How to read a greneng

[Marcokeris]

Originally Posted by Gustav

Alan, thank you for your response.

With Greneng of Megantoro I mean a variation of Greneng, as seen on this blade, which possibly is the best preserved M in existence.

Another, perhaps somewhat related Greneng variation is found on Dresden Inv. Nr. 2895.

Also on this blade with replaced Gonjo (so only the Greneng part on blade itself is of importance). Because of the style of Kinatah and Blumbangan I think it is quite older then Sultan Agung.

Of course these all could be younger forms of Greneng (younger then 1525, but barely made after, say, end of 17th cent.), I never (until now) have seen these variations on Keris Bali, also no Megantoro there.

Regarding Jenggot, I probably have misunderstood you. I suppose, if an early Keris had Kembang Kacang and Greneng, there almost automatically was also Jenggot on KK, mirroring the Greneng (the only exeptions I can think of would be Sempana type blades, but I have seen better preserved specimens with small Jenggot).

stunning!!

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for posting this photo Gustav, here we have a very good example of what happened when the keris became profane under Islam.

In this keris that you have posted a photo of, we cannot comment on the greneng, because of the replaced gonjo, we can only comment on the ron dha nunut.

The enhancements that occupy the place of the ron dha nunut and jenggot on this blade are very clearly not related in any way to the ron dha of the early Modern Keris within Hindu-Buddhist society. This was one of the things that happened when the keris was adopted for wear by people who did not understand the cultural significance of the keris, nor its symbolism --- or perhaps they did understand, and intentionally moved away from this. Let us not forget that Demak was established by a prince of Majapahit.

I agree that this keris you have shown us is probably older than the first half of the 17th century. This is a North Coast blade, very possibly classifiable as Banten, and it demonstrates very nicely the point that I made in respect characteristics associated with the Hindu-Buddhist belief system, however, those features in this keris have been distorted.

Dresden 2895 can be seen in Jensen's Kris Disk, chapter 3, page 22. This kris has its original gonjo and is an excellent example of the early Modern Keris under Islam. Jensen measured it as 41.8cm, I measured it at 42.4cm. It has a single front sogokan and in respect of the greneng and ron dha, I noted that they were "very confused". In any case Dresden 2895 is a big keris, in the hand it is very similar to a Bali keris.

This confusion in the formation of the ron dha and greneng is not uncommon in keris from this period. We can only guess why this happened, it could have been intention on the part of either the person who ordered the keris, or of the maker, as a movement away from Hindu-Buddhist symbolism, or it could have simply been a lack of knowledge of the true form required. In any case this distortion of the ron dha is not uncommon and Gustav has given us a very good example of it.

These corruptions of form are most definitely not younger forms of keris enhancement. They are clearly, obviously and logically demonstrable corruptions. They do not appear in the Bali keris, and that tells us exactly what they are.

There is a slight problem with the naming of Gustav's example as dhapur megantoro, but this is not really an issue, its just a name.

Gustav, in respect of this statement:-

"--- if an early Keris had Kembang Kacang and Greneng, there almost automatically was also Jenggot on KK, mirroring the Greneng (the only exeptions I can think of would be Sempana type blades, but I have seen better preserved specimens with small Jenggot).---"

I do not accept that there was any "automatic" inclusion of the RD as jenggot in pre-1525 keris. There was absolutely no need to always, automatically include the RD to be read as "aum" in this position. Sometimes it was there, sometimes not. There may have been socio-cultural reasons for inclusion, there may not have been. At this time I am not prepared to hypothesise on the presence or absence of the RD as "aum" preceding the KK as Ganesha.

In my post #18 I said this:-

" Johan, any remarks I may make in respect of ron dha, greneng and keris iconography in general are to be understood only within the context of the Pre-Islamic Javanese keris and/or the Balinese keris."

Gustav has drawn me away from my commitment to keep my comments restricted to the Hindu-Buddhist context, but I feel that this momentary divergence was justified because Gustav was kind enough to give us such a beautiful example of the corruption of symbolism under Islam. I'm not prepared to go any further down this Islamic track at the moment.

[Gustav]

Alan,

regarding the Greneng variation I presented, I don't think it is as simple as "They are clearly, obviously and logically demonstrable corruptions. They do not appear in the Bali keris, and that tells us exactly what they are". This Greneng appears on a very small number of Keris, and they all are older then first half of 17th cent. After that this variation disappears. Speaking of myself, I haven't seen many Keris from Bali, which could be somewhat supportably datable as older then perhaps 18th cent. We have much less reasoned to say on subject older Keris in Bali then we have regarding older Keris in Java - and that isn't much.

This variation of Greneng clearly don't fit in your hypothesis, but I am not sure, if it is a reason enough to deem it as a corruption from Islamic period.

It consists of two identical elements with a Ron Dha in the middle. That element is repeated on Jenggot. Stylistically I don't see any confusion there.

That variation we also see on a Keris from Munich Inv. Nr. Gr. 598, which is much less known, because Jensen probably wasn't aware of its existence. The age of blade is, as always debatable, but I have difficulties to see the hilt of it in an Islamic Kontext.

Regarding my use of word "automatically" regarding the parallel use of Greneng and Jenggot, I am aware, it also doesn't fit in your hypothesis. I for myself wanted to express with it my oppinion, which is adeqately supported by Keris from early collections as material evidence, that there is no KK without Jenggot on old, well preserved Keris, except perhaps Sempana in some cases. If we speak about a corruption during the period following the rule of Sultan Agung you mention in #21, KK without Jenggot is one indeed.

[A. G. Maisey]

Gustav, let me say at the outset that I respect your right to hold your own opinion in this or in any other matter, and I have no desire to change your opinion:- it is your own: treasure it.

However, I do feel that by introducing aberrant features found upon keris that were made under Islamic influence we are wandering away from the barrier that I set myself at the beginning of this discussion. Quite simply I do not want to extend any of my comments into the era of Islamic influence.

The keris that you have introduced to discussion are keris that were made under Islamic influence. They are North Coast Jawa keris, probably classifiable as Banten, and that removes them from any discussion of the keris as a Javanese Hindu-Buddhist artefact. These keris that you have presented and that you wish to discuss have no place in a discussion of the keris within the Javanese Hindu-Buddhist era.

You tell me that these aberrant keris do not fit my hypothesis, but I have not yet published any hypothesis that deals with keris of this type and era. In fact, this perverted corruption of a religious icon does ideally fit into my unpublished work, but I am not at the present time willing or able to take discussion into this era.

In so far as North Coast Jawa hilts are concerned there is no problem at all in reconciling these figural hilts with the expansion of Islam in Jawa. I'm not going to get into that either, but minimal research on the nature of Islamic expansion in Jawa can clarify this point. This is all in the public arena, its no secret, just a matter of putting in time to find the facts.

I mentioned earlier that I like to think of the end of Majapahit and hence the effective end of the Javanese Hindu-Buddhist socio-religious system as occurring in 1525. I like this date for a number of reasons, but there are other ways to think of the end of that Hindu-Buddhist era. This quote might be useful in putting things into context:-

" Gajahmada died in 1364, and Hayam Wuruk, who had been the ruler of Majapahit during the final 14 years that Gajahmada held the position of mahapatih, died in 1389. After the death of Hayam Wuruk, internal conflict and increasing pressure from the Islamic settlements on the North Coast of Java saw the steady decline and eventual collapse of the Kingdom of Majapahit.

The last ruler of Majapahit, Brawijaya V, converted to Islam in 1478, the remaining members of the Majapahit line established a new kraton at Daha near Kediri, which was conquered by Sultan Trenggana"

They didn't turn the lights out on Majapahit at midnight on 31 December 1525. The Golden Age of Majapahit had been losing its Golden Glow gradually for a very lengthy period. It finally imploded and Demak became dominant. I see the whole thing as a typical royal family squabble, this is a good story, but here is not the place for it.

It is important to understand this:- just because Majapahit was a Hindu-Buddhist kingdom, that does not mean that Islam did not exist within the kingdom and within the court. Islam was present in Majapahit and in positions of power, long before Demak became dominant.

To understand roses it is not sufficient to look at a rose and then generate theories and opinions in respect of the conditions needed to produce that rose. To understand roses we must first understand the soil and the growing conditions. The keris is a flower of Javanese culture.

[Gustav]

Alan, the ivory hilt I introduced in my last post is quite remote from North Coast Jawa hilts.

It seems to me a little bit reckless to classify every old Keris in European collections with upright Blumbangan as Banten and every old hilt with a demonic figure as North Coast Jawa. It reminds me of Keris experts in Javanese tradition from not so remote past, who classified the same blades from old European collections invariably as Bali - because they didn't fit in their belief system.

Now these Keris, this variation of Greneng, and obviously also the hilt don't fit in your system.

You name this rare form of Greneng "aberrant features found upon keris that were made under Islamic influence" and in #28 you write "These corruptions of form are most definitely not younger forms of keris enhancement. They are clearly, obviously and logically demonstrable corruptions. They do not appear in the Bali keris, and that tells us exactly what they are."

There actually is a quite well published state Keris from South-Bali in Tropenmuseum Amsterdam, Col. Nr. 809-99, which has a Greneng, closely related to the variation I presented in my last posts - "It consists of two identical elements with a Ron Dha in the middle. That element is repeated on Jenggot."

Apart from this I have nothing new to add to #29.

[A. G. Maisey]

Gustav, I feel that we have reached a point in this discussion where I need to attempt to clarify a few points, but before I do, I have a question:- is the photo below, the hilt that you believe is not stylistically a North Jawa hilt?

In respect of the Banten classification, yes, I agree completely with you that no classification can be given upon the basis of a single feature. Where the Banten classification is concerned, we have a bit of a problem, because in the old literature, Banten and the North Coast in general are not recognised as tangguh by the Surakarta pakem, and that guide is the foundation stone of all the tangguh classifications that we are currently privileged to have available.

During the 1980's, the people I associated with in Solo, who did understand tangguh, tended to dismiss all North Coast keris with characteristics that did not fit comfortably with Central Javanese forms as "diluar Jawa", and thus not worthy of consideration. I'm not sure why this should be, but because I need to address a wider community than the Solo community, I long ago took the decision to attempt to identify characteristics that are generally accepted as being present in Banten and other North Coast keris. In fact, the North Coast needs to be sub-divided, just as Central Jawa is sub-divided, with different keris styles being recognised as being associated with different places.

I am inclined to the view that insofar as Banten is concerned, the blumbangan is not a decisive identifying feature:- older Banten keris tend to follow the Majapahit style, later ones tend to follow Mataram, and sometimes Pajajaran, but here again we have a problem, because there are several styles of keris that can be given a classification of Pajajaran.

In any case, yes, I agree that Banten keris cannot be classified simply on blumbangan form.

Again, I have no argument with the idea that figural hilts are not limited to North Coast Jawa. I prefer the term "figural" rather than "demonic", or "raksasa" because it sometimes is not possible to determine exactly what the figural representation was intended to represent.

In respect of a particular hilt (sorry, I'm not yet certain which hilt you mean), you tell me that:-

"--- obviously also the hilt don't fit in your system.---"

Quite frankly Gustav, I don't know what you are talking about here, as I have never put forward anything on the classification of keris that used the hilt as a prime element of classification. In my view, hilts must be considered separately to the keris itself.

Now, about the greneng and ron dha.

You have referred to "your system", " your hypothesis", meaning a hypothesis and/or system that I have put forward, and you have claimed that certain variations in the way a ron dha is cut are incompatible with this hypothesis of mine to which you refer. Since I have not constructed any hypothesis or theory in this thread, I'm guessing that when you refer to the "system" & "hypothesis" that I put forward, you are referring to something I have published as a paper or article, so again, I'm guessing, but I think the only candidate for any sort of hypothesis in respect of the matters being discussed here is my "Interpretation" article.

In fact, I have not at any time, nor in any place constructed a hypothesis that deals with the greneng. In "Interpretation " I did put forward a hypothesis that deals with the ron dha. I open the section of "Interpretation" that deals with the ron dha with these remarks:-

"The ron dha is a part of the greneng, and in Javanese and Balinese keris, the individual elements of which a greneng is comprised can be subject to a degree of variation. However, the consistent element in a correctly cut greneng is the ron dha. In a few forms of keris, the ron dha can also be found on the opposite edge of the keris, in a symbol known as the jenggotan, which depends like a beard from the kembang kacang."

As we can see, right at the very beginning of this section that treats the ron dha I have separated the ron dha from the greneng, and have been very clear that the elements of which the greneng is comprised can vary.

I am inclined to see everything that you have put forward about this variant greneng form as re-enforcement of what I published in "Interpretation".

The elements of a greneng do vary.

No argument about this.

However, not all greneng carry the ron dha. As I said in post #21 of this thread:-

"--- where the ron dha read as "om" appears, it is intended, where it does not appear, it is not intended.---"

The Troppenmuseum keris (TM 809.99) that you have offered as an example of a variant greneng is a 19th century keris, and the form in which the greneng is cut is not uncommon in Balinese keris. The crucial factor with this keris is that it does carry ron dha, the fact that the way in which those ron dha are presented as part of a whole is only one of a multitude of ways in which the ron dha can be presented, and is not really relevant.

Just a side bar on this particular Balinese greneng form:- it is possible, perhaps probable, that in the context of Balinese belief, this three pointed element in the greneng could be read as a reference to the Tri-Murti; another possible interpretation would be that in one of its more elaborate forms it is a representation of the pejyor, which relates to the Gunungan, and of course the keris itself is a Gunungan representation.

Actually, I have not yet researched nor considered at length this variant element in the greneng, so don't shoot me if I put forward something different when I publish on the greneng. The above is just something that occurred to me while I was typing. It is not at all difficult to generate interpretations of the symbolism, either real or imagined that we can find in the keris. The difficult part comes in building a sufficiently strong structure to support the interpretation.

To sum up:-

the ron dha is one element of the greneng; where the ron dha appears in a keris that has been made as a socio-religious artefact within a society that has embraced elements of the Hindu faith, that ron dha can only be read as "aum" (or, if you prefer "om").

In those cases where the ron dha does not appear in a greneng, or has been replaced by a variant element, this can be because of intentional substitution, error, or possibly some other, as yet unthought-of reason.

[Gustav]

Alan, I feel there is a serious need to recapitulate the development of our discussion (which I value very much). At first - the part concerning Greneng.

In #26 I posted an picture of a pre-17th cent. Keris (1) with replaced Gonjo, with an uncommon variation of Greneng. In #29 I described that Greneng form as "consisting of two identical elements with a Ron Dha in the middle. That element is repeated on Jenggot". I would like to add "identical TRIPARTITE elements".

Your comments on it in #28 regarding it's Greneng in #28 were:

"here we have a very good example of what happened when the keris became profane under Islam."

"The enhancements that occupy the place of the ron dha nunut and jenggot on this blade are very clearly not related in any way to the ron dha of the early Modern Keris within Hindu-Buddhist society."

"I agree that this keris you have shown us is probably older than the first half of the 17th century. This is a North Coast blade, very possibly classifiable as Banten, and it demonstrates very nicely the point that I made in respect characteristics associated with the Hindu-Buddhist belief system, however, those features in this keris have been distorted."

................................................

In the same post I mentioned the Keris Dresden Inv. Nr. 2895 (2), with the same variation of Greneng.

Your comments on it and obviously on that Greneng variation are:

"Dresden 2895 can be seen in Jensen's Kris Disk, chapter 3, page 22. This kris has its original gonjo and is an excellent example of the early Modern Keris under Islam. Jensen measured it as 41.8cm, I measured it at 42.4cm. It has a single front sogokan and in respect of the greneng and ron dha, I noted that they were "very confused". In any case Dresden 2895 is a big keris, in the hand it is very similar to a Bali keris.

This confusion in the formation of the ron dha and greneng is not uncommon in keris from this period. We can only guess why this happened, it could have been intention on the part of either the person who ordered the keris, or of the maker, as a movement away from Hindu-Buddhist symbolism, or it could have simply been a lack of knowledge of the true form required. In any case this distortion of the ron dha is not uncommon and Gustav has given us a very good example of it.

These corruptions of form are most definitely not (sic?) younger forms of keris enhancement. They are clearly, obviously and logically demonstrable corruptions. They do not appear in the Bali keris, and that tells us exactly what they are."

.................................................. .............................


In #29 I posted a picture of a part with Greneng visible of Keris from Munich Inv. Nr. Gr. 598 (3)

Your comments in #30 on it and obviously also the previous Keris are:

"However, I do feel that by introducing aberrant features found upon keris that were made under Islamic influence we are wandering away from the barrier that I set myself at the beginning of this discussion. Quite simply I do not want to extend any of my comments into the era of Islamic influence.

The keris that you have introduced to discussion are keris that were made under Islamic influence. They are North Coast Jawa keris, probably classifiable as Banten, and that removes them from any discussion of the keris as a Javanese Hindu-Buddhist artefact. These keris that you have presented and that you wish to discuss have no place in a discussion of the keris within the Javanese Hindu-Buddhist era.

You tell me that these aberrant keris do not fit my hypothesis, but I have not yet published any hypothesis that deals with keris of this type and era. In fact, this perverted corruption of a religious icon does ideally fit into my unpublished work, but I am not at the present time willing or able to take discussion into this era."

In #29 I explained, why I am reluctant to see that variation of Greneng as an "confusion in the formation of the ron dha and greneng":

"regarding the Greneng variation I presented, I don't think it is as simple as "They are clearly, obviously and logically demonstrable corruptions. They do not appear in the Bali keris, and that tells us exactly what they are". This Greneng appears on a very small number of Keris, and they all are older then first half of 17th cent. After that this variation disappears. Speaking of myself, I haven't seen many Keris from Bali, which could be somewhat supportably datable as older then perhaps 18th cent. We have much less reasoned to say on subject older Keris in Bali then we have regarding older Keris in Java - and that isn't much.

This variation of Greneng clearly don't fit in your hypothesis, but I am not sure, if it is a reason enough to deem it as a corruption from Islamic period.

It consists of two identical elements with a Ron Dha in the middle. That element is repeated on Jenggot. Stylistically I don't see any confusion there."

.................................................. .....................

Finally, in #31 I posted a picture of a state Keris from South-Bali, Tropenmuseum Amsterdam, Col. Nr. 809-99 (4), which displays the variation of Greneng which is the subject of our discussion.

Now in #32 you suddenly write:

"The Troppenmuseum keris (TM 809.99) that you have offered as an example of a variant greneng is a 19th century keris, and the form in which the greneng is cut is not uncommon in Balinese keris.

Just a side bar on this particular Balinese greneng form:- it is possible, perhaps probable, that in the context of Balinese belief, this three pointed element in the greneng could be read as a reference to the Tri-Murti; another possible interpretation would be that in one of its more elaborate forms it is a representation of the pejyor, which relates to the Gunungan, and of course the keris itself is a Gunungan representation.

Actually, I have not yet researched nor considered at length this variant element in the greneng, so don't shoot me if I put forward something different when I publish on the greneng. The above is just something that occurred to me while I was typing. It is not at all difficult to generate interpretations of the symbolism, either real or imagined that we can find in the keris. The difficult part comes in building a sufficiently strong structure to support the interpretation."

We are still speaking about the same Greneng variation, which you deemed as a "These corruptions of form are most definitely not (sic?) younger forms of keris enhancement. They are clearly, obviously and logically demonstrable corruptions. They do not appear in the Bali keris, and that tells us exactly what they are."

Besides, I am not completely convinced Tropenmuseum Amsterdam, Col. Nr. 809-99 is a 19th cent. Keris, yet it is very possible. Today, while searching I found a picture of a Keris from Bali Inv.nr. 67.766, VKM Vienna (5), which obviously is an older one, very close to old Javanese, and Keris Skokloster Inv. Nr. 6960 (6).

The variations of the Greneng form on initial Keris 1, Keris 5 and Keris 6 are very close, nearly identical. These and Greneng on Keris 2, 3 and 4 are close enough to be understand as variations of the same form.

I hope, that is suficient to free this Greneng form from it's curse as "clearly, obviously and logically demonstrable corruptions" on "aberrant" Keris.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The sidetracks of our discussion were also the use of Jenggot on KK, on which you wrote in #28:

"Gustav, in respect of this statement:-

"--- if an early Keris had Kembang Kacang and Greneng, there almost automatically was also Jenggot on KK, mirroring the Greneng (the only exeptions I can think of would be Sempana type blades, but I have seen better preserved specimens with small Jenggot).---"

I do not accept that there was any "automatic" inclusion of the RD as jenggot in pre-1525 keris. There was absolutely no need to always, automatically include the RD to be read as "aum" in this position. Sometimes it was there, sometimes not. There may have been socio-cultural reasons for inclusion, there may not have been. At this time I am not prepared to hypothesise on the presence or absence of the RD as "aum" preceding the KK as Ganesha."

My answer on it in #29 was:

"Regarding my use of word "automatically" regarding the parallel use of Greneng and Jenggot, I am aware, it also doesn't fit in your hypothesis. I for myself wanted to express with it my oppinion, which is adeqately supported by Keris from early collections as material evidence, that there is no KK without Jenggot on old, well preserved Keris, except perhaps Sempana in some cases. If we speak about a corruption during the period following the rule of Sultan Agung you mention in #21, KK without Jenggot is one indeed."

Perhaps I made the mistake naming your theory (?) a hypothesis - my apologies for incorrect use of a language, which is the fourth one I (never properly) learned.

After that discussion on that subject ceased.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding your attribution of pre-17th cent. Keris from old Kunstkammer collections mostly as Banten and therefore as (corrupted) early Islamic Keris (as I understand, all of them), and the figural hilts on them as (Islamic) North Coast Jawa - I have nothing to add, as we are in an impasse regarding that subject. My thoughts, as you may suppose, is, that they are from different locations, of different age, and there are Pre-(Non)-Islamic Keris among them.

In http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=21327 I tried to explain to you the difference between 17th cent. (or earlier) and later Pasisir figural hilts, yet obviously failed. So I doubt, I could convince you now of something you cannot accept.

My apologies for the long post, yet it was necessary.

[Gustav]

Alan, thank you for your invitation to a Q & A game, I know, you are strong at it. It was your job.

I am reluctant to play it with a person, who in the course of few days either isn't able to recognize own statements, or simply plays a game here.

If I was going in circles during our discussion, it was only because I was trying to follow you in it, but the figures you are making now are more complicated then circles.

I stepped into this discussion because I was intrigued by your statements regarding the "pure" Greneng:

In its most pure form the greneng consists of only the ron dha,sometimes repeated two or three times, this expression of form can sometimes be seen in Balinese keris, and in very old Javanese keris. The other couple of elements sometimes found in later Javanese greneng seem to have been included in the greneng after the keris had become an Islamic icon and was subjected to artistic expression

Later you reinforce that statement, regarding "other couple of elements":

Johan, we can see that in the keris as it is now, and during the period following the rule of Sultan Agung, there are many variations in the way in which the greneng is expressed, so yes, when I say "other elements" I mean anything and everything that can be found in a greneng that is other than just the ron dha.

"Anything and everything" sounds quite strong.


At that point I posted (besides a Greneng on Megantoro) a variation of Greneng on early Keris 1,2 and 3, which consists of two tripartite elements, separated by a Ron Dha, the same element repeated on Jenggot. So a quite extended form compared to your "pure" Greneng.

Your reaction on Keris 1 (with replaced Gonjo) was:

here we have a very good example of what happened when the keris became profane under Islam.

In this keris that you have posted a photo of, we cannot comment on the greneng, because of the replaced gonjo, we can only comment on the ron dha nunut.

The enhancements that occupy the place of the ron dha nunut and jenggot on this blade are very clearly not related in any way to the ron dha of the early Modern Keris within Hindu-Buddhist society.

Regarding Greneng on Keris 2 your remarks were:

in respect of the greneng and ron dha, I noted that they were "very confused".

On both Keris:

This confusion in the formation of the ron dha and greneng is not uncommon in keris from this period. We can only guess why this happened, it could have been intention on the part of either the person who ordered the keris, or of the maker, as a movement away from Hindu-Buddhist symbolism, or it could have simply been a lack of knowledge of the true form required. In any case this distortion of the ron dha is not uncommon and Gustav has given us a very good example of it.

These corruptions of form are most definitely not younger forms of keris enhancement. They are clearly, obviously and logically demonstrable corruptions. They do not appear in the Bali keris, and that tells us exactly what they are.

A question to you at this point: do you mean what you write?

Because after that I presented pictures of two Keris from Bali, 4 and 5, with that variation of Greneng. Keris 4 is, as you noticed, a younger one, probably at least 200 years younger then other Keris I presented.

Yes, I think Keris 4 has the same variation of Greneng as other five (that's why I posted it), it is the only younger one, it's Greneng is stylistically different.

The Greneng on Keris 5, which is an early one, is almost identical to Greneng on Keris 1 and Keris 6, and clearly the same type as on Keris 2 and 3.

With that I hoped to have proved, that this variation of Greneng, which quite extends beyound the "pure" Greneng you presented beginning with #18, aren't

aberrant features found upon keris that were made under Islamic influence

With your post #32 comes a new development in our statements. You take as help your own "Interpretation":

As we can see, right at the very beginning of this section that treats the ron dha I have separated the ron dha from the greneng, and have been very clear that the elements of which the greneng is comprised can vary.

I am inclined to see everything that you have put forward about this variant greneng form as re-enforcement of what I published in "Interpretation".

The elements of a greneng do vary.

May I remind you of your statement:

In its most pure form the greneng consists of only the ron dha,sometimes repeated two or three times, this expression of form can sometimes be seen in Balinese keris, and in very old Javanese keris. The other couple of elements sometimes found in later Javanese greneng seem to have been included in the greneng after the keris had become an Islamic icon and was subjected to artistic expression

and everything else you have said about this "variant greneng" before?

As next you state:

However, not all greneng carry the ron dha. As I said in post #21 of this thread:-

"--- where the ron dha read as "om" appears, it is intended, where it does not appear, it is not intended.---"

What do you mean with that? Are you speaking about the "pure" Hindu-Javanese or Balinese, or Islamic Greneng? If you speak about Hindu-Javanese or Balinese Greneng, you contradict to your own statement above. And the Greneng variation I presented includes a Ron Dha. Moreover, that passage in #21

"--- where the ron dha read as "om" appears, it is intended, where it does not appear, it is not intended.---"

you used in a different context - you referred to a missing Jenggot, not Ron Dha in Greneng, and in your opinion there not always is a Jenggot on early Keris:

You ask if we can assume that "om" was inferred in those cases where the ron dha does not appear as a jenggot. Frankly, I am not prepared to assume this, as I believe the inclusion of the ron dha preceding the kembang kacang was a later development. My attitude to this would be that where the ron dha read as "om" appears it is intended, where it does not appear, it is not intended.

And after that, as if you haven't written nothing before on that subject, you start to explain the same variation of Greneng from "Hindu" viewpoint.

Subsequently, you want from me some clear answers,

not a sliding sideways answer that avoids the thrust of the question

In this thread you are the person, who has left questions unanswered (Bjorn's about other Greneng elements and my about Ri Pandan), and you quite often chose not to answer because of your reasons - I doubt you are now in position to demand answers.


P.S.

My use of word "hypothesis" seems to bother you quite a lot. I used it in a sense of "assumption" (I already wrote about English as my fourth language). Honestly, I don't know how to name it - it appears to be able to change quite quickly.

[kai]

Hello Alan, hello Gustav,

I have been enjoying your discussion - please keep it going despite personal approaches of your studies or styles of communication! I have had a bit of a tough time to contribute due to moving targets and distractions - will try in a second or two to put down a few thoughts...

Regards,
Kai

[David]

I too have been following this thread with great interest. I believe this is one of the most interesting threads we have had here in some time, at least to me. Unfortunately the debate seems to be descending into a general "prickliness" which i feel at this point must be addressed. This is, for me at least, very important information to understand about the keris. I must, however, demand that the conversation remains civil. Please don't misunderstand, so far it pretty much has, but i would like both of you gentlemen to consider how you phrase your thoughts and believes carefully so that we can indeed keep this conversation friendly and on track. Thank you!

[kai]

Gustav has been kindly trying to present an assortment of early examples from European collections, let's say pre-17th century. While some of these blades will have been newly crafted to function as a gift, there also seem to be hints that others had already been in use for some period. For how long will be more than tough to tell much less to verify in most cases...

Most blades may be post-1525 (to follow Alan's suggestion). A few might even be older; I doubt we can expect any surviving in good condition to originate from Gajahmada's time though. Since we know that Mojopahit had been declining for a long time already and Islamic ideas/influences being known/present earlier, too, I don't see any reason to focus on any cut-off date (1525 or whatever): A blade may be older and already exhibit Islamic (or other) non-traditional ideas; another blade may be younger and still true to old traditions [possibly not so different to what we experience in the keris culture since Indonesian independence].

I guess I'm with Gustav in assuming that the oldest surviving figural hilts (i. e. those with intact linggam/yoni symbolism, etc.) are stylistically in line with what we can expect to have adorned keris Mojopahit, too. That these are mainly/always? found on keris from early European collections that might had originated (or been imported) from/via (western/)northern(/easternmost) Java is not a contradiction IMHO (considering that we also see antique hilts with stylistic similarities that are probably later and from Bali.

Regarding the special style of greneng shown by Gustav, I find it very interesting that it consistently occupies the position where one would expect ron dha and ron dha nunut (as well as ron dha at the jenggot); it's also interesting that this feature at the jenggot seems closer to the ron dha nunut than the ron dha. Moreover, this greneng configuration doesn't appear to be a mere corruption since several of the examples do exhibit a clear ron dha on the gonjo (i. e. between the 2 [almost] symmetric tripartite greneng features) - with the possible exception of #3 where this element seems to be rather too short/roundish for a decent ron dha (not positive though since the pic does not show the details clear enough). Since this variant is also found on later keris Bali (with 809-99 from the Tropenmuseum being old enough to exclude any contemporary influence of the pieces from European collections on Balinese pande), one would be inclined to believe that this variant predates 1525. At least that's the usual line of reasoning...

Considering the long period of Mojo decline, it could still be an early corruption, indeed. However, this hypothesis would necessitate additional assumptions to explain its survival on Bali (and apparent absence on late keris Jawa). Thus, it would be great to hear why you are so certain that this feature can't be based on any legit Mojo variant, Alan! Am I missing any stylistic details that militate against this notion? Mind you, I'm not insisting that this is a genuine Mojo variant (nor based on any) - just trying to explore all alternatives that can be supported by extant examples!

Regards,
Kai