The Keris of Majapahit

Jean · 31st August 2015, 04:30 PM

Alan,
Thank you for introducing this very fascinating subject!
I would summarize my opinion as follows and will develop it later:

1. First I would note that the Majapahit period extended over more than 2 centuries and it is likely that the krisses changed a lot during this "golden age" period, i.e that the krisses from the early period were very different from those from the late one.

2. I don't know what the krisses from the Majapahit period looked like as to my knowledge no specimen with proven provenance (royal regalia, museum pieces, etc) was ever identified with a good certainty, except maybe the kris from Knaud. All the krisses depicted on the East Java temples dating from this period are still of the early "leaf" type. The amulet or "sajen" krisses which are called Majapahit krisses by some authors have no proven link with the Majapahit period.

3. The supposed features of the krisses attributed to Majapahit are described in the Javanese tangguh classification basically as follows:
The pawakan/ pasikutan looks eerie and gives a deft impression, the iron is "melted" and looks dry, the pamor is strong and deeply buried into the blade, the shape of the blade is more slender toward the tip and it looks pointed, the waves are quite widely spaced, the gandik is slanted and rather short, the pejetan is boto adeg "brick standing-up", the front of the ganja and the sogokan are short and smooth. In brief, a very elaborate and fully modern kris!

4. After the collapse of Majapahit, the empus are said to have moved to Bali and West Java (Pajajaran) and continued to make krisses in the Majapahit style. From the end of 16th and during the 17th century, some high krisses were brought to Europe from Banten (West Java) and Cirebon. These krisses look similar to the strong balinese krisses which we know, but not at all to those attributed to tangguh Majapahit. It may therefore be interpreted that the krisses from the late Majapahit period were similar to the krisses brought from Banten to Europe during the late 16th and 17th centuries.
Regards

A. G. Maisey · 31st August 2015, 10:39 PM

Thanks for your interest Gustav and Jean.

Gustav, you have identified a key point, possibly the key point that we must consider in this matter.

I understand that your further responses may be a little delayed, but when you are able, could you suggest a supportable reason for this variation?

Jean, yes, as Gustav has pointed out, there is wide variation in the form of keris that can be attributed to Mojo.

You comment that you don't know what a Majapahit keris looked like.
Jean, nobody does, and that is why I have raised this question. There are a lot of very strong indicators that point to the form of the Mojo keris, but perhaps first of all, we need to define what we mean by "keris of Majapahit".

As for Tangguh Majapahit, the indicators used to classify keris under this system vary. May I ask the source of the indicators you have provided?

May I also ask you the same question that I asked Gustav:- can you suggest a supportable reason for the wide variation in keris form?

You have pointed out that Mojo was a fairly long lived era, most especially so by Javanese standards, but apart from just the passing of time, do you have any other ideas?

Jean · 1st September 2015, 08:46 AM

Hello Alan,
The compound & summarized indicators which I mentioned for the blades attributed to tangguh Majapahit are mainly based on the Ensiklopedi Keris, and complemented by the book "Keris Jawa" by Haryoguritno, and the book "Pengetahuan tentang keris" by Koesni. There are some discrepancies between the 3 sources indeed but they are not really conflicting, but some indicators are mentioned in one or 2 sources only.
I have few ideas regarding the possible variation of the kris form during the Majapahit period but they are not very original nor supported so I will leave others develop them.
Regards

A. G. Maisey · 1st September 2015, 09:47 AM

Yes Jean, there is variation in the indicators for tangguh, all these recent publications you mention have drawn on older publications such as "Panangguhing Dhuwung".

I don't use any of the published sources, either recent, or older, but rely on what I was taught by Mpu Suparman, during the 1970's he was the Penangguh for the Boworoso Tosan Aji in Surakarta, that is to say, his opinion in respect of tangguh carried greater weight than the opinions of others.

For Majapahit he named 14 indicators: tanting, besi, pamor, baja, pawakan, gonjo, gandhik, blumbangan, sogokan, ada-ada, kruwingan, eluk-lukan, wadidang, sekar kacang. His descriptions of the indicators he used are fairly detailed, for instance, for the sogokan:-

" well formed and handsome, A rounded bottom and no pamor in evidence. There are keris Mojopahit that have a rather long sogokan, but in these cases the Pajajaran pattern is being followed, normally the sogokan is short"

If your sources use the word "pawakan" to describe the character of the blade, this would be disallowed in Surakarta, in Surakarta the correct word to describe the feeling generated by a blade would be "wanda", with "pawakan" being used for the overall visual appearance. Mpu Suparman describes the wanda of Majapahit as "brave".

So we have lots of variation in not only the indicators for tangguh, but the way in which those indicators are understood.

In essence, the tangguh system of classification is an element of the keris belief system. My personal opinion is that it can be relied upon to a limited degree for fairly recent tangguhs, such as Surakarta and HB, maybe even as far back as Mataram Senopaten, but when we get into the really old tangguh classifications I regard it as pretty untrustworthy as an indicator of age. My teacher would have disagreed with me, but his world view was different to my own.

The tangguh system was developed as a reaction to colonial dominance of the Javanese kingdoms, and the restrictions that colonial power and traditional standards of the aristocracy imposed upon Javanese men of noble birth. It was never intended as a tool to establish the actual age of a keris.

So, for the purposes of this present discussion I feel that we should leave tangguh classifications off to one side.

Perhaps an approach that looks at the sources of information available to us might be more useful than a system devised to help store wealth.

Jean · 1st September 2015, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

So, for the purposes of this present discussion I feel that we should leave tangguh classifications off to one side.

Perhaps an approach that looks at the sources of information available to us might be more useful than a system devised to help store wealth.

Yes, Alan, I fully agree that the tangguh classification should be disregarded for the purpose of our discussion but it needed to be mentioned.
And the best source of information known to me is your remarkable paper "An Interpretation of the Pre-Islamic Javanese Keris"...

Regards

A. G. Maisey · 1st September 2015, 11:40 PM

Yes Jean, I agree that we needed to mention tangguh, I'm glad that we have mentioned it and that we can shelve it.

Thank you for your comment on "Interpretation", but what was published was a greatly compressed version, and it does not address the keris across the entire spectrum of early Javanese society.

Then there is the Keris Sajen.

For a very long time these were called "Keris Majapahit" in the Western Community. Sure, they've always been "sajen" in Jawa but in the past even noted Javanologists were telling the world that they had identified the ancestor of the Modern Keris.

Can we be quite certain that the Keris Sajen is not the style that preceded the Modern Keris?

rasdan · 2nd September 2015, 04:47 AM

G'day Alan,

This is a very interesting topic. Your question is "what did the keris of the Majapahit era really look like?" ? This is what I understand from our previous discussions on this topic. What ever flaw I have is due to my own limitation in understanding the explanations that had been given.

I don't think we would ever know for sure. Many people would quote tangguh system characteristics for Mojo, but since that it is generally known that tangguh system does not really represent the actual manufacture era (like you mentioned before), what we currently know may not be accurate at all.

This raises a question that I had been thinking, how does that tangguh sytem being developed? I would imagine it is being done by Kraton people using keris in the keraton, made by kraton empu according to kraton specifications. If this is true then the accuracy of the system is only as accurate as the reference used in the kraton at that time. Meaning that recent keris will have a higher accuracy and older keris have lower accuracy or probably not accurate at all. (also like you had mentioned before).

So, I think in order to even attempt to answer the question by using tangguh system as a guide (since there is probably no other guide that I know of), we must first at least know how the system is developed and how accurate it is, then learn the system and then answer the question. Which I don't know and I am sure would take many years to study.

So, how does the keris of the Majapahit tangguh look like? I think I may have a vague idea on one of the possibilities of the shape (Not material or tanting) of Mojo keris according to tangguh system, for a luk 9 keris with ganja wilut - from our previous discussions. I attached the picture below and I hope I didn't get too far from what can be accepted.

I am sorry I had forgotten where I get this photo from to give credits. Also sorry if my writing is rather incoherent.

Jean · 2nd September 2015, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

For a very long time these were called "Keris Majapahit" in the Western Community. Sure, they've always been "sajen" in Jawa but in the past even noted Javanologists were telling the world that they had identified the ancestor of the Modern Keris.

Can we be quite certain that the Keris Sajen is not the style that preceded the Modern Keris?

Hello Alan,
The top reference book regarding the krisses sajen is "Iron Ancestors" by Theo Alkema & partners. it is very documented and the pictures & drawings are excellent.
He addresses the question of the origin of the kris sajen as follows:

. He believes that the kris sajen does not belong to the "mainstream" kris category (page 17) but was developped separately and inspired by the bronze Dongson daggers (page 34), and that the kris sajen is older than the kris Buda which he considers as the forerunner of the modern kris (page 210).
. He makes a distinction betwen the early krisses sajen (small pieces) and the larger ones with more elaborate features (carved hilt, dapur, pamor, luks, etc.) which he believes was developped during the Majapahit period (page 106).

However there is no back-up evidence of his theory and none of the pieces presented seem to have a proven provenance except one belonging to the family of Sultan Iskandar Muda (17th century).

What do you think?
Regards

31st August 2015, 04:30 PM	#1
Jean Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,740	Alan, Thank you for introducing this very fascinating subject! I would summarize my opinion as follows and will develop it later: 1. First I would note that the Majapahit period extended over more than 2 centuries and it is likely that the krisses changed a lot during this "golden age" period, i.e that the krisses from the early period were very different from those from the late one. 2. I don't know what the krisses from the Majapahit period looked like as to my knowledge no specimen with proven provenance (royal regalia, museum pieces, etc) was ever identified with a good certainty, except maybe the kris from Knaud. All the krisses depicted on the East Java temples dating from this period are still of the early "leaf" type. The amulet or "sajen" krisses which are called Majapahit krisses by some authors have no proven link with the Majapahit period. 3. The supposed features of the krisses attributed to Majapahit are described in the Javanese tangguh classification basically as follows: The pawakan/ pasikutan looks eerie and gives a deft impression, the iron is "melted" and looks dry, the pamor is strong and deeply buried into the blade, the shape of the blade is more slender toward the tip and it looks pointed, the waves are quite widely spaced, the gandik is slanted and rather short, the pejetan is boto adeg "brick standing-up", the front of the ganja and the sogokan are short and smooth. In brief, a very elaborate and fully modern kris! 4. After the collapse of Majapahit, the empus are said to have moved to Bali and West Java (Pajajaran) and continued to make krisses in the Majapahit style. From the end of 16th and during the 17th century, some high krisses were brought to Europe from Banten (West Java) and Cirebon. These krisses look similar to the strong balinese krisses which we know, but not at all to those attributed to tangguh Majapahit. It may therefore be interpreted that the krisses from the late Majapahit period were similar to the krisses brought from Banten to Europe during the late 16th and 17th centuries. Regards Last edited by Jean; 31st August 2015 at 05:22 PM.

2nd September 2015, 04:47 AM	#7
rasdan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Kuala Lumpur Posts: 368	G'day Alan, This is a very interesting topic. Your question is "what did the keris of the Majapahit era really look like?" ? This is what I understand from our previous discussions on this topic. What ever flaw I have is due to my own limitation in understanding the explanations that had been given. I don't think we would ever know for sure. Many people would quote tangguh system characteristics for Mojo, but since that it is generally known that tangguh system does not really represent the actual manufacture era (like you mentioned before), what we currently know may not be accurate at all. This raises a question that I had been thinking, how does that tangguh sytem being developed? I would imagine it is being done by Kraton people using keris in the keraton, made by kraton empu according to kraton specifications. If this is true then the accuracy of the system is only as accurate as the reference used in the kraton at that time. Meaning that recent keris will have a higher accuracy and older keris have lower accuracy or probably not accurate at all. (also like you had mentioned before). So, I think in order to even attempt to answer the question by using tangguh system as a guide (since there is probably no other guide that I know of), we must first at least know how the system is developed and how accurate it is, then learn the system and then answer the question. Which I don't know and I am sure would take many years to study. So, how does the keris of the Majapahit tangguh look like? I think I may have a vague idea on one of the possibilities of the shape (Not material or tanting) of Mojo keris according to tangguh system, for a luk 9 keris with ganja wilut - from our previous discussions. I attached the picture below and I hope I didn't get too far from what can be accepted. I am sorry I had forgotten where I get this photo from to give credits. Also sorry if my writing is rather incoherent. Attached Images

31st August 2015, 10:39 PM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Thanks for your interest Gustav and Jean. Gustav, you have identified a key point, possibly the key point that we must consider in this matter. I understand that your further responses may be a little delayed, but when you are able, could you suggest a supportable reason for this variation? Jean, yes, as Gustav has pointed out, there is wide variation in the form of keris that can be attributed to Mojo. You comment that you don't know what a Majapahit keris looked like. Jean, nobody does, and that is why I have raised this question. There are a lot of very strong indicators that point to the form of the Mojo keris, but perhaps first of all, we need to define what we mean by "keris of Majapahit". As for Tangguh Majapahit, the indicators used to classify keris under this system vary. May I ask the source of the indicators you have provided? May I also ask you the same question that I asked Gustav:- can you suggest a supportable reason for the wide variation in keris form? You have pointed out that Mojo was a fairly long lived era, most especially so by Javanese standards, but apart from just the passing of time, do you have any other ideas?

1st September 2015, 08:46 AM	#3
Jean Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,740	Hello Alan, The compound & summarized indicators which I mentioned for the blades attributed to tangguh Majapahit are mainly based on the Ensiklopedi Keris, and complemented by the book "Keris Jawa" by Haryoguritno, and the book "Pengetahuan tentang keris" by Koesni. There are some discrepancies between the 3 sources indeed but they are not really conflicting, but some indicators are mentioned in one or 2 sources only. I have few ideas regarding the possible variation of the kris form during the Majapahit period but they are not very original nor supported so I will leave others develop them. Regards

1st September 2015, 09:47 AM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Yes Jean, there is variation in the indicators for tangguh, all these recent publications you mention have drawn on older publications such as "Panangguhing Dhuwung". I don't use any of the published sources, either recent, or older, but rely on what I was taught by Mpu Suparman, during the 1970's he was the Penangguh for the Boworoso Tosan Aji in Surakarta, that is to say, his opinion in respect of tangguh carried greater weight than the opinions of others. For Majapahit he named 14 indicators: tanting, besi, pamor, baja, pawakan, gonjo, gandhik, blumbangan, sogokan, ada-ada, kruwingan, eluk-lukan, wadidang, sekar kacang. His descriptions of the indicators he used are fairly detailed, for instance, for the sogokan:- " well formed and handsome, A rounded bottom and no pamor in evidence. There are keris Mojopahit that have a rather long sogokan, but in these cases the Pajajaran pattern is being followed, normally the sogokan is short" If your sources use the word "pawakan" to describe the character of the blade, this would be disallowed in Surakarta, in Surakarta the correct word to describe the feeling generated by a blade would be "wanda", with "pawakan" being used for the overall visual appearance. Mpu Suparman describes the wanda of Majapahit as "brave". So we have lots of variation in not only the indicators for tangguh, but the way in which those indicators are understood. In essence, the tangguh system of classification is an element of the keris belief system. My personal opinion is that it can be relied upon to a limited degree for fairly recent tangguhs, such as Surakarta and HB, maybe even as far back as Mataram Senopaten, but when we get into the really old tangguh classifications I regard it as pretty untrustworthy as an indicator of age. My teacher would have disagreed with me, but his world view was different to my own. The tangguh system was developed as a reaction to colonial dominance of the Javanese kingdoms, and the restrictions that colonial power and traditional standards of the aristocracy imposed upon Javanese men of noble birth. It was never intended as a tool to establish the actual age of a keris. So, for the purposes of this present discussion I feel that we should leave tangguh classifications off to one side. Perhaps an approach that looks at the sources of information available to us might be more useful than a system devised to help store wealth.

1st September 2015, 11:40 PM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Yes Jean, I agree that we needed to mention tangguh, I'm glad that we have mentioned it and that we can shelve it. Thank you for your comment on "Interpretation", but what was published was a greatly compressed version, and it does not address the keris across the entire spectrum of early Javanese society. Then there is the Keris Sajen. For a very long time these were called "Keris Majapahit" in the Western Community. Sure, they've always been "sajen" in Jawa but in the past even noted Javanologists were telling the world that they had identified the ancestor of the Modern Keris. Can we be quite certain that the Keris Sajen is not the style that preceded the Modern Keris?