Palepai
This is an extremely complex field of study with many divergent opinions (see references at end).
I too was struck by George’s ‘both sacred and mundane’ comment, from Gittinger 1979 (p90). When I looked that up I found no explanation, but referral to Gittinger 1976. In this work she notes the following. Based on her identifications of motifs, only blue-ships hold temporal houses, identified by bifurcated roof structure, only red-ships hold rumah poyong umbrella shapes and have birds in the background.
I would add: her blue ships have no medallions, are solid, have small spaces between major elements filled with larger geometric forms, and the ends are without rows of small triangles but with an indigo row of curvilinear motifs; her red ships have medallions, are x-rayed, have considerable space between design elements filled with tiny geometric forms, and the ends have rows of triangles, usually in red.
Gittinger (1976: 225) then jumps to a dualistic explanation: blue ships represent the mundane [earthly] realm, red ships present the spiritual world.
The key is in the 1976 reference on page 226. For Gittinger, George’s textile belongs to an anomalous subgroup of blue ‘red-ship’ palepai, because it includes both mundane and spiritual elements. It therefore may represent a part of society dedicated to reconciling these two elements. Another textile of this type is illustrated (Gittinger 1976), the strange flanking ‘trees’ with multiple down-curved branches unlike George’s candelabra of palempore-like cypresses. However, with both types of ‘tree’ there is a platform underneath and human figures, much like the double wedding photo in Gittinger (1979).
I find Gittinger’s explanation a bit unlikely. When I classify beetles (as I do for a living) and a new one turns up that doesn’t fit, I redo my classification.
Heres another scenario. Tampan came first, palepai (and tatibin, which are only small blue-ship palepai) developed later. The greatest complexity of designs developed along the coast (the pasisir), especially the old ports. Palepai developed in Kalianda and the idea of them was copied in a few other places but in local styles. In this explanation Gittinger’s ‘blue ship’ palepai are merely a regional type. In colour, border elements, simplified rendition of figures, they conform to the Kota Agung area (the Semangka Bay). Temporal houses are just crude illustrations of more complicated images. As Gittinger noted, identified ‘red-ship’ palepai were only known from Kalianda area. So her blue red ships provide a red/blue dichotomy within one region. In fact, there are red ‘red-ships’ with flanking trees (two are illustrated by Brakel, 1996, from the Tillman coll, Tropenmuseum (
http://ccindex.kit.nl/print.asp?identifier=65950 ) and (
http://ccindex.kit.nl/print.asp?identifier=66174 ), another superb example from the Holmgren & Spertus collection is in Maxwell, 2003).
Maybe its time to rename these textiles. The ‘blue-ship’ palepai = Semangka Bay palepai and the ‘red/blue ship’ palepai = Kalianda palepai. Other styles may represent regionally important centres such as Jabung (close to Kalianda), Putihdoh etc. Don Longuevan, if he's reading this, might have further opinions. As noted by Gittinger, none seem to have been made in Krui, although many are labelled as from there.
Is there a red/blue dichotomy in Kalianda? There does seem to be. While staying with my wife’s family in Kalianda for 2 months, 2009, I was told that paired uncut red and blue ‘tampan’ were hung over a line drawn across a room separating the two parties at a wedding. But that information came from a dealer, none of the local people we met knew anything about tampan or palepai. I’ll post an image when I get around to photographing one.
Gittinger’s studies of the origins of Lampung material culture have been criticised and superceded, notably by van Dijk & de Jonge (1980), Holmgren & Spertus (1980, 1989), Maxwell (1990, 2003) and Vickers (1998). There are many other commentators, but most repeat the well-worn diffusionist path of ships of the dead and dongson culture.
Meanwhile, poverty from drought and internal conflict in the 1960s-70s, combined with the relentless pressure of the international art market, have led to the emptying of the coffers and the end of this aspect of Lampung culture.
I thank Don, Robyn Maxwell & Ayun for chats about Lampung textiles.
Larry - I agree with you, and will try to address the source of these textiles later.