Opinions please

[Jean]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Perhaps any statement of opinion needs to begin with a statement that clarifies one's understanding of the way(s) in which Javanese society perceives the keris at the present time.

Just a personal testimony dating from the nineties during my stay in East Kalimantan:
Most of my Indonesian colleagues were highly educated people (engineers) and of javanese origin. They were quite surprised about my interest for the kris, a number of them had family krisses but they did not seem to give them much attention, and none of them ever showed me one of their krisses.
I was told that since recently, some Muslim extremists in Java require the people to get rid of their krisses as the worshipping of the kris is contrary to islamic principles but I don't know if this is correct and widely applied.
Regards

[David]

I will qualify my statements by saying that i really have no idea of the inner beliefs of Javanese (or Indonesian) society regarding the keris. I have never been there and have no real direct contacts that can valid anything i might believe on the subject. My understanding of the keris, what a "good" keris might be, is dictated more by my understanding of how international collectors view the keris.
It is clear to me that Islam as it has existed in Indonesia is its own variation on the theme and has absorbed quite a bit of local (both pre-Islamic and pre-Hindu) belief along its doctrines. If extremists are now trying to turn Indonesians away from the keris i am not convinced that is yet the norm and i would rather not turn this into a discussion or debate on current politics and religious extremism. Islam in Indonesia seems to have embraced the keris over the centuries and embed it with its own sense of Islamic mystical thinking. It seems likely that a good deal of the original Hindu-influenced symbolic intent of the keris has been replaced with its Islamic counterparts over the centuries of Islamic influence. So how Indonesians relate to the keris must have certainly changed in some regard over the years because of this.
Regarding the physicality of the keris i am less certain that the establishment of an Islamic culture made that many changes to the over all design. Yes, certainly we saw figurative hilts morph into abstract representation in certain areas around the archipelago. Interestingly enough though, a ban on figurative hilts does not really seem to have been put into effect in Jawa. I don't see that Islamic culture did that much to change the blade itself though. Yes, over the centuries we see the development of more complex pamor pattern, but this seems more a natural evolution than one dictated by religious philosophy. The same can probably be said about dhapurs. If anything affected the blade construction itself i would have to say colonial influence has. It seems to me that it was Europeans like Isaac Groneman who put an emphasis on the desirability of the high contrast silvery pamor he noted on upper level court pieces and made that the bar to be reached for a "good" keris. In 1904 Groneman wrote:
‘The pamor material for the kris smiths connected to the courts of Yogyakarta and Surakarta originates from an iron meteorite that fell to earth at the end of the eighteenth century in the neighbourhood of the Prambanan temple complex. The meteorite was excavated and transported to the kraton of Surakarta. From that time on, the weapon smiths of the Vorstenlanden used small pieces of meteoric iron to produce the pamor pattern in their krisses, pikes and other status weapons. After etching the blade with acidic substances, it is the small percentage of nickel always presents in meteoric iron that causes the characteristic silvery pattern that faintly lights up against a background of iron or steel that has become darkly coloured by the effect of the acids. However, the supply of meteoric iron, already scarce and expensive, will gradually become exhausted. The petty weapon smiths and their assistants who now and then receive a commission from their noble clients – they are becoming fewer and fewer – are poor and consequently can no longer pay for their raw materials. The Javanese weapon smiths are destitute. By making a kris, they do not earn more than starvation wages. Their trade threatens to become extinct if nothing changes. However, the solution of the problem is quite simple: replace the expensive meteoric nickel iron by cheap nickel originating from other sources since it is the nickel component in the kris that provides the contrast in color’
So Groneman seems to be making high contrast silvery pamor a standard to be most desired. I am not convinced that this view on keris pamor was the accepted Javanese perspective of the time. It has been shown that many, if not most old keris don't even have nickels material in the pamor, contrast coming instead from varying levels of phosphorus in the iron used (see studies and articles by Piaskowski and Bronson). Meteorite was only really in use as a pamor material for about a century before this time and only in a very limited number of keris. But Groneman began importing pure nickel to see his own ideal of pamor created in the keris. He was convinced he was saving a dying culture and putting keris production back on track, but it seems to me that he was instrumental in changing our perceptions of what a "good" keris is supposed to look like, at least in the international collector's view. I must admit that i am uncertain if this "ideal" has also become embedded in the native Javanese psyche.
70 years later Dietrich Drescher was instrumental in reviving keris manufacture and culture in Jawa. I am not certain how much his influence affected how keris were produced though he undoubtable brought his own European collector's perspective of what makes a "good" keris into the process.

[Rick]

....and not a very good student :

I'd like to observe that it is utterly puzzling to me why the Javanese would take an object so clearly aligned with Male and Female, Birth and Death, Creation, aspirations, an Heirloom; the best work that a Pande, whatever his skill level could produce; and subject it to a corrosive process on a regular basis .

Maybe if I could understand just that .

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Jean, a very valid comment. This is what I meant by "levels of understanding".

The younger generations of Javanese people, particularly those who have had either an overseas or a local university education tend to turn away from not only the keris, but many other facets of traditional Javanese culture, most particularly when dealing with people outside their immediate family or circle of friends.

It is seen as very uncool to remain attached to the traditions and ways of previous generations, whilst it is seen as prestigious to imitate the ways, or perceived ways, of the educated west.

When dealing with Javanese people it is very wise to remember that you are dealing with the "public face" of a person, unless that person is a member of your immediate family or a close friend of very long standing --- and even then you cannot be certain. It should also be understood that the persona one sees is the persona that the Javanese person wants you to see, and what he wants you to see is usually calculated to generate the most favourable impression of himself.

Thus, in the workplace the Javanese person could well feel that it is to his advantage to present a character that is in tune with western values, as he understands western values, but when he returns to his village and is surrounded by family and friends who have known him all his life, he allows a different character to appear, and that character is normally very different to the character that is presented to the outside world.

Then there are the various divisions within Javanese society, the aristocrats, the old line of kraton civil servants (priyayi), the Muslim traders and shopkeepers (santri), the farmers, the craftsmen , and so on. Each of these groups have their own set of values that are added to the overarching set of values of all Javanese, and these values can affect the way they act or react in respect of anything.


The question often arises as who is truly a Javanese person. To the people living in Central Jawa who consider themselves Javanese , to be Javanese is to be born into a Javanese Pribumi family and to use Javanese language as the normal means of communication. These traditionalists in my experience do not accept people from West Jawa as Javanese, these people are from Sunda, thus they are Sundanese. People from Jakarta are excluded. Javanese people from East Jawa are treated with a degree of suspicion, they might be Javanese, but not true Javanese, because they are too rough, have no manners and do not speak correct Javanese. (pribumi=indigenous)

So, in the eyes of the people at the center of the traditional Javanese world, the ones who can qualify as genuine Javanese are pretty limited in number. Within this restricted group of people there is an even smaller number of people who have an interest in and understanding of, the keris. This small core has probably been influential in the greater Indonesian community for creating the ideas and values of the greater Indonesian community in respect of the keris.

However, in recent years this appears to have changed. When I compare what I know of present day understanding and values with the understanding and values that I was taught by people at the center of the Javanese keris world, 30-40 years ago, it seems that the understandings and values now are in many respects quite a bit different to what I was taught. I rather suspect that Jakarta has hijacked the keris train.

So --- levels of understanding.

Then we have as you so correctly point out, the rather right leaning religious enthusiasts --- I'm trying to very careful with the way I phrase things here. These people are not necessarily all Muslim, there is a very strong Christian movement in Jawa, and many of these Christians are from rather extreme churches of the Christian faith.

Again, more levels of understanding.

The whole matter could use several lifetimes of investigation, and we still probably would not be very much wiser than we are right now. But this doesn't matter, because what we are seeking here are opinions; what do outsiders --- and insiders too, if any care to contribute --- think about the external forces that may have contributed to the way(s) in which Javanese people perceive the Javanese keris?

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for your contribution to discussion , David.

Gronemann probably did have some effect in line with your comments, but nickel was present in Javanese keris production from at least the time of Majapahit, because of the presence of nickel bearing material imported from Sulawesi.

I do understand that you might be reluctant to comment on Javanese perceptions of the keris, because of your lack of personal contact, but I also feel that because of your long contact with the keris, and the reading that you have undertaken, you would have formed some personal opinions of the way in which Javanese people may regard the keris.

As I said in post #1, there are no "rights" and no "wrongs" in this matter, we are talking about opinions, it is of no importance at all if an opinion can be shown to be incorrect, and of even less importance if it can be shown to be correct. This is a matter of external influences on the way Javanese people see the keris. It doesn't matter if what we think or say is wrong, what matters is the way we perceive something to be.

[A. G. Maisey]

I think that there are probably several things that we can say about this "corrosive process" Rick.

Firstly we're dealing with a wet tropical climate. Polished ferric material is always going to rust, and rust pretty quick.

So, the stain that is applied to a keris blade is similar in protective effect to the protection afforded by blueing, but before we can apply that stain, we need to get the ferric material nice and shiny white.

We can polish the corrosion off, or we can remove it chemically --- the "corrosive process".

The Balinese people polish it off with wet sand and lime, this results in the entire blade surface being reduced over time.

The Javanese people clean the rust away with a mild acid that when used correctly has virtually no effect at all on the un-corroded surfaces of the blade.

Regrettably not everybody who attempts to clean a blade is either properly trained, or careful, and the result is that instead of only the rust disappearing the surfaces that are not yet rusted also lose a little bit of matter.

Then we have that great common attribute of the Human Race:- laziness.

Why be careful when it is easier to throw something into a tub of acid ?

Or maybe we can consider the cost of cleaning compared to the value of the article. What I know is this:- common keris that have little value are not going to have as much money spent on them to clean and stain, as the keris may be worth. However, the cleaning and staining of a truly valuable keris will be done with extreme care.

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Gronemann probably did have some effect in line with your comments, but nickel was present in Javanese keris production from at least the time of Majapahit, because of the presence of nickel bearing material imported from Sulawesi.

Thanks Alan, i am aware of that and didn't mean to imply that there was no nickel in keris pamor before the Prambanan meteorite fall. The point i was trying to make was that Gronemann became enamored with the higher contrast pamors that meteorite was capable of producing from it's higher nickel content. I am not convinced that this ideal was in place amongst the Javanese people before this and feel he was instrumental in pushing this forward as an ideal for what a "good" keris is by importing pure nickel for pamor and encouraging its use in keris manufacture. This is a force upon the physical construction of the keris that comes strictly from an outside colonial influence.
As to how Javanese people actually view the keris in their personal lives…yes, obviously it is seen (or has been seen since as i am sure that many current generation Javanese have little to no real connection to the weapon anymore) as the many things you have already mentioned. It is (or has been at some time in Javanese history) "a weapon, a personal talisman, a family inheritance, a work of art, a store of wealth, an item of formal dress, it has religious associations, it is a symbol of its custodian, and hierarchical indicator, a symbol of its culture, an endorsement of the right to rule". I hate to disappoint you, but beyond that i am afraid i do not care to speculate. Perhaps if i were to spend some time amongst Javanese people within the Javanese culture i would feel more comfortable making assumptions about their deeper thoughts on the matter. Until then i am afraid that i must be content with my own personal feelings and beliefs about the keris. My long contact with the keris has only allowed me my own personal perspective on the keris, not the perspective of the culture from which it originates. And while i have read a lot of books on the subject they have all been writing by people of European decent so they can only provide a filtered perspective. You have stated that it doesn't matter if what i think or say is wrong, but to me it does matter if what i think is wrong and it matters even more if what i say is wrong. But perhaps if you could outline what it is you hope to gain from this line of inquiry i might be able to add more to the conversation.
You did present a question regarding your list of above of what the keris may represent that i can give thoughts on.
Did all these things apply at the moment of its appearance in Javanese society, or did it gradually accumulate some of these attributes as time passed?
I think it would have to be a gradual evolution, though i do believe that there was always some mystical/magickal intent present in the keris by design. The "modern" keris form as we know it contains certain physical elements that don't really seem to serve a martial function. So symbolism was always built in. Even the keris buda contains some of these, but the form (and symbolic nature) becomes even more complex as it develops into "modern" form during the Mojopahit.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you David.

I'm not sure that Gronemann's idea of a "good keris" came from the fact that he was a European, but rather, he had seen what the ruling elite considered to be a "good keris", he was working with kraton makers, and he attempted to provide the material that these makers needed to be able to continue to produce what their lords wanted.

Yes, undoubtedly he considered the high contrast pamor a characteristic of a "good keris", but this was because he had seen this characteristic in the keris that he had been told by both the elites and the makers, were good keris.

He was undoubtedly influential in the later perception of the keris in Europe, so this idea of high contrast pamor being a characteristic of a good keris flowed from him to the interested people outside Jawa.

However, he only passed on what he had learnt, and perhaps he did not get the full story. What has been impressed upon me many times by keris conscious people in Solo is that within the Surakarta ethic, garap, that is, craftsmanship, is given much greater weight in the appraisal of a keris than is the colour of the pamor, if any exists at all.

Whether this same value applied at Gronemann's time, I really do not know, but I feel that it very likely did, as I have never seen even slightly inferior garap in keris that has been attributed to a known mpu of the 19th through early 20th century.

I do understand your unwillingness to state an opinion that you cannot support. I've already said that I'm not able to do this --- which is a pity --- but too often I've said or written something that is really only a thought for further examination and then had it quoted back to me as one of my firm opinions. It just wastes too much of my time trying to explain exactly what I meant when I made the statement in the first place. Probably you also get all those private emails that want to argue about half formed ideas.

You have asked what I hope to gain from this line of enquiry. Valid question.
I was hoping to gain a couple of things:-

Firstly I wanted to get some sort of an idea about the way that people who were not specialist scholars, but rather more or less generalist collectors, thought about and saw the keris within the context of the society and culture from whence it came.

In other words, the perception of these people of the perception of the Javanese people.

This is something that can definitely be argued as being right or wrong, there is an enormous volume of work that has been done on the characteristics and attitudes of the Javanese people, their culture and their society, so if anybody stated something that was obviously wrong in the opinions of the authorities in this area of knowledge, it could generate a lengthy debate.

This was the reason for the rider that in this thread there is no right and no wrong, only opinions. In other words, no debates. If we differ in opinion, simply state the different opinion and let both opinions stand, don't try to prove that one is right, and the other is wrong. We're not scoring points here.

The second thing I had hoped to gain is relative to the idea of the keris gaining more and more attributes as it moves through time. In my "Interpretation" article I stated a hypothesis of what I believed the Modern Keris to be at the moment of its appearance in Javanese culture. Put very simply, it was an hierarchical indicator with the character of a religious icon. Its use was limited to people who formed a part of the hierarchy of the Karaton of Majapahit.

Now, perhaps the first characteristic that the keris acquired from outside influence was its spread from an elite group of people where it had a very specific purpose to a broader group of people who did not understand much about it all.

These people were the traders and merchants who lived in enclaves along the North Coast of Jawa. It is on record that these people, many of whom were either foreigners or first generation descendants of foreigners, copied the style, ways, and dress of the Majapahit Karaton. They adopted the keris and began wearing it, copying the style of the lords of the Majapahit Karaton.

We must not forget, that some of the princes and lords of the kraton were also traders and merchants who were in competition with the people from outside Jawa. These Javanese traders would certainly have known the relevance of the keris, but the foreigners could not have known much at all. They simply copied:- monkey see : monkey do.

The keris then spread from the traders and merchants to lesser people, those who could afford a keris copied the leaders of their society, but these lesser people knew nothing of the relevance of the keris to the kraton hierarchy.

Then eventually Islam replaced the old Hindu-Buddhist Javanese society, original understandings were lost, new understandings were generated.

So, here is what I presently see as the first attribute of the keris that came from outside Javanese society and that produced a new way for the Javanese people to perceive the keris:- from being a hierarchical indicator of the elites, with the nature of a religious icon, it became a characteristic of Javanese dress, something that was worn and used by anybody who could afford it.

Now, we have all these other attributes. Are any of them attributes that might have come from outside Javanese culture, or been generated by ideas from outside Javanese culture, or generated as a reaction to influences from outside Javanese culture?

These questions are constantly running at the back of my mind, and have been for as long as I can remember. What I am now seeking are the ideas of other people. I acknowledge that it may require a little bit of concentrated thought and perhaps a smidgen of research to generate those ideas, so what I'm really trying to do is get people sufficiently interested to take a more or less serious approach to their declared interest:- the keris.