer?

I don't know.

This whole business of dhapur, pamor, tangguh has so much variation that it becomes often a matter of which school one attended.

My school has been, and is Surakarta.

My textbook for dhapur is the well known Surakarta pakem.

In that , there is no provision for a dhapur that possesses the features of lung gandhu but has only one lambe gajah. In other words, if this keris has only one lambe gajah it is diluar pakem according to this reference. But that does not necessarily mean that some other pakem will not define lung gandhu with only one lambe gajah.However, this keris has suffered quite a bit of erosion, perhaps in the hand it is possible to see the remnants of two lambe gajah.

I would very much like people to try to get into the habit of quoting the reference for a dhapur when they say that a blade is such & such a dhapur.

If I say that a blade is dhapur whatever, that is my opinion, and I do not have the knowledge nor the authority to determine a dhapur. No, not at all. I rely on a text.This being the case, I should say that the blade is such & such a dhapur in accordance with this or that pakem or other reference.

Similarly with tangguh. If we give an opinion in respect of tangguh, it might be as well to say how we came to form that opinion. If I say a blade is, for example, Madura sepuh, I could reasonably be expected to quote a few of the indicators that have helped me form my opinion. If I am challenged in respect of that opinion, I should be able to quote all of the indicators I have used, and the source of the knowledge. Alternatively, I could perhaps say that I have been advised by Pak Soandso that in his opinion the blade is Madura sepuh.

The whole field of keris classification relies upon very, very minute differences and nuances. I sometimes I think it was invented to allow unending conversation and discussion.In some cases discussion could go on for days without a firm position being reached.

In the interests of clarity, it would assist our discussion of things like tangguh , dhapur etc., if when we say that some classification or other applies, we give the source of our opinion.

12th May 2011, 11:07 AM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,964	Simple answer? I don't know. This whole business of dhapur, pamor, tangguh has so much variation that it becomes often a matter of which school one attended. My school has been, and is Surakarta. My textbook for dhapur is the well known Surakarta pakem. In that , there is no provision for a dhapur that possesses the features of lung gandhu but has only one lambe gajah. In other words, if this keris has only one lambe gajah it is diluar pakem according to this reference. But that does not necessarily mean that some other pakem will not define lung gandhu with only one lambe gajah.However, this keris has suffered quite a bit of erosion, perhaps in the hand it is possible to see the remnants of two lambe gajah. I would very much like people to try to get into the habit of quoting the reference for a dhapur when they say that a blade is such & such a dhapur. If I say that a blade is dhapur whatever, that is my opinion, and I do not have the knowledge nor the authority to determine a dhapur. No, not at all. I rely on a text.This being the case, I should say that the blade is such & such a dhapur in accordance with this or that pakem or other reference. Similarly with tangguh. If we give an opinion in respect of tangguh, it might be as well to say how we came to form that opinion. If I say a blade is, for example, Madura sepuh, I could reasonably be expected to quote a few of the indicators that have helped me form my opinion. If I am challenged in respect of that opinion, I should be able to quote all of the indicators I have used, and the source of the knowledge. Alternatively, I could perhaps say that I have been advised by Pak Soandso that in his opinion the blade is Madura sepuh. The whole field of keris classification relies upon very, very minute differences and nuances. I sometimes I think it was invented to allow unending conversation and discussion.In some cases discussion could go on for days without a firm position being reached. In the interests of clarity, it would assist our discussion of things like tangguh , dhapur etc., if when we say that some classification or other applies, we give the source of our opinion.