Keris golok?

A. G. Maisey · 17th April 2009, 11:49 PM

Amuk , I agree with you 100%.

To have a "correct" name, you need to be using the same language and to be coming from the same beginning.

I do not know this keris form. Never seen it before. I have yet to check references to see if I can find it somewhere.

Maybe the correct name is "keris pedang".

Then again, maybe its not.

Just because somebody from the present time gives a name to something does not mean that that name is correct. I can remember some 20 years ago I encountered a pamor I had not seen before with a dealer in Solo. The salesman from Madura was there at the time, and I asked what the name of this pamor was. He told me it was a new pamor and nobody had named it yet, then he asked what I thought might be a good name for it. I gave a name to it.

Guess what?

Twelve months later that pamor was with a number of other dealers, and it bore the name I had given it.

Salesmen and dealers have a way of sticking names on things to help their marketting efforts. Not dissimilar to car manufacturers really.

Anyway, let's assume for the moment that the correct name is "keris pedang".

Now what we need is a reference.

It could well be keris pedang in one place, and have a different name somewhere else. Thus, whenever we say that a particular name for something is "correct", we need to also say where,and when and according to who, it is correct.

Semar, would you be so kind as to enlighten us as to the source of this terminology?

Thank you.

Amuk Murugul · 18th April 2009, 01:22 AM

Hullo again everybody,

BTW.... Remember this?

Sajen · 18th April 2009, 01:27 AM

I think so that the correct name of the dapur from the long version is "Cundrik" (like Amuk already note), see Ensiklopedi Keris page 136-137, about dapur keris lurus. But I don't know if you can call the short version with the same name, but on the other hand dapur is dapur equal how long.

The name "pedang" is colloquial.
sajen

A. G. Maisey · 18th April 2009, 02:58 AM

The keris posted by gwirya is not dhapur cundrik according the Surakarta pakem, nor according to the entry in Ensiklopedi.

It is a Lombok form.

Djalengga does not show this form, but he does show the ligan, for which he gives the alternate name of "keris pedang".

He says:- " There is a straight keris shaped like a pedang, or a pedang shaped like a keris.It is called a keris because its base is like a keris, complete with ganja, and it is called a pedang because its blade is like a pedang." (free translation)

Not really colloquial, but what it is called in Lombok, and it is a Lombok form, not a Javanese form, so you cannot align it to a Javanese palace pakem.

As Amuk Murugul said:- "It is difficult to debate the true name of the type unless we are talking the same language,---"

At the moment, I am not prepared to accept that the name for this form is "keris pedang".

It might be, but if it is, I definitely want to know according to whom. I want a reference.

Actually, its not a cundrik either. Origin is Lombok, OK, it might be Bali, but it is coming from Lombok at the moment, and it most certainly is not Jawa. In Lombok a cundrik is a distinct weapon, and the keris dhapur cundrik is a Javanese dhapur, not applicable in Lombok.

Isn't it fun ?

When you start to play "The Name Game" you can get into all sorts of hot water.

Sajen · 18th April 2009, 04:18 AM

Have to accept the explanation from Mr. Maisey, I can't assigned dapur from Surakarta to Lombok.
I found another keris from Bali (?) with this dapur (long version / blade 48 cm) in the second book from Tammens (De Kris 2) on page 234/235, he write by dapur: cundrik-form.

sajen

A. G. Maisey · 18th April 2009, 04:33 AM

The keris shown on P. 234 of Tammens, Vol. 2 does not share the same characteristics as the keris posted by gwirya.

The Tammens example appears to be a ligan, or keris pedang; I say "appears to be", because all we can see is the outline of the blade.

One thing is certain:- it is most definitely not a keris of cundrik form.

18th April 2009, 01:22 AM	#2
Amuk Murugul Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Kaboejoetan Galoenggoeng Mélben Posts: 472	Hullo again everybody, BTW.... Remember this? Attached Images

18th April 2009, 01:27 AM	#3
Sajen Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Germany, Dortmund Posts: 9,207	I think so that the correct name of the dapur from the long version is "Cundrik" (like Amuk already note), see Ensiklopedi Keris page 136-137, about dapur keris lurus. But I don't know if you can call the short version with the same name, but on the other hand dapur is dapur equal how long. The name "pedang" is colloquial. sajen Last edited by Sajen; 18th April 2009 at 01:42 AM.

17th April 2009, 11:49 PM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,015	Amuk , I agree with you 100%. To have a "correct" name, you need to be using the same language and to be coming from the same beginning. I do not know this keris form. Never seen it before. I have yet to check references to see if I can find it somewhere. Maybe the correct name is "keris pedang". Then again, maybe its not. Just because somebody from the present time gives a name to something does not mean that that name is correct. I can remember some 20 years ago I encountered a pamor I had not seen before with a dealer in Solo. The salesman from Madura was there at the time, and I asked what the name of this pamor was. He told me it was a new pamor and nobody had named it yet, then he asked what I thought might be a good name for it. I gave a name to it. Guess what? Twelve months later that pamor was with a number of other dealers, and it bore the name I had given it. Salesmen and dealers have a way of sticking names on things to help their marketting efforts. Not dissimilar to car manufacturers really. Anyway, let's assume for the moment that the correct name is "keris pedang". Now what we need is a reference. It could well be keris pedang in one place, and have a different name somewhere else. Thus, whenever we say that a particular name for something is "correct", we need to also say where,and when and according to who, it is correct. Semar, would you be so kind as to enlighten us as to the source of this terminology? Thank you.

18th April 2009, 02:58 AM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,015	The keris posted by gwirya is not dhapur cundrik according the Surakarta pakem, nor according to the entry in Ensiklopedi. It is a Lombok form. Djalengga does not show this form, but he does show the ligan, for which he gives the alternate name of "keris pedang". He says:- " There is a straight keris shaped like a pedang, or a pedang shaped like a keris.It is called a keris because its base is like a keris, complete with ganja, and it is called a pedang because its blade is like a pedang." (free translation) Not really colloquial, but what it is called in Lombok, and it is a Lombok form, not a Javanese form, so you cannot align it to a Javanese palace pakem. As Amuk Murugul said:- "It is difficult to debate the true name of the type unless we are talking the same language,---" At the moment, I am not prepared to accept that the name for this form is "keris pedang". It might be, but if it is, I definitely want to know according to whom. I want a reference. Actually, its not a cundrik either. Origin is Lombok, OK, it might be Bali, but it is coming from Lombok at the moment, and it most certainly is not Jawa. In Lombok a cundrik is a distinct weapon, and the keris dhapur cundrik is a Javanese dhapur, not applicable in Lombok. Isn't it fun ? When you start to play "The Name Game" you can get into all sorts of hot water.

18th April 2009, 04:18 AM	#5
Sajen Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Germany, Dortmund Posts: 9,207	Have to accept the explanation from Mr. Maisey, I can't assigned dapur from Surakarta to Lombok. I found another keris from Bali (?) with this dapur (long version / blade 48 cm) in the second book from Tammens (De Kris 2) on page 234/235, he write by dapur: cundrik-form. sajen

18th April 2009, 04:33 AM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,015	The keris shown on P. 234 of Tammens, Vol. 2 does not share the same characteristics as the keris posted by gwirya. The Tammens example appears to be a ligan, or keris pedang; I say "appears to be", because all we can see is the outline of the blade. One thing is certain:- it is most definitely not a keris of cundrik form.