![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 291
|
![]()
Thanks Alan, I see now.
So if I'm following correctly, it seems that we can use the kebo or mahesa description for this keris. But it isn't strictly dhapur kebo lajer because it has luk. Would this mean that this keris is "diluar pakem"* and doesn't have a dhapur designation, if we're going by the Surakarta dhapur manuscript? *Diluar means "outside of". I'm unsure of how to translate pakem as its Javanese, but the usage in this context would say that a pakem is something that is used as a source or reference - akin to a rulebook or a style guide. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,255
|
![]()
This blade would certainly work as kebo lajer luk 7.
If I remember the gist of an earlier thread correctly, luk could be added to some (even all?) straight dhapur and designated a s such. (If adding luk does not change the blades into another, more specific designation, I assume.) Some of the dhapur with luk may have different numbers of luk. If I recall correctly, some may be open to non-standard numbers, too. I haven't been able to fathom though when this might be considered legit and when not... Regards, Kai |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|