Orang Lama, please accept my apologies for my delayed response to your further explanation. I have been away from home & have not had the opportunity to give your posts the time that they deserve.
I do appreciate your detailed explanation of your observations & I shall try to respond in kind.
Firstly I feel that I should comment on the overarching concept of Keris Origin.
This has been a very vexed question for a long time. Various people, some of them notable academics have considered this question over many years. Origins have been attributed to the Dongson culture of Northern Vietnam (1000BCE > 100CE) through to primitive bone daggers of the indigenous peoples of the Malay Peninsula, the weaponry of the Indian sub-continent & stretching back to the roots of the Indo-Aryan peoples, & of course to China & the Zhou era (C. 1000>200BCE).
During the first half of the 20th century there were some very heated debates between European & British academics & collectors, & this propensity of the keris to generate heated debate continued between Indonesian & Malaysian collectors until quite recently. Things seem to have quietened down a lot over the last twenty years or so.
But the thing is this:- when we mention “Origin” & “Keris” in the same breath we are unavoidably treading upon very thin ice.
You have noted some physical similarities between the form of the early keris and the form of a bronze Japanese spear head, this spear head appears to be a Japanese interpretation of the Chinese ge. It is my understanding that the ge was in use in China from about 1600BCE through to about 200CE.
I am not aware of any trade or cultural links nor exchanges between Japan & Jawa in the period prior to about 200CE, this seems to be the time when the blade that began this discussion might have been produced.
However, there is solid evidence of Java having sent a tribute to the court of Emperor Shun in 131CE.
So, although we cannot relate the keris origin to Japanese sources, we can certainly relate Chinese cultural & trade contacts to both Japan & Jawa.
However, nobody has yet been able to relate keris origin to any Chinese influences, even though there are some later developmental influences upon Javanese culture that can certainly be related to Chinese trade & cultural contacts.
In respect of the specific points that you have raised to support the idea of a relationship between the ge form & the keris form:-
a) the tang of the Javanese keris after about 1400CE normally measures about 6cm. to 7cm., keris from other areas can have longer or shorter tangs, but it is the Javanese keris that must be used as the reference point. The tang of the Knaud keris is only a stub of what it would have been originally. The Knaud is another rather problematic item, & perhaps not a good example to use for anything, it is in fact much younger than the date commonly attributed to it & was inspired by a keris with a damaged blade, that is part of a stone carved statue, & that can be found in the Trowulan Museum of Majapahit in East Jawa. It is likely that the form of keris that the Knaud echoes did in fact have a considerably longer tang than the +/- 7cm tang of the Modern keris form.
b) the earliest form of the keris is known as the Keris Buda, it has this name because it existed during the pre-Islamic period of Jawa, which is known in Jawa as the “Buda Era”. This early form of the keris did not have a blumbangan, the keris in this early form was used in a hammer stroke, as can be seen in the Prambanan (Loro Jonggrang) bas reliefs, used in this way, no blumbangan was required. When the keris began to be used as a thrusting weapon, the blumbangan developed to assist in the thrust by anchoring the required pinch-grip on the blade.
c) the offset of the keris blade provides a degree of compensation for a thrust delivered against a facing opponent.
d) very true, the blade of the ge is well designed for its purpose, & the asymmetric base of the keris is well designed for a different purpose.
f) true, various blades can be put to various uses, and with the disappearance for the need of spears as weapons many of the blades attached to pole arms were remounted onto shorter shafts and single hand grips. This accelerated in the 20th century when the necessary space for long polearms was no longer available for many people.
e) the design of the gonjo element of the keris blade has been discussed by perhaps as many people as those who have discussed keris origin, but when the ways in which the keris was used in its pre-modern form & in its later form are understood the need for the gonjo becomes obvious, briefly it assists in the prevention of damage to the hand of the user. The gonjo is not, & never was intended as a handguard, it was & is intended as a hand support.
Orang Lama, I very much appreciate your observations that you have posted here, it is thoughtful enquiry such as yours that can contribute to a better understanding of the keris, & that is something that all of us who hold a keris interest do value.
|