Bugis 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

[David]

Ron, i would actually like to see a shot of the keris shot from the over top with the hilt and pesi wrapping material removed completely and the focus placed on the sirah-cecak (front bottom surface). I might be crazy, but to me it looks like the core of this blade actually extends all the way to the bottom and that additional material was then welded around the iras gonjo giving the appearance that an entire gonjo was welded on after the fact. Not sure if i am making sense with my description, but what i see in the part of the sirah-cecak that is visible looks very odd. If you are uncertain of the area i am asking you to photograph please see the gonjo diagram on Alan's website.
http://kerisattosanaji.com/kerisdiagram.html

[A. G. Maisey]

David, I feel that what we might see in the sirah cecak is that the layer of pamor has been taken back to leave just that odd looking island in the middle.

Ron, has the crack in the lower part of the hilt been filled with epoxy resin or a similar substance?

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

David, I feel that what we might see in the sirah cecak is that the layer of pamor has been taken back to leave just that odd looking island in the middle.

Ron, has the crack in the lower part of the hilt been filled with epoxy resin or a similar substance?

Certainly a possibility which is why i thought more detailed photos might tell.

[A. G. Maisey]

Agreed. We really do need to see the blade bare, this may not give us any more than we already have, but there are so many vague areas with this keris that every bit of clarification helps.

It is not unusual for a blade core to extend all the way through a blade, including to the tip of the pesi.

One scenario that that keeps recurring to me when I look at this complete keris is that at some time in the past, a dedicated but unschooled collector decided to "improve" what he had by permanently fixing the gonjo and upgrading the complete keris with the best components he could put his hands on.

In a way, this is more or less in line with indigenous keris ethics:- owners in all the keris bearing areas of SE Asia seem to have always upgraded their keris, and without paying much attention to the "correctness" or otherwise of the components. We tend to forget sometimes that the only place where it is essential to dress a keris correctly is in a formal palace situation.

Even in the palace situation I am certain that the "mix & match" principle sometimes took precedence. I know of a number of cases where members of the Surakarta Karaton hierarchy have combined keris components that were not strictly correct.

I have also handled keris that were WWII bring backs from SE Asia, and that were acquired in locations far removed from any central areas of authority, these have sometimes been quite peculiar in the combination of disparate components, and in two cases the combinations were ludicrous. But these were genuine, grassroots keris, straight out of a grassroots cultural setting.

To imagine for one instant that we can look at a complete keris that has been floating around for a while in places removed from its geographic point of origin and put a name/date/origin on it is rather optimistic to say the least.

What we can sometimes do is name possible geographic location of the various component parts of that complete keris, and we can often classify the blade in accordance with the accepted principles used by indigenous keris authorities.

[Spunjer]

best pics i can take tonite. hopefully this'll help.
Alan, it does look like there was a small crack and it was repaired using epoxy...

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks Ron.

So, the hilt at least has been in the hands of somebody who has needed to improve upon what he had.

Looking at the final pic of the gonjo top, it seems that the gonjo was made separately and then welded into place.

There are a couple of ways that we could get this effect of the two different grain directions. The easy way for an indigenous craftsman using native technology would have been to forge weld a separate small forging across the end of the blade forging before shaping the blade.

If this was done, then the easy way to form the pesi would be to forge it out from that transverse piece of material.

However, this has not been done, the gonjo appears to be fitted in the normal way, by placing the pesi through the hole formed in the middle of the gonjo, but the difference here is that the gonjo is not mechanically fixed, it is welded into place.

It would be possible for a very highly skilled smith to forge weld a 90% finished gonjo into place. It would be a delicate operation, and with the forge technology available to indigenous smiths it would be extremely difficult. But it could be done.

The question is why would it be done? Why would any indigenous person want to deviate from 1000 years of normal practice and forge weld a gonjo rather than mechanically fix it?

The risk of damage to both the gonjo and the blade would be very, very high.

I simply cannot envisage any indigenous craftsman in his right mind undertaking such a job --- and that is even without considering the esoteric implications.

However, with the technology that has been available in the western world for a long time, it would not be such a daunting job. In fact, in a modern gas forge it could be forge welded fairly easily. Then we have all the other modern welding technologies.

My mind inevitably returns to the scenario of the very enthusiastic collector who has very little keris understanding.

In fact, let's take this one step further:- has the gonjo been welded into place, or has it been secured with something like one of the multitude of products that are marketed as "cold weld"? Once in place it could be very difficult to tell the difference between this sort of material and a real weld carried out with heat.

In Jawa for many years old blades with holes in them have been repaired with a mixture of iron filings and two part epoxy resin, when this is skilfully done it is well nigh impossible to see the repair, and my experience is that you need to suspect that a repair has been carried out, and then inspect the blade under magnification and direct sunlight in order to find the repair.

[Spunjer]

thank you for everyone's insight! really learning a lot about keris!
please pardon my naivete, Alan, but why would anyone go through all these trouble for something like this? do you think that whoever would have done this was trying to copy a particular type of keris? i mean, if he was gonna do this, why make it so subtle that it would take an expert to spot what he has done? normally, it would have to have some sloppy factor somewhere, but it sounds like whoever did this is really know what he's doing; from my newbie's eyes anyways

[A. G. Maisey]

Ron, please read this as opinion only, yes, it is an educated opinion that is based upon handling thousands of keris and having been in contact with keris and keris collectors, as well as general arms collectors and makers for over 60 years, but it is still opinion and it is based on what I think I can see in the photos.

My feeling is that what we have here is a complete keris that has been assembled from unrelated parts. We call this a "marriage". It may have been done in Indonesia, or Malaysia or Singapore, it may have been done by a European antique arms dealer, it may have been done by a collector. Who did it we can only guess.

When we home in on only the blade there are two things that are out of the ordinary for any keris, not only the one we are discussing.

The first is the width of the blade bevels, what we know as gusen. To me, this width is perfectly able to explained and understood. A number of possibilities exist for this and all can be regarded as legitimate. To me, this blade bevel width is really not even worthy of a second glance or a question:- it exists, we already know the reasons why it can exist, end of story.

However, the fact that a separately made gonjo has been permanently attached to the body of the blade is so unusual as to be completely inexplicable, especially when considered from the indigenous perspective.

I very much doubt that this permanent fixing was done in SE Asia, if in fact it is a normal weld joint. The difficulty in doing this weld with native technology is simply too high, additionally, there are esoteric issues involved that I do not even want to discuss.

My feeling is that some previous owner, probably somewhere in the western world, noted the sloppy fit of the gonjo to the blade and decided that he wanted that gonjo to fit nice and tight and tidy.

If he himself had the necessary level of skill and the right type of forge, he may have done the weld himself, if he did not, it should not have been too big a problem for him to give the job to a custom knifemaker who could have done it for him.

However, there are much easier ways available that can be used to permanently fix a loose gonjo to the blade body.

There are various products that produce a "cold weld". This is in fact a super strong two part epoxy resin with (I believe) metal dust inclusion.

I have used it myself to repair the thread in the bottom bracket assembly of bicycles, to repair threads in other small items, and to fill a gonjo hole in an old, loosely fitting gonjo. I have one bike that I use regularly that I repaired the bottom bracket thread on more than 20 years ago, and it has never failed. Once in place this "cold weld" material is extremely difficult to identify, it looks like true metal. Oh yes --- I've also used it to bed a rifle action.

The brand I am familiar with is "QUIKSTEEL", but there are a number of other products that do the same thing.

As already mentioned, in Jawa they have mixed iron filings with two part epoxy for many years to repair badly damaged blades. You will never see a well done repair unless you know how it is done, what to look for, and you have the experience to identify it.

So, considered against this background, my opinion is that this gonjo might just have been permanently fixed to the body of the blade by one of these "cold weld" products.

In any case, the gonjo has been permanently fixed to the body of the blade by either a skilfully done hot weld of some type, or by use of a two part epoxy resin. However it was done, it was done a long time after the original fabrication of the blade.


Remember:- opinion.

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

The first is the width of the blade bevels, what we know as gusen. To me, this width is perfectly able to explained and understood. A number of possibilities exist for this and all can be regarded as legitimate. To me, this blade bevel width is really not even worthy of a second glance or a question:- it exists, we already know the reasons why it can exist, end of story.

I'm a little confused on this point. What are the general rules on this feature for Bugis keris with this type of dhapur. To my eye the bevels on Ron's example doesn't look particularly wider than a couple of Kai's examples in his post #25.

[A. G. Maisey]

I haven't read back through the previous posts, but I think from memory that there were comments that the bevels were a bit wider than normal, and in terms of proportion, yes, they probably are.

However, the rules?

My understanding is simply that the faces of a Bugis blade are flat and the gusen is wide. How wide? nobody ever told me, and my own observations are that "wide" means wider than we would normally expect to see in a Javanese blade. To my mind the matter of width is really a non-issue. If the bevels are a bit wider than we would expect to see it really doesn't matter one way or the other.

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

To my mind the matter of width is really a non-issue. If the bevels are a bit wider than we would expect to see it really doesn't matter one way or the other.

Well that is my point Alan. I am not convinced that the bevels on this keris are any wider than we would expect to see. I have in fact seen numerous Bugis keris with bevels that seem to be as wide as this. I own a a keris with a very similar profile as this (though with more luks) that does not seem to show any evidence of ever having the bevels widened at a later time. This keris' shape does not seem particularly unusual for this style of blade. The gonjo is another story.

[A. G. Maisey]

No argument David, this is purely a matter of opinion.

Based upon raw width the bevels are pretty much within normal parameters; based upon proportion of bevel to blade width, they are bit wider than we would normally expect to see.

Why are they a bit wider ?

Who knows?

There are a dozen possibilities from removal of edge knicks, to desire for increased sharpness, to the original maker's intent --- and all the other possibilities in between.

In fact, its much a given that every time we sharpen any sort of blade the bevel moves a bit higher up the blade than it was before we began to sharpen. The more times we sharpen, it seems that the wider the bevel gets.

But who cares?

It is not an issue.

The gonjo is.