Majapahit Keris

[A. G. Maisey]

Jean, a few years ago I published an article titled "An Interpretation of the Pre-Islamic Javanese Keris". It received a lot of favourable comment, especially in respect of the photographs. In fact it received some very unexpected favourable comment from people whom I would not have thought would ever read something with "keris" in the title. However, I most sincerely doubt if many people truly understood what I wrote --- except perhaps the very few , maybe no more than 2 or 3, who are totally outside the area of keris interest. This lack of understanding does not really surprise me, it took me more than 30 years to understand information contained in this article, information I had possessed since about 1980.

In this article I have put forward an hypothesis that addresses your question.

If I can ever get around to putting my notes in order, another article will be written that addresses what happened after Islam gained domination of the political structure of Jawa. It seems very unlikely that this future article will be understood any better than my previous one.

In fact Jean, the answers to almost everything that we wish to understand about keris are already available, its just that people try to learn about the keris by "researching" the keris. They are going in the wrong direction.

[kai]

Here's the link to the online version of Alan's paper:
http://kerisattosanaji.com/INTERPRETATIONPAGE1.html

And an earlier paper also pertinent to the current topic:
http://www.vikingsword.com/ethsword/maisey/index.html

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks Kai.

The "Origin" paper is out of date and needs to be re-written. I no longer hold all opinions expressed in this paper. I probably will not re-write it, but incorporate the core of this paper into a much expanded new paper.

"Interpretation" I think I can still 99% agree with.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

In this article I have put forward an hypothesis that addresses your question.

Thank you Alan. In this article you consider the krisses shown at the Candi Sukuh as "modern keris" (I personally question it) so it contradicts a bit your post # 20 in which you say that "there are no representation of what we call a "modern keris" in any Hindu-Buda bas reliefs or statuary"?
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

No Jean, I do not consider the kerises (plural) at Sukuh to be "Modern Kerises", I consider one, or perhaps two of the keris at, or associated with Sukuh to be "Modern Keris". The two keris in the stele are certainly not Modern Keris. In the wayang bas reliefs there are another couple of keris that may or may not be "Modern Keris", however the keris shown on the penis at Image 14 in "Interpretation" together with the text :-

"Consecration of the Holy Gangga Sudhi --- the sign of masculinity is the essence of the world"

does perhaps qualify as a modern form.

There is a similar elongated keris in a rather concealed position at Sukuh, I'll see if I can find an photo.

I think I must refer to these as "Modern Keris", they are certainly not KB's, nor are they swords, but they do not closely resemble a keris from the last couple of hundred years. So if we were to go looking for a "Modern Keris" that would fit neatly into an early 20th century pakem, well, we will not find one, nor anything like one, but if we were to go looking for a keris form that was elongated, we would find one.

As I wrote in an earlier post, maybe I could be convinced that these longer keris-like weapons were keris, but in fact they are more like Balinese ligan or keris pedang.

Now, if we were be able to take one of these Sukuh elongated keris and ask a Balinese gentleman exactly what it was, I am certain that he would call it a "keris pedang". But when I wrote that these were Modern Keris at Candi Sukuh, it seems I was convinced at that time that they were indeed "Modern Keris" --- but perhaps "Pre-Modern Keris" might be more accurate,or maybe "Transitional Modern Keris" --- I could play with words all day and eventually I'd come up with something that would make most people happy.

In any case, it seems that if I ever do a re-write of "Interpretation" I'd better be more careful with my choice of words, and twist things around a bit.

But if we get away from pedantic interpretations, something I tend to overly given to, and I just say something like this:-

"Yes, you will not find any representations of what we are accustomed to regard as a keris today in any Hindu-Buda period bas-reliefs or statuary. None."

I think I might have been the first to coin the term "Modern Keris", but I was certainly derelict in failing to define exactly what I personally regard as a "Modern Keris". Please forgive my failure in this respect.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

But when I wrote that these were Modern Keris at Candi Sukuh, it seems I was convinced at that time that they were indeed "Modern Keris" --- but perhaps "Pre-Modern Keris" might be more accurate,or maybe "Transitional Modern Keris" --- I could play with words all day and eventually I'd come up with something that would make most people happy.
I think I might have been the first to coin the term "Modern Keris", but I was certainly derelict in failing to define exactly what I personally regard as a "Modern Keris".

Thank you Alan. To me and probably many other kris collectors, the modern kris is a generally assymetrical dagger (with exceptions like dapur sepang), generally with a pamor pattern (with exceptions like pamor kelengan), and a slender shape (straight or wavy) unlike the early krisses shown on the 14th century carvings and bas-reliefs.
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Jean, I think you're probably right with what you think of, and perhaps most other collectors think of as a Modern Keris. But it is not so easy for me. Since you have drawn my attention to this deficiency of mine I've been turning this question over in my head, and I have come to the realisation that I think about this question of "Modern Keris" in a way that is possibly quite different to the way in which you, and perhaps most other collectors do.

My thinking gets back to the perennial question of defining exactly what a keris is. I think that perhaps the first time I saw the word "asymmetric" used to describe a keris was in Garrett Solyom's definition of a keris. It is obvious that what Garrett was looking at in Solo in the late 1960's and early 1970's were a whole heap of artistically fashioned daggers that were not symmetrical in form, so for Garrett, at that time, the use of "asymmetric" as a descriptor was perfectly reasonable, particularly so as Garrett was addressing these daggers from an academic base, not from a base that incorporated many years of collecting and keris study from outside of Jawa, nor from a historic base. He came up with a very good definition of what a keris was in the world of 1970. In fact, I myself have used similar definitions to Garrett's, I might even have quoted him on occasion, and I've been happy to go that route at that time.

But if I think about the way in which I now look at keris, I realise that for quite a long time I have been thinking of keris in a different way to the way in which Garrett thought of keris in the 1970's, and probably in a different way to the way in which most people think of a keris now.

In the Nagarakertagama we find this passage:-


"Exterminated were the animals, thrusted, lanced, cut, krissed, dying without a gasp”

The word "keris" does not appear in this passage, the word used is "kinris", which is from the word "kris" with the infix "in"> "kinris", which turns it into a verb.

So the passage is using a verb, based upon the word "kris", indicating that the animals were killed with krisses --- but were they? Iris is to cut, so in Old Javanese a keris was a "cutter", maybe the word is used to mean that the animals were killed with a variety of weapons that could cut. Maybe a keris (kris) in Old Javanese was generic and the individual weapons that fell under the umbrella of kris were in fact things like tuhuk and tewek that were defined by method use.

The actual Old Javanese used is:-

"--- Tinumbak, Inirás, kinris, pjah tanpagáp---"

So our romanised translation is subject to a bit of interpretation.

This Nagarakertagama passage has influenced my thinking about keris quite a lot, and I realise that in fact, when I think of "Old Keris" and "Modern Keris", I think of "Old Keris" as "Keris Buda", which in Javanese thought equates to "Keris from the Buda Era" = "Old Keris", and "Modern Keris" as keris that came after Keris Buda dropped out of general usage.

I do not really think about whether or not a keris must have a gandhik, or whether it must be asymmetric, I think about what it is not, rather than features that define what it is, so, if it is not a pedang, or a tombak, or a bendo or a golok, or something else similar, it is a keris, as long as it looks vaguely like a keris.

I probably want it to be able to be used as a keris is used, so in a way, the way in which I think about weapon definition probably reflects the way in which weapon names were expressed in Old Javanese, rather than the way in which 21st century and other recent collectors of these weapons think of weapon names.

But then again, if I say, "the way in which a keris was used", exactly how much do we know about the way in which a keris was used? Balinese keris were not used in the same way that we presently believe Javanese keris were used, and the way in which we believe Javanese keris were used has been heavily influenced by the way that keris are held in some dance performances.

There was a transitional period, and from this period we can find keris that have the square tang and metuk of the Keris Buda, as well as keris that have a tang that is flat on two sides, as well as keris that have the blade of a straight Modern Keris, but a symmetric gonjo.

In Bali, we find 16th & 17th century keris that that have the same features as these longer transitional blades that we see in bas-reliefs and statuary, some of these Balinese keris will have symmetric gonjos, some will have asymmetric gonjos, they all get referred to as keris, but when we get into sub classifications they get named as "keris pedang".

Possibly I should have been more careful in phrasing my reference to "Modern Keris" appearing at Candi Sukuh, but to have done so, and make sense, I believe it would have added at least several hundred words to the text, words that were not material to the objective of the article. I do not remember if I considered this at the time, or if was happy enough to let the reference run as "Modern Keris", but if I were to write "Interpretation" again, tomorrow, I would think about the advisability of referring to a transitional keris as Modern Keris. I don't really know at the moment which way my thoughts would run at the time.

So Jean, you see, it is pretty easy for you to understand exactly what a keris is, exactly what a Modern Keris is, and the difference between them.

For me it is vastly more difficult, and when I factor in the many more influences in development, it becomes even more difficult again.

[Gustav]

There are two details which visually caught my attention when I look at the picture of the initial post by Alan -

1) one feature of the dagger resembles the shape of the somewhat strange object known as the Keris of Knaud, I mean the concave shaping of the blade above Gandhik or where Gandhik should be.


It is the question if that feature is a damage or was intended.


2) the scroll (?) within the triangular symbol on the blade resembles the scroll found inside the 2 big Tumpal pointing upwards on the left and right side, and the 4 small Tumpal pointing downwards on 16th and 17th century figural hilts.

Of course it could be Bintulu (the image is just too small). Something we see also on Gandhik on later Keris.

[Gustav]

And speaking about strange and old KLO - there is a hardly known early Keris in Stuttgart. 1653 it came in to the Wuerttembergische Kunstkammer, but originally it belonged to the Johann Jacob Guth von Sulz collection. Johann Jacob Guth von Sulz lived 1543 till 1616, so there is some possibility it was collected already in the 16th century.

The sheath and hilt were supposedly made in Transylvania.

Blade is heavily reshaped, but there are some interesting and peculiar features on Sorsoran. The total length with hilt is 43 cm, so the blade could be 30 - 33 cm.