Keris from Garut with Quranic inscriptions

[jagabuwana]

It's as if the way Durga is described here by the Rijksmuseum is closer to a narrow and probably wholly erroneous perception of Kali. Though I don't think that was the understanding or intention behind the author and it seems that they hadn't put much thought into it (although they should have).

I do wonder if that description of Durga is derived from the photographer's contemporaneous notes or impressions. It would make far more sense if that were the case because the reading is tinged with what you might expect of a person or institution who'd be inclined to view Javanese culture as an "exotic" one. Another way to describe it might be orientalist in the Edward Said sense.

I actually almost completely passed over how they chose to describe Durga and chose more to question whether the figure is actually Durga, before quickly putting that question to bed pretty quickly in my own mind because it's not a question that was as interesting to me at the time of posting. But in my studies I do intend to better understand the figures that are commonly represented in and on krisses, along with why they are represented.

I'm glad you had paid more attention to this than I did if only to encourage us to understand Durga in a way that is more truthful and thoughtful. Thank you Alan.

[David]

I'm not sure that Jagabuwana's questions were focusses on the Durga hilt so much as they are on the blade. We have certainly spent a bit of time on this forum discussing these hilts, but they have always been a bit inconclusive.
More than researching Durga in Hinduism i think perhaps the focus needs to be more specific; that is Durga in Indonesia (and perhaps specifically Jawa and Bali as i don't believe i have seen these Durga hilts from any other areas). Hinduism in the Mojopahit Empire (and subsequently in Bali) has its own unique character. I don't claim to have a complete understanding of it, but think it should be noted that what might be true for Hinduism in India might well be different in Jawa and Bali. Durga certainly went through some changes when she reached what is now Indonesia.
Durga is a diety that has many aspects. Some traditions refer to the Navadurgā (nine forms of Durga). Though even when she has a terrible and destructive aspect i believe the intention was always that those powers were to be used against demonic forces to combat evil. She is also associated with protection, strength and motherhood. So i am not so sure her intention is to scare the little children.
But in Java and Bali, Durga became associated with Calon Arang and the widow Rangda who became a devotee of Durga. The emphasis in this legend is placed upon a more terrible aspect of the goddess. In a sense we see a demonization of the goddess in this case as the witch Rangda becomes not just associated with Durga, but is seen as an aspect of her.
There are at least 135 know statues of Durga erected at temples throughout Indonesia. I find it interesting that none of them represent this "veiled" aspect that appears in this particular hilt form. Nor do these Durga hilts display any of the known attributes or associations that are traditionally connected with Durga. This doesn't mean that these hilts are not meant to depict some aspect of the goddess, but it does raise questions in my mind. I have attached a few statues of Durga. I believe these might all originate in Jawa. I have never seen this "veiled" aspect depicted anywhere else but in these particular keris hilts from Jawa and Bali.
But none of the questions you asked were about the hilt.
* When did Quranic inscriptions start appearing on keris?
Good question that i don't know the answer to beyond, of course, some time after the fall of the Mojopahit. But i must say that i always approach keris with Quranic inscriptions with a skeptical eye. While i am sure such inscription were at times applied legitimately, i have seen many, many more that seem to have been added at some later date to make a keris appear more, rare, sacred, desirable, etc. for the marketplace. I have never thought that was the case with this particular keris however.

* Why do you think we don't see more examples of old keris with overtly
Muslim features given the importance of Islam in the royal courts of Java
Again i do not know for sure. As i just mentioned, i don't believe there are a lot of legitimate old keris with such features on them. The keris was kept and incorporated into Islamic culture relatively unchanged in form. Many aspects of that form have the features of the original Hindu symbolism intact. These aspects (naga, ron dha, etc.) weren't physically changed, though the original philosophies towards them may have been reinterpreted. Perhaps it was just considered such a venerated and sacred object that adding overtly Islamic features was not considered necessary, especially if they could be looked at and become inclusive of Islamic thinking.

* Does anyone know anything more about this specific keris that can be shared? Someone must. LOL! This is an old photograph (turn of the century 1900?) and i don't believe i have ever seen any other photos of it. Does anyone even know where this beautiful keris is today?

* How likely is it that this a well-kept keris buda which had been added to? Well, given the time-frame of the photograph it certainly wasn't added recently. LOL! I suppose it is quite possible it was added after the fact of the original manufacture. Hard to say when that would have been though. You say well kept, which i suppose it is to some extent. But i am not convinced this keris buda was created in the original time-frame for that form. It seems to have a nice old mendak, not the methuk that we would see with original keris buda. I suspect that this keris may well have been created in Islamic Jawa. Exactly when or just how old it was when photographed is an open question.

* Is there anything to be made about this keris, such as if it is one that we would expect to be fine and expensive in its time?
To my non-expert eye this is a finely made, beautifully formed example of this form. I wouldn't image it would have been cheaply made in its time.

[Gustav]

This Keris is a heirloom called Ki Dongkol, and is quite popular among a certain group of people (besides Keris enthusiasts), because it was the "personal" Keris of the leader of Darul Islam, Maridjan Kartosoewirjo.

After his death it was apparently given back to the family it came from, and should still be with this family in Suci, Garut.

Kinatah is in a style, which can be attributed to 16th cent. perhaps slightly earlier. I don't think, the blade is older than that.

[Amuk Murugul]

Hullo Jagabuwana,

I think the above item used to be owned by Adjengan Tjinoenoek / Pangeran Papak / R. Wangsa Moehammad.
If so, part of the inscription should read: "la ikraha fiddin" (there is no compulsion in religion).
If you're REALLY interested in the above item, you'll need to get in touch with his descendants or foundation in Suci/Cinunuk.
BTW ..... The item forms part of a couple, the other half being the sword Ki Rompang.
Hope it's of help.

Best,

[Gustav]

This family traces itself back to Sunan Cipancar/Sunan Pancer, born ca. 1510. Similarly to the Majapahit/Demak connection, the tradition says he was related to Pajajaran royal family.

Mid 16th cent. could be quite acceptable for this Keris.

[Amuk Murugul]

Originally Posted by Gustav

This family traces itself back to Sunan Cipancar/Sunan Pancer, born ca. 1510. Similarly to the Majapahit/Demak connection, the tradition says he was related to Pajajaran royal family.

Mid 16th cent. could be quite acceptable for this Keris.

Hullo Gustav,

R. Wangsa Moehammad was the 7th.-generation descendant of Soenan Tjipantjar.
Soenan Tjiipantjar / R. Widjaja Koesoemah II (GalihPakwan - Limbangan) was the great-grandson of Silih Wangi III / Sri Badoega / R. Pamanah Rasa (Soenda-Galoeh, Pakwan Padjadjaran).

Best,

[Gustav]

Originally Posted by Amuk Murugul

Hullo Gustav,
R. Wangsa Moehammad was the 7th.-generation descendant of Soenan Tjipantjar.
Soenan Tjiipantjar / R. Widjaja Koesoemah II (GalihPakwan - Limbangan) was the great-grandson of Silih Wangi III / Sri Badoega / R. Pamanah Rasa (Soenda-Galoeh, Pakwan Padjadjaran).
Best,

Amuk Murugul, thank you.

[A. G. Maisey]

Frankly, this keris and the associated stories are not of any particular interest to me personally. Probably some people might find this to be a strange attitude for me to have, and I have no intention of going into my reasons for this attitude.

But the hilt and description is of interest to me. This "veiled Durga" thing has been a stone in my shoe for a long time. It is to the best of my knowledge a totally westernised appellation.

In Central Jawa the craftsmen who were carving this hilt form between 1970 and 2014 named this hilt as "wadon" = "female".

The name that is supposedly more correct is "balu makabun" = "a widow who is left with daughters" (Balinese); in Balinese "balu" is a contraction of "balung", a widow or widower; however, again Balinese, if we change "kabun" to "kebun" (also kebon) the meaning can be understood as "widow + garden", so this then gets (badly) translated as "widow in a garden". But "kebun" has another meaning too, used as an adjective:- dirty, foul, untidy, covered in filth. So if the spelling (and pronunciation) becomes "balu mekabun" it gets (badly) translated as "filthy widow".

But the problem with all these translations that understand "makabun" as something to do with a garden is that "dikebun" is "in a garden" & "berkebun" is gardening, but in Bahasa Indonesia. If the "ma----" becomes "me-----" (mekebun/mekebon) it makes no sense to a native speaker of Balinese nor of Javanese.

"Makabun" must be understood as a word that when combined with "balu", ie "balu makabun" can only be understood as " a widow left with daughters"; a widow left with sons is "balu makarang".

But if we look at the word "kabun", what we find is that "kabunbunan" (look at the composition of the word :- ka-bun-bun-an) we have a word that is derived from "bun", "bun" = a climbing plant, a plant that grows upwards and covers the thing it is growing on. In Balinese "kabunbunan" = a cloth worn by women as a wrapping that covers head and chest.

The prefix "ma" in Balinese has a number of uses, in formal speech it is pronounced "mah", in colloquial speech it is pronounced "me", and combined with other words and in standard phrases it acquires a meaning only in that phrase.

Now we can come back to "balu", in Balinese "balu" is an alternative way of referring to Rangda.


David is correct when he points out that Durga was understood in a different way in Jawa/Bali during the East Jawa period, and then he mentions Calon Arang. Calon Arang was a widow, she was also a dukun (witch) who specialised in black magic, & she had a daughter (as often is the case in folk tales, a beautiful daughter).

Within the elite circles of kraton society it seems that Durga was understood in the mainstream Hindu way during the East Jawa period, but within the populace outside elite circles Durga seems to have been understood in a different way, this was probably due to the general populace being totally ignorant of the tantric practices that were favoured by the elites. Understanding of tantric ritual is secret, outsiders can have no true understanding of it.

So we have two different understandings of Durga in East Jawa/Bali at that time. A misunderstanding that appears to have been generated by the secrecy of tantric practices and consequent ignorance of the population who were excluded from elite society.

Over time and with the influence of Islam that misunderstanding has been picked up by more outsiders and what we have now is just one hell of a mess that has caused impenetrable ignorance.

So look at this "balu makabun" again.

Do we have a contraction of "balu makabunbunan" = "a widow wearing a cloth wrapping over chest and head"?

What class of the populace understood Durga in an incorrect way?

What class of the populace had the entitlement to wear keris and to create keris dress forms?

Why do native speakers of Balinese and Javanese not understand the popular "balu mekebun"?

Finally, exactly what does this "balu mekabun" look like? Perhaps she looks something like a woman with a wrapping that comes up the body & covers her head?

Importantly, what does this hilt form represent?

[David]

Gustav, thanks very much for this detailed shot of the blade. For some reason i have had a difficult time finding hi-rez photographs of this keris on line that allow for the detailed enlargement you have provided.

[jagabuwana]

David - thank you for your adding your thoughts on this. I should note that while my questions didn't relate to the hilt, I really do welcome any relevant discussion about this keris. Between you and Alan, you have given me much more to study and think about when it comes to Durga and the representation of other deities or otherworldly beings.

Gustav and Amuk - thank you both for adding some history and provenance to this keris. Knowing this enriches my understanding about this particular keris.

Alan - Thank you for your analysis of the linguistics and the history, and especially for the questions that you raised. It has caused me to think about what you had written for longer than I might have initially. For someone like me who is early in their keris education, focused questions like these are really helpful to help shape and steer my thinking with regards to the knowledge presented.

I will share my answers to these questions, for the sake of continuing this discussion and as a way of advancing my own learning. If you're inclined to, I would of course be grateful for your correction, or perhaps more valuably, more questions to ponder.

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

So look at this "balu makabun" again.

Do we have a contraction of "balu makabunbunan" = "a widow wearing a cloth wrapping over chest and head"?

I can only agree, though maybe accept is a better word. Agreement would imply that I had preexisting views on this that matched or reconciled with yours but that is not the case.

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

What class of the populace understood Durga in an incorrect way?

What class of the populace had the entitlement to wear keris and to create keris dress forms?

Well, it would seem that non-elites and particularly those populations who didn't have access to Tantric knowledge and practices are those who understood Durga in an incorrect way. But is this saying that they don't understand Durga entirely, even without consideration for Durga as represented on a keris? Or is it saying that non-elites do not and can not understand Durga when it comes to what Durga represents when selected as a figure on keris fittings, and why Durga is chosen as a deity to represent?

As for the second question in this block, it is the elites or keraton classes.

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Why do native speakers of Balinese and Javanese not understand the popular "balu mekebun"?

Because the me prefix does not make sense to a native Javanese or Balinese speaker, but I don't understand why this point was made and why the question was asked. Is it because there is a popular but incorrect idea that this hilt form is called and/or pronounced balu mekebun (which is linguistically nonsensical), instead of the correct and linguistically sensical balu mekabun

Edits added 8pm AEST: critical typos corrected

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Finally, exactly what does this "balu mekabun" look like? Perhaps she looks something like a woman with a wrapping that comes up the body & covers her head?

Yes the hilt shown does resemble a woman with kabunbunan. I can see this clearly when it comes to a cloth that wraps the body, but not so much the head. I say that only to highlight my unfamiliarity with these hilt forms and thus unsure of what I am seeing, not as a refutation.

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Importantly, what does this hilt form represent?

This I find most difficult to answer. But in thinking about this, then at this point I am led to believe that it is incorrect to identify the figure represented by this hilt as Durga. But this hilt form does more generally represent the feminine, and specifically a "widow left with daughters". If the keris proper, i.e. the wilah is the masculine, and specifically symbolic of Siwa and the linggam, then perhaps hilt form represents its female, fertile partner.

[Gustav]

David, the old links I posted 11 years ago are still working, a wonder in the age of internet.

http://www.geheugenvannederland.nl/?...:1403-3790-37B

http://www.geheugenvannederland.nl/?...unt=1&wst=kris

[Interested Party]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

But the hilt and description is of interest to me. This "veiled Durga" thing has been a stone in my shoe for a long time. It is to the best of my knowledge a totally westernised appellation.


Importantly, what does this hilt form represent?

WOW. Thank you for the insight into the etymology of this hilt! My post isn't exactly cogent to where Mr. Maisey is taking his argument. It is just a little back story as I've been thinking on this style of hilt for a while, off and on for a year. The carvings I have always found invoke a emotional response that is as vague and powerful as the images themselves.

I have not gotten into the Javanese interpretations of Durga yet, only the synopsis of the source material the Javanese used. My main source so far has been Rao's Hindu Iconography. Using that I have not found a clear match of which incarnations are in David's pictures from post #4. The first seems reminiscent of Mahakali with tusks, eight arms, and the head dress. To me it seems most probable the statues are Katyayani? The buffalo is certainly Mahishasura. I am not sure what the small figure on the right would represent in two of the statues. I am attaching a bit of back ground information to this post. I believe this information is from a Shivistic point of view and to me seems more appropriate for a conversation on Javanese thought. The book was published in 1914 so I believe it is public domain. Sorry for the p. 350 being turned.

[Interested Party]

A bit more background. Hopefully this will show how multi faceted the subject is in main line Hindu thought. Sorry the image turned again when uploaded.

[A. G. Maisey]

You will probably think much longer on this hilt style, IP. It has been in my thoughts since I first encountered it, and I really forget how long ago that is.

In fact, I am not taking any argument anywhere, I am only laying out a few ideas for consideration, currently I do not wish to push any firm ideas on this hilt style, except for one:- my personal belief is that every idea I have so far encountered in respect of this hilt style is wrong. I am not yet ready to push a replacement idea.

In the study of things related to pre-Islamic Jawa, and to Bali, an understanding of mainline Hindu beliefs is useful, but as with most belief systems, there are a number of ways for the beliefs to be understood. Mainline Hindu belief has four major belief systems and I don't know how many sects.

Gopinatha Rao's "Iconography" was re-published sometime in the 1990's, it was originally four volumes, in the republication those four volumes were republished in two volumes. I've had it for about 20 years, I had been aware of it long before i bought it, but had never seen a complete copy. When I got it I set out to read it cover to cover. I failed. I dive into from time to time, but in all honesty I do not find it to be of much use.

There are a number of variations in all the Hindu stories and beliefs, and since my principal interest is Jawa-Bali, I have needed to concentrate on that. Although we speak of Jawa-Hindu, and Bali-Hindu, there is variation between these belief systems and mainline Hindu. Jawa-Hindu was a synthesis of Hindu + Buddhist + plus indigenous Javanese belief. Bali-Hindu is indigenous Balinese belief + Hindu-Buddhist belief imported from Jawa + Hindu belief and Buddhist belief that entered Bali prior to the Javanese influences that came into play. In recent times this syncretic mix has been overlaid with all kinds of external influences, including those which have arisen from the time of formation of the new political entity of "Indonesia". Bali-Hindu is now known as Agama Hindu Dharma.

When we consider Balinese interpretations of Hindu or Buddhist figures we often see interpretations that would not be recognized by a follower of mainline Hindu or Buddhist belief. We find that characteristics get mixed, or misinterpreted, and then we have the indigenous characters, whose characteristics are sometimes mixed with characteristics of Hindu or Buddhist characters.I have come to a place where I am inclined to believe that perhaps the carver of a figure is really the only person who knows exactly who or what he has carved --- the rest of us can only guess.

IP, you might find Dowson's "Classical Dictionary of Hindu Mythology" to be of interest, it was first published around 1870, and has been through many re-prints since.

Edit

Oh yeah, that little figure the left. I cannot recall having read who or what that might be, but the demon kerbau was only the asura Mahisa in animal form, when the demon buff was killed, Mahisa emerged from its throat. In some sculptures of this type Durga is seen touching the head of the little figure, in Javanese culture this is an extremely insulting thing to do. It might be Mahisa. There are plenty of references on Javanese sculpture, you'll probably find an educated opinion in one of them. I'm only guessing.