Dabus in West Java
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 2911954 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jacob Vredenbregt (Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1973 |
| Volume | 129 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 302-320 |
| Publication date | 1973-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Bijdragen tot de taal- land- en volkenkunde / Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0006-2294 • E-ISSN: 2213-4379 |
| Publisher | Walter de Gruyter GmbH (PUBLISHER • DE) |
| DOI | 10.1163/22134379-90002723 |
| OpenAlex | W1983597960 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 1 |
The object of this essay is to analyse phenomenon of dabus and study it from a social-anthropological point of view. I am basing myself on field work which I did among three dabus groups in regency (kabupaten) of Serang in 1970. Dabus is a performance manifest function of which is to furnish proof of invulnerability (kekebalan). The participants are seh dabus, or leader of dabus group, and a number of performers (pemain dabus). The instruments used, actual dabus, are awl-like daggers consisting of a wooden hilt with an iron spike running through it, which ends in a sharp point. Quite a lot has been written about dabus performance in Malay-Indonesian archipelago. The Javanese Serat Tjentini contains a description of a so-called gabusan performance, which is discussed by Pigeaud (1938, 311). Dabus performances under different names, such as gabusan, gedebus and rapa'i, are discussed by Van Ho?vell (1849, 22), Poensen (1888, 255), Skeat (1900, 466), Snouck Hurgronje (1906), Hidding (1935), Archer (1937), and De Graaf (1950), as well as being described in Encyclo paedic van Nederlandsch-Indie (1917, volume 1), Mon teil (1970, 121). The various motives for performance suggested by these authors are: (a) deceit; (b) self-torture; (c) infliction of wounds in order to give proof of invulnerability; (d) invulnerability. It can be seen at once that there is contradiction between (b) and (d), for an invulnerable subject is not susceptible to torture. Category (c) has same defect, as when a performer is wounded by a dabus, this is eo ipso proof that he is vulnerable. It appears, however, that some authors take term 'invulnerability' to mean the power of seh dabus of immediate recovery from injuries sustained. From my personal observation it is apparent that this conception differs from meaning ascribed to term by participants, i.e. that a person is invulnerable (kebal) if, when he stabs himself or allows himself to be
Art · Contradiction · Humanities · Linguistics · Subject (documents · Torture · Asian Studies and History · Computer Science · Folklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies · Law · Philosophy · Psychology
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,17 |
| Citation span | 2008 - 2012 (5) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |