Sulawesi bangkung

[kai]

It does seem true that the word bangkung refers to somewhat medium-sized blades among the Bugis and other peoples from SW Sulawesi - I'm not sure if I really grasp the native definition(s) though? Could it possibly be a fairly broad/generic term resembling golok/bolo?

I have not researched Schroeder's Makassarese and Bugis publications enough to really comment on his drawing (reproduced in Albert's book).

However, Matthes states in his companion dictionary that the word bangkung replaces parang which seems to suggest a fairly broad usage without referring to a specific weapon or blade type. See also the usage in current Bugis publications which doesn't seem to point to any specific type nor a clear-cut definition. While the piece shown by Schroeder may well have been called bangkung by his informants/contacts, I believe we should not fall prey to the logical fallacy that a bangkung in the Makassar/Bugis sense needs to look exactly like this.

It would be great if any of our Bugis forumites were to care to comment, pretty please!

Regards,
Kai

[Ian]

Guys,

I wrote to Albert Van Z to see whether he may have had more information. Here is his kind reply:

Hello Ian,

The only (very concise) information I have about the 'Bankung' is, what is written on page 30 of 'Traditional Weapons ......', already quoted in your thread: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=20412

The drawing comes from 'Schröder, C.A., 1874, Ethnographische atlas bevattende afbeeldingen .....'
The accessory text from 'Matthes, B.F., 1874, Boegineesch-Hollandsch woordenboek ......' only says:
"bangkoeng (hakmes)"
[hakmes (Dutch) means chopper]

That is all, I'm afraid.

Best wishes,

Albert

From Albert's additional information, it seems bangkung describes a "chopper." So I think the term is likely describing a heavy-bladed knife (with a belly?) designed for chopping.

Ian.

[A. G. Maisey]

I know nothing at all about bangkungs, and next to nothing about Bugis tosan aji (Jav.), but I do have a copy of "Senjata Pusaka Bugis" -- Ahmad Ubbe, I am unclear on publication date, but it was around 2011-2012.

There is a text chapter where the badik is treated, but Bugis people (apparently) do not name the badik as badik, rather it is named as "Kawali". In this text chapter I can find no mention of a "bangkung/bankung".

But in the photographic chapter of this book that deals with "Kawali" the names used are "Badik & Bangkung". The chapter title is "Koleksi Badik & Bangkung", content of the chapter is a number of photos with descriptions.

In this chapter of collection items, most items using the word "bangkung" are coupled to "badik" :- "Bangkung/Badik". Some use the term "Badik/Bangkung Raja". Only one item is named as "Pusaka Bangkung".

One item is named "Badik/Bangkung Gantara" , but it is a Badik form that I believe most Javanese scholars of tosan aji would claim as Javanese, and its form is not in agreement with the other items named as "bangkung".

The predominant form of the items that use "bangkung" in the name is a slim blade that has a waist and a swelling towards the tip, these blades appear to be slightly longer than normal.

If we then read the text that treats the Kawali known as "Kawali Raja" we find that this text seems to be referring to a Kawali (ie, badik) that has the form and proportions of the Kawali that is mostly named as "Bangkung/Badik".

Wilkinson's Classical Malay dictionary does not list either "bangkung" or "bankung", but it does list "bangkong", given as "a Bugis parang; a short, broad bladed knife". Wilkinson also lists "bengkang, bengkok" which he gives as "crooked".

In Javanese one of the meanings of the word "bengkung/bengkuk" is "bent/curved".

It should be noted that in Malay languages there is a high degree of interchangeability, inconsistency in the use of both vowels and consonants.

Confusing? Yes, I agree, but "Senjata Pusaka Bugis" does need more than the average degree of perseverance to come to terms with its content.

I very strongly suspect that the name "bangkung/bankung" is in fact not a name at all, but rather a description, or at least, was originally a description that may now be accepted as a name.

When I look at the items under discussion here I would have only one name for them:- "golok".

When we use Colonial Era and before sources as references we are walking in a minefield.

[RobT]

Hi All,

I will try to take better close-up photos of the sheath but it will need to wait till next weekend when I have enough light.

Sincerely,
RobT

[RobT]

Hi All,

Here are the best pictures I could get. I took them with an Olympus Pen FE-47 using the macro feature. I also used a tripod. The camera doesn't offer F-stop or shutter speed adjustment but I fiddled with a feature called "exposure compensation" which offers a quasi F-stop/shutter speed adjustment. It is what it is. I hope it will do for ID.

sincerely,
RobT

[Sajen]

Hello Rob,

yes, I think it's from Aceh.

Regards,
Detlef

[kai]

Hello Detlef,

yes, I think it's from Aceh.

I'm not convinced - the wood seems not to be the typical one for Aceh.

I hope to get a closer view on the motifs if Rob can email the original files.

Regards,
Kai

[RobT]

Hi All,

Sajen,
Do you think the hilt should look roughly like what has already been shown on the other two blades?

Kai,
I would be happy to send you both the original files from the camera as well as JPEGs that I created using Photoshop if you could PM me with brief instructions on how to send a PM and how to add attachments.

Sincerely,
RobT

[kai]

Hello Rob,

Thanks for the efforts!

I assume you reduced the size of the pics for posting here? Full-sized pictures will allow me to examine details of the motifs. TIA!

Regards,
Kai