Thanks David. I understand that the features that I am inquiring about predate Islam and reflect Hindu/Buddhist influences. These features have been used for centuries beyond the original Majapahit period, and the details on very old examples can be found on items produced well into the 20th C and up to today. Some of these require considerable effort to produce.
The file work going into the careful reproduction of the "elephant trunk" area, the jenggot and greneng, and the ongoing placement of these features in the traditional manner, suggests that they are still respected today. Or is it the case that craftsmen of the last few centuries have been working from an old pattern without really understanding the meaning of what they were producing, simply following tradition?
When it comes to the adoption of the keris into the kris in the what is now the Philippines, there has been an opinion expressed elsewhere on this site that the kris emerged before the presence of Islam in the islands. As a corollary to this theory, the kris was used primarily by those who would go on to convert to Islam, but it was not introduced in conjunction with Islam. In the process, the keris was converted from a thrusting dagger to more of a slashing sword in becoming a kris. However, many of the features of the keris were retained, and are still reproduced, on the kris, notably the separate ganja, many of the various bela features, and representations of the greneng. Even a minute detail such as the lambe gelah/jalu memet can be found on kris. Why reproduce another culture's ancient iconography to this degree, and continue doing it today? Is this just tradition?
I realize that I am straying beyond the bounds of this forum, but I wanted to let you know why I am asking the questions above.
|