Is it Raja Gundala?

[A. G. Maisey]

When we attempt to affix a specific dhapur name to a blade form, what we are doing is identifying the features of a blade and comparing that assembly of features to the features specified in a recognised pakem. If the features coincide exactly with those laid down in the pakem for a particular dhapur, then we can say that the blade in question is of such and such a dhapur, in accordance with such and such a pakem.

Most pakems are Javanese, and are only applicable to Javanese blade forms.

It is not correct to apply a Javanese pakem to a Lombok blade, and then give that Lombok blade a designation intended for a Javanese blade.

Nor is it correct to invent our own dhapur names.

To give this Lombok blade a correct dhapur name we would need to use a Lombok pakem. In fact, I believe that in respect of Lombok keris we might be more correct to refer to the blade form as "bentuk", or "angun-angunan", rather than as "dhapur".

The only Lombok pakem I have available is the one provided by Djelenga, and that does not list sinom robyong.

The entire field of dhapur is very, very difficult. If one wishes to define a blade form it is perhaps better to name the features (ricikan), rather than to provide a dhapur name.