Errors in Keris Literature

[A. G. Maisey]

Don't be so modest Pak Ganja.

Your English is very good indeed. You express yourself clearly on most occasions, and you write fluently. Our problem here is not with your English expression, it is with identifying something written in years past that we do not now accept, and looking at why we do not accept it.

What Hill wrote was based on general belief at the time he wrote it. The early writers in English, on the keris, debated various theories of origin back and forth. Some of the exchanges became pretty heated.I'm not sure exactly how the name "Keris Majapahit" arose. A point of origin for use of the term could probably be identified, but this would involve a lot of time in going back through all the mentions of this form. It might even go all the way back to that Dutch academic who found one in one of the stupas at Borobudur.In any case, it doesn't matter much at this remove who started calling these little keris, "Keris Majapahit" . They are known as that now by many, if not most collectors outside of Indonesia.

Yes, I agree that confusion could arise about the term "Keris Majapahit", but if we simply use "Keris tangguh Majapahit", when that is what we mean, there will be no confusion.It is simply a matter of saying what we mean, instead of taking shortcuts.

Your use of the phrase "stand point" confuses me. I do not know exactly what you mean here. Rather than have me guess, could you please put this thought in another way?

In essence, what Hill said was this :-

keris Majapahit are small and useless as a weapon

if Keris Majapahit are charms then it is logical that they followed rather than preceeded the keris proper

no proto-type keris of the keris proper has been found

the available evidence indicates that the keris proper was a new weapon in the 13th century

the length of a normal keris is about 12" to 16"

In the context of knowledge at the time Hill was writing, I don't think I can disagree with any of this.

We now know about the Keris Buda, we now have identified certain relief carvings, so we can point to fore-runners of the keris proper. This information was not available to Hill.

To me, its a simple thing:- these early writers saw things in light of the information they had available; we have additional information available and we see things differently. A hundred years down the track there could be more additional information available, and a different point of view to our own may prevail.

It is a simple thing:- we've moved on from Gardner, Woolley, Hill. It is no different to a medical doctor moving on from blood letting.Somebody who studies medicine does not turn to 50 or 100 year old books to further his knowledege. A serious student of the keris should study current sources if he wishes to stay abreast of current knowledge.

I would ask you to bear one thing in mind:- I started to study keris in about 1955, Hill published his paper in 1956; Gardiner published in 1936, Woolley published on origin in 1938.
I grew up on this stuff. Way back then, everybody more or less accepted as gospel that the original keris was the Keris Majapahit.
We have now expanded our knowledge, and I don't think many people believe this any longer, however, if the Keris Majapahit did exist prior to the 13th century, then it may have been a contributing factor to the form of the Modern Keris.

Our major problem is this:- we do not know if the Keris Majapahit existed pre 13th century or not.

[A. G. Maisey]

According to the recognised authorities on Javanese sculpture, all the work on Borobudur, and Prambanan, was completed by local craftsmen, and interpreted the stories shown in a local form, using local objects, buildings and landscape. Craftsmen were not imported from India to carry out this work.

[ganjawulung]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Your use of the phrase "stand point" confuses me. I do not know exactly what you mean here. Rather than have me guess, could you please put this thought in another way?.

Thanks a lot Alan. I've learned quite a lot from your short explanation you just gave me. About time frame. What I want to say was, probably the method of comparing things. Comparing "keris sajen" (I'm sorry, I don't use the "Keris Majapahit" term -- both in capital first letter -- for a very small keris that we know as "keris sajen" or "seking"). Comparing "keris sajen" (non-weapon) from Indonesia with kind of real kerises (weapon) from outside Indonesia? Am I wrong, if I am thinking: it is like comparing toy-guns with real guns? Comparing small kerises which usually for ceremony purpose and not for weapon, with real weapon. Or, say it in sports term: "put in combat between street boxer with professionel boxer"... Was it fair? (See also, comparison pictures of GC Woolley in page 114)

Majapahit -- in the mind of any Indonesian -- is a period of good kerises, good empus. Why, using as such a peiorating term of big empire in the past for expressing name of not a real kind of keris?

Ganjawulung

[A. G. Maisey]

Pak Ganja, as to whether you call these little keris "sajen" or "majapahit", or "seking" or anything else, I really don't care. I understand what you mean, and that's really all that matters. I myself call them "sajen", most of the time, but if I'm talking with somebody who wants to call them "majapahit", I don't have any problem with that.

The purpose of language is to transfer a thought, or an idea, from one person's mind to another person's mind. Language is just a tool. If that transfer can be achieved, it really doesn't matter what words are used to achieve it.

If I am correct, your objections are based in the approach of grouping together all types of keris. You do not want to group keris sajen, with other types of keris. Is this correct?

You do not want to compare keris sajen with other types of keris, but rather to hive them off into a separate category. Is this correct?

I can see no objection to this as a methodology, but I can also see no objection to grouping all types of keris together.One methodology is no better and no worse than any other, from my perspective. Why not group all different types of keris separately? Classify according to point of origin , and then according to percieved era, a la tangguh?We could have our Javanese keris all split up according to tangguh and then classify our sajens, and our budas, and our long keris, and our Moro type keris; we could classify everything else according to whether Bali, Madura, Sumatera, or whatever.

We could classify endlessly if we so wished.We could classify according to weapon functionability, artistic worth, tuah, isi, and on and on. Actually, one of my inlaws in Solo classifies according to whether the keris was previously owned by a Kyai, or by a Pangeran; it must be have been owned by either one or the other, or he will not have it in his collection. How does he know who previously owned it? He dreams it.

Yes, I know, Majapahit was the Golden Age.

But much of the belief surrounding the Majapahit era in Jawa is pretty much like a lot of the belief surrounding England's Golden Age of chivalry, King Arthur & etc.

Why did some inconsiderate barbarian decide to call these little keris sajen "Keris Majapahit", and thus taint the glorious Golden Memory of Magnificent Majapahit?

I don't know, but he did, and it stuck.

If you don't like it, you could begin a campaign to change the terminology of the western collecting world. I'll even help you by doing my best to only use the term "keris sajen".

In fact, however you want to group, consider, treat, or talk about keris sajen is just fine with me:- I agree in advance with whatever approach you want to take.

Now, can we move on from the deadly keris sajen:keris majapahit duel, and get on to what this thread is supposedly about:- the identification of specific statements by specific writers, with which we no longer agree.

[ganjawulung]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

If I am correct, your objections are based in the approach of grouping together all types of keris. You do not want to group keris sajen, with other types of keris. Is this correct?

You do not want to compare keris sajen with other types of keris, but rather to hive them off into a separate category. Is this correct? .

Not exactly only the approach of grouping the types of keris. My main objection is the opinion of the writers in the book, that "Keris Majapahit and keris pichit is the surviving specimens of the oldest Majapahit keris" (GC Woolley article, "The Origin of Malay Keris"). This statement is clear, that "keris sajen" according to Mr Woolley is "the surviving specimens of the oldest Majapahit keris".

I am neither scientist, nor archeolog. But I dare to say -- but don't ask me to prove it -- that this statement or opinion is inaccurate. The surviving, and the oldest? Based on what? And what about the old pusakas in kraton Yogya and Surakarta that are even older than Majapahit era? Are they false?

I like very much the special appearance of Keris Sundang in complete dress, for instance. I think it is not worth to compare, with small kerises that mentioned for other purpose, like "keris sajen"... Not comparable.

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

If you don't like it, you could begin a campaign to change the terminology of the western collecting world. I'll even help you by doing my best to only use the term "keris sajen".

Thanks Alan, for your generosity. But let people know by themselves, what the truth is... I agree with you. The appellation of "keris majapahit" for "keris sajen", or "keris pichit" for "keris pejetan", it won't diminish one of the greatest era of keris making in the past.. Let the river flow...

Ganjawulung

[kai]

Dear Pak Ganja,

Comparing "keris sajen" (non-weapon) from Indonesia with kind of real kerises (weapon) from outside Indonesia? Am I wrong, if I am thinking: it is like comparing toy-guns with real guns? Comparing small kerises which usually for ceremony purpose and not for weapon, with real weapon.

I believe you misunderstood the purpose of the drawing: keris sajen were not added to belittle Indonesian keris and glorify Malayan keris (nor keris Jawa vs. Malay/Bugis keris since the distribution of these types don't follow current political boundaries...). The aim of the paper was to show the diversity of Malay keris and keris sajen are also found in Malaysia (no idea wether genuine examples were locally forged or if they arrived through trade or migration). Thus, the author needed to include keris sajen, too.

BTW, I don't think that we should place too much emphasis on this collection of rather old papers - just keep the dates when each got originally published in mind and move on...

Regards,
Kai

[A. G. Maisey]

OK, I think I see where you're coming from, Pak Ganja:- you object very strongly to Woolley, and other writers of seventy years ago, harbouring the belief that keris sajen were representative of keris produced during the Majapahit era. Is this correct?

Yes, I think we can accept this as an outdated opinion, but it was just an opinion, and a generally held one at the time--- seventy years ago.

However, you have mentioned the pusakas held by the karatons in Surakarta and Yogyakarta. Pusakas that pre-date Majapahit.

May I most humbly suggest that prior to endorsing the validity of claims for the age of these pieces, a study of the history of the House of Mataram may be rather enlightening. Most especially , a focus on the early years of Mataram, through to the demise of Sultan Agung, and again on the Kartasura period.

Of great additional value would be an investigation of the social and economic conditions which influenced the Javanese elite during the period from about the middle of the 17th century, through to, probably, the Japanese occupation.

I am well aware that what I have touched on here is an extremely sensitive issue with most Javanese people, most particularly those Javanese people who have great pride in their culture. Because of this, I will not be drawn on this subject, but I do urge all true students of the keris to involve themselves in the lines of investigation that I have indicated.

As to the the movements of the Syailendras after they left Jawa, my feeling is that most authorities are still somewhat undecided about that. I'd have to check references before I would be brave enough to make any definitive statements, but I do not think that their authorship of Angkor Wat is necessarily a done deal.

[PenangsangII]

Pak Ganja & other forumites,

I agree that Jayawarman II was responsible in building Angkor Wat, in fact Cambodians also agree to this fact. But let give you another modern parallel so that you can gauge what I mean.

In Malaysia, former PM Mahathir was credited as the person who built one of the tallest building in the word - Petronas Twin Tower. Did you know who the contractors were? The Japanese & Korean .

So, wouldnt it posssible that even Jayawarman II had to hire "contractors" say, from India....because most kingdoms in the archipelago in those days were heavily influenced by Hinduism & Buddhism. In saying this, I wanted to believe that keris could have existed even during Shailendra era, but it was depicted wrongly in the temples sculptures....

Penangsang

[ganjawulung]

Originally Posted by PenangsangII

So, wouldnt it posssible that even Jayawarman II had to hire "contractors" say, from India....because most kingdoms in the archipelago in those days were heavily influenced by Hinduism & Buddhism. In saying this, I wanted to believe that keris could have existed even during Shailendra era, but it was depicted wrongly in the temples sculptures....

Penangsang

...Or, this is another speculation. (Once again, speculation). Many rulers in Java were not real Javanese, but mixture: local-indian. (I borrow Rand's term in his blogspot: Indinesian. May I?). And the architect, and the building-workers were local people. Just look, the chandis (temples) were not precisely Indian-look, and also the details of hindhu sculpture. Localised hindhu.

Syailendra, (speculation too, correct me if I'm wrong), was a Champa blood. This was based on old fact: why a Javanese was able to become a great ruler in Malay province in Khmer? Look, the sculpture in Khmer Angkor was different with the sculpture's style in Borobudur, although Jayawarman II (or Jayavarman, whatever) came from Syailendra dynasty who had built Borobudur in the 8th century.

Looking back in Java. (More speculation) Keris with ganja separated from the blade, was local hindhu product. Why hindhu? Compare with the "golden lingga and yoni" in the picture, which is now in Jakarta National Museum in Jakarta. From the Majapahit era. (See picture). And please upside down your keris, the handle part up, and the blade-pin down. The paksi -- iron for the handle -- is the lingga, and ganja with hole (feminine part) is the yoni. Compare again to the separated part of this golden lingga-yoni, which is united as lingga-yoni.

Why local? Hindhu in India has no "keris culture". Thus, keris was a local genius product of "alien" hindhu culture in Java... (Many brahmana, believed came from India too. Just see the "keris empu gandring" story in Pararaton as I told you a couple times ago. Pararaton told us: "Brahmana Lohgawe came from India, riding three "kakatang" leaves.... and so on.")

(Following speculation) The earlier form of "keris" in buddha times, was "betok budo" (without ganja separated, but iras). This is the era of Syailendra dynasty. And the hindhu times? From the Sanjaya dynasty (ancient Mataram, not the Islamic Mataram) was "jalak budo" (I have shown you before, the sample of such dhapur in the earlier post). The hindhu spirited keris had "separated ganja" or say it as "lingga yoni kerises"... Now, you may adapt with your own culture, which is suitable for your own... Please, don't believe me. This is only my personal speculation. (Thanks a lot, Rand, for your "enlightment" of the name in your blogspot)

Ganjawulung

[ganjawulung]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

OK, I think I see where you're coming from, Pak Ganja:- you object very strongly to Woolley, and other writers of seventy years ago, harbouring the belief that keris sajen were representative of keris produced during the Majapahit era. Is this correct?

Yes, I think we can accept this as an outdated opinion, but it was just an opinion, and a generally held one at the time--- seventy years ago.

Yes it is. And I wonder, if it is an outdated opinion, why still this opinion reprinted? I got the 17th reprint (1998), maybe with the same opinion as the first print...

Ganjawulung

[ganjawulung]

Compared to the 17th edition of "Keris and Other Malay Weapons" (1998), the Italian Vanna and Mario Ghiringhelli (1991) wrote a more objective opinion in their first book on keris, "Kris Gli Invincibili" (The Invincible Krises). Look at page 127, under title of "A centuries-old tradition". Here is the citation from this book:

A centuries-old tradition
There is much debate as to the provenance of the kris, but without doubt the most feasible theory is that it originated in the Indonesian archipelago, more precisely in the island of Java. This view is base on the most reliable traditions, historic and documentary evidence, and on examples still existing today.

However it is very hard to ascertain the period which the kris appeared. A reasonably satisfactory theory asserts that the weapon appeared in the late 10th century during the cultural rennaissance of eastern Java following the fall of the central kingdoms. Other hypotheses date it around 1200 (reign of Pajajaran). However it is certain that at the start of the reign of Majapahit (1294-1499), the shape of the kris was so highly developed that preceding stages of evolution have to be inferred.

The mysterious group of krises named "kris majapahit" (keris sajen -- page 74) have little in common with the kris as generally understood. The blade and handle are forged in one piece, and the handle consists of a small anthropoid figure with knees bent or in squatting position, or a simple torso and head (ancestor?). These krises were not used as weapons: of small size, they formed an amulet for the protection of crops or for good fortune brought by the powerful magic.
They were included in offerings to gods and ancestors, and they were used especially in the ceremony invoking the gods' protection of farmers and land against ilness, plant diseases and accidents...

Ganjawulung

[A. G. Maisey]

Goodness, gracious me!

[kai]

Dear Pak Ganja,

I wonder, if it is an outdated opinion, why still this opinion reprinted? I got the 17th reprint (1998), maybe with the same opinion as the first print...

I don't have any of the reprints but I'm pretty sure that not a single bit got updated from any of the authors. The decision to reprint something (or to issue a collection of papers on a given topic from a journal) often rests solely with the publishing house/society. As such, it just reflects a (perceived) demand from buyers rather than any scientific merit. These papers have been widey cited since they are among the few studies on keris published in any western language, at least as of 10 years ago. Things are changing slowly due to enhanced international communication, especially via the Internet.

However, there's still a load of keris studies which I eagerly await getting translated into English...

Regards,
Kai

[ganjawulung]

Originally Posted by kai

...These papers have been widey cited since they are among the few studies on keris published in any western language, at least as of 10 years ago. Things are changing slowly due to enhanced international communication, especially via the Internet.

However, there's still a load of keris studies which I eagerly await getting translated into English...

Dear Kai,
Thanks for reminding me about this. Yes, there are not many good books on keris published in any western language. But I am noting too that still there is a very very good book out there, that we must be recalled. Please look at this very good book, "The World of the Javanese Keris" which was written by Garrett and Bronwen Solyom -- published for an exhibition at the East-West Culture Learning Institute East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii on April 10 to May 12 1978. I think, this is one of the best book ever on keris which was published by the western writers -- especially on Javanese keris.

Look at their research to write this beautiful book. They conducted research and to study in some of the most important collections and libraries such as Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia (Indonesian Research Institute), Museum Radyapustaka (Solo), Museum Pusat (Jakarta), and from royal source especially GPH Praboewidjojo (Solo Palace), Istana Mangkunegaran (Solo) and Museum Sanabudaya (Jogjakarta) and at least twenty "mranggi" (keris sheath makers), such as some royal empus Yosopangarso, Djeno Harumbrojo and Imandihardjo, and mranggis R Ng Prodjowirongko, RM L Atmotjurigo, Matang Sadaja and a couple of local experts such as Harjono Guritno, Soelaeman Pringgodigdo...

Look at their interesting view in this book, (quote) "Both within Java and beyond, there is a wealth of regional and local variations associated with all aspects of the keris, from the manner of wearing it to the naming of the parts of the blade. It would be impossible to represent them all. Keris were made in several other islands of the Indonesian archipelago, in Malaysia and in the southern Philippines. The fourteenth century expansion on the Javanese kingdom of Majapahit probably brought Javanese blade, sheath and hilt forms to the other islands. Even today, Majapahit or other Javanese blades are found in the regalia of courts outside Java. It may be conjectured that keris made in such places as Madura, Bali, Sumatera and sulawesi were heavily influenced by Majapahit and other Javanese styles which they have retained in varying degrees until the present. In Java the keris reached its technical and aesthetic height. In comparison to the austere form and matchless technique of the Japanese sword and the directness of crystalline damascening in the Damascus saber, the form of the Javanese keris offers vital flowing line and pattern-welding of a uniquely organic character.
Thus it seemed appropriate to select Java as a point of departure for study of the keris. It is deeply embedded there, in a complex world of lore and legend, magical and spiritual symbolism, and formal rituals for making, care and use.....,"

I hope much, that this "exhibition" books will be reprinted, for they who want to study about Javanese keris. Yes, because many of their sources -- such as empu Yosopangarso, empu Djeno and master of keris sheath maker such as Prodjowirongko -- had passed away...

Ganjawulung

[ganjawulung]

Originally Posted by kai

BTW, I don't think that we should place too much emphasis on this collection of rather old papers - just keep the dates when each got originally published in mind and move on...

Regards,
Kai

I agree Kai. That was just my small opinion... Let's move on...

Ganjawulung