Inscriptions on Keris?

[David]

Originally Posted by ganjawulung

Oh, I am so sorry, Gentlemen...

This is just the beginning of another annoying and unuseful thread...

Ganjawulung

Certainly not annoying and probably not unuseful...however, since it is clear that the meaning of words have a habit of shifting and changing their definitions over time i am afraid that there will never be any positive way to ever say that the words "kres" or "kris" in these writings were ever meant to refer to anything that we could call a keris today.

[A. G. Maisey]

Pak Ganja, it seems to me that your posting of these interesting snippits of information is causing you to doubt the worth of your contributions.

You should not doubt yourself.

All of this is good, interesting material, especially for people who do not have access to the resources available to you.Even though I myself do have access to many of these resources, your extraction of the data and posting in precis form is interesting to me.

Firstly, allow me to thank you for correcting my error in a different thread. Yes, I agree, the use of the word "kres" occurred in an inscription dating from circa 842AD, not 500AD. I was wrong.One should never write from memory, it is always better to check facts first. Speed kills.

You have mentioned a number of inscriptions.

All these inscriptions date from after the time when Old Javanese was used as the language for the inscription.

Zoetmulder lists the word "kris" as existing in the Old Javanese lexicon, and he gives its meaning in Bahasa Indonesia as "keris".

The word "kris" can be accepted as the archaic form of the modern word "keris".

Nobody in their right mind could dispute this.

However, what is open to question is this:-

what was the physical form of object that was referred to as "kris" in these inscriptions?

We know that it is an almost universal trait of language development that over time the meaning of a word will change, and the physical form of objects to which an archaic word refers, will change.We have two elements of change occurring in parallel dimensions:- the abstract (term of reference), and the physical (actual object). Because of this constant and continuing change, we can have no confidence that simply because a similar word may exist in an archaic lexicon, that that word refers to the object that it may appear to refer to.

In the case of the keris, we have representations of keris-like objects at Candi Prambanan, and several other locations, but at the present time, we need to accept the Prambanan representations as the earliest.Prambanan dates from circa 850AD. It may well be that these objects shown at Prambanan were referred to as "kris".However, we do not know this, because regrettably none of the craftsmen who created the reliefs at Candi Prambanan were thoughtful enough to place little arrows pointing to these keris-like daggers, along with a caption, saying "this is a kris".

The matter is further complicated by the occurrence of other words in existence at the same time. Words such as "tewek" and "tuhuk".

In Old Javanese the word "kris" was a root word, so we had derivatives such as "akris", and "kinris", then we had "anris" and "aneris". It seems that very probably the word "kris" in Old Javanese referred to a dagger, not necessarily the specific type of dagger that we would now recognise as a keris.

Now, we know that the Modern Keris did not exist when these inscriptions were made, we also know that the keris-like dagger form is not shown being used in a rapier-like fashion until after the beginning of the twelfth century in East Jawa.

In summary:-

yes, the word "kris" does exist in Old Javanese; yes, keris-like daggers did exist in both Central Jawa and East Jawa prior to the 14th century

however, there is no evidence that will permit us to assume that the Old Javanese word "kris" was used to describe an object that we would now classify as a keris.

But all of the above has still not dealt with this troublesome word "kres".

Zoetmulder lists just six words in Old Javanese that commence with "kre---". Only six words, and none of these words are "kres".

The only reference to "kres" that I have seen, apart from the quotes in keris publications, was "patuk kres". I've already said that I can find no evidence that "kres" is a part of the Old Javanese lexicon, however, "patuk" is an Old Javanese word; it was a type of tool, very probably an adze. It is probable that a "patuk kres" was a type of small adze used for taking fine slices.I am drawing this conclusion based upon the meaning of "kres" in Moderrn Javanese.

I feel that to reach any definite conclusions in respect of this "kres" word as related to the keris, we need to do this:- go back to the original inscription, examine that inscription, ensure that the translation of it, and then the romanisation of the translation are both beyond question; if after this we are still left with the word "kres", we need to consider the possibility of an alternative rendering of the word keris, generated by either original inaccuracy, or possibly style at that time and place. When a perceived fact disagrees with other established facts, the perceived fact must be investigated fully to either confirm it or attempt to explain its variation from the established facts.

[A. G. Maisey]

Once again Pak Ganja, you are being overly modest.

The over-view you have provided in your "Mataram" post is very valuable, and I am positive interesting, to many of the people who follow this discussion group.

I compliment you on your knowledge of the traditional history of Jawa.

There are a couple of very minor things that I would like to mention, if I may.

Firstly, the reasons for the disappearance of the Syailendras from Central Jawa is still not established with any certainty.

The same is true of the shift of the seat of power from Central Jawa to East Jawa. I think the currently popular theory for this is that the people were a little put out by the constant demands for labour made upon them by their lords, so they just got up and walked. A ruler without subjects was not really a ruler in Old Jawa, so the boss bowed to popular opinion and moved too. The nature and position of a ruler in Old Jawa was somewhat different to the way in which we think of a ruler today.

For those readers who may not be familiar with the difficulties associated with the history of Old Jawa, it is possibly best to mention that all dates are only approximate, and can be argued backwards and forth until the cows come home. For instance, Pak Ganja has given us 1519 as the end date of Majapahit, but some people will put it at 1525, and most other authorities will opt for an earlier date. There are multiple interpretations, and no certainty.

Similarly with names. Pak Ganja mentions the Kingdom of Medang. To the uninitiated this could easily be confused with Medang Kamulan. Medang is historic; Medang Kamulan is mythical.

The division of Airlangga's kingdom is something that seems to cause historians some problems.It may not have been quite as it is presented in the traditions. Some tellings of this would have the two kingdoms as Jenggala and Panjalu, with Kahuripan as the capital of Jenggala, and Kediri as the capital of Panjalu.

Still, all of my comments are only minor things. This is a keris discussion group, not an online examination in early Javanese history. The important thing is that these postings could awake the interest of readers in this subject.

For those who would like to pursue this further, there is an enormous amount of information available on the internet. Much of it is garbled, confused, and straightout incorrect, but if you ignore the details it can make very interesting reading.You could try starting with Wikipedia.

[ganjawulung]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

I feel that to reach any definite conclusions in respect of this "kres" word as related to the keris, we need to do this:- go back to the original inscription, examine that inscription, ensure that the translation of it, and then the romanisation of the translation are both beyond question; if after this we are still left with the word "kres", we need to consider the possibility of an alternative rendering of the word keris, generated by either original inaccuracy, or possibly style at that time and place. When a perceived fact disagrees with other established facts, the perceived fact must be investigated fully to either confirm it or attempt to explain its variation from the established facts.

Yes Alan,

I agree with you, that we must go back to the original inscription. I am very obvious to see what Dr Purwadi said in his book (2005), on the "oldest relief of (probably early) keris form" which depicted in a stone inscription which was found in Dakuwu village, Grabag, (Northern of) Magelang. It said, it was dated back to 500 AD. The text was written in Pallava, with Sanskrit language.

The inscription, according to Dr Purwadi, mentioned a very clear natural fountain. Above the prasasti (writings in inscription) it was depicted some forms of "tools" like: trisula spear, ax, dagger and a form of blade that ressemble the form of "sombro" like (of course empu Sombro lived in the very different era) keris. Sombro herself, lived in Pajajaran era -- probably in Jenggala and Kediri era. I am obvious to see this inscription, but not yet...

Ganjawulung

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes, I've seen mention of this relief, but only mention.

I don't know where the relief is located, or where it may be seen. Is it still in situ, or off in a store house somewhere?

Personally, I like to see the reliefs . Reports and photos can often be unreliable. There are a number of cases where dedicated keris fanatics have doctored photos of reliefs to make things appear more keris-like. We really need to see the relief itself, and examine it closely, under magnification if necessary, and to try to find supporting evidence for what we think we might be seeing. Old stone carvings can become altered in shape over time.

It would be very nice if we could find something reliable that predates Prambanan.

When we are looking for an early form of keris, we probably need to keep our minds open as to exactly what we can consider to be "keris-like". My personal feeling is that at least we need asymmetry.

Tell me, why do you think that Sombro lived in East Jawa?

I've always thought of her, her antecedents, and descendants, as from Pajajaran, with the descendants making a later move to East Jawa, at the time of the exodus of iron workers from Pajajaran to East Jawa.

[ganjawulung]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Tell me, why do you think that Sombro lived in East Jawa?

I've always thought of her, her antecedents, and descendants, as from Pajajaran, with the descendants making a later move to East Jawa, at the time of the exodus of iron workers from Pajajaran to East Jawa.

Multi-interpretable. Yes, Alan, that's really "javanese culture". Even if I say yes, this could means no. That's javanese. Even a real javanese still ask the person he speaks to, although the person has already say yes or no. Sometimes we heard in the daily life: "Nggih-nggih ora kepanggih". That means to say to somebody that has say "yes", but actually he or she say "no" by heart...

Like Aji Saka. Of course, he is not real Aji Saka. It could mean, "important pillar" in life, or another person that has characteristic as the written hope. Medang Kamulan means Early Medang -- it could be another old Medang, other than Medang of Empu Sindhok.

Pajajaran? Literally, it means "parallel thing" (noun). Could be interpreted as "two parallel kingdoms" (after Airlangga era) that means Kahuripan and Panjalu or Jenggala and Kediri (?). But not "Padjadjaran" in the west Java. That's another Pajajaran. That was probably Pajajaran of Kudi and Kujang era. Maybe in the "Kabudan" era (circa the end of Sanjaya or Syailendra era).

That's just my humble opinion, Alan. It is opened to be discuss...

Ganjawulung

[A. G. Maisey]

I see, we're playing Javanese word games, are we?

Pak Ganja, it is well known to anybody who has studied Javanese culture and society, or to anybody who has spent a reasonable length of time in Jawa, that the Javanese people are very fond of playing with words, and that no reliance at all can be placed upon anything they say, or any committments they undertake.

Certainly, as you mention, "yes" often means no; "no" can sometimes mean yes; agreement to do something can never be taken as agreement ; no reliance can ever be placed upon arrangements that have been put in place and confirmed; appointments may or may not be kept, and if they are kept, there could be a variation of a couple of hours either way as compared to the agreed time; answers to questions will frequently reflect what the informant believes the questioner wants to hear, rather than accuracy; questions in any case, should never be asked directly, but hinted at and approached indirectly; when an answer that is an approximate representation of fact is given, it will often be given in a way that permits several choices. And of course, the circumstances under which these most charming cultural mores are exercised almost invariably reflects heirarchical position and economic advantage.

The propensity of Javanese people to regard the words they use as their own personal property is well known to linguists.

The words used by a Javanese person mean no more, and no less, than he intends them to mean.

Of course, the problem with this is that although the user of the words may clearly understand their intent, the listener sometimes may not. This can facilitate ease of conversation between family and close friends, but for somebody outside the circle it creates an impossible situation.

The other well known feature of Javanese culture that you have drawn attention to is the habit of mixing historically supportable fact with myth.

This is not just something that is a part of folk culture, but it can sometimes be found in text books.There is probably not a great deal wrong with this, provided it is used only within the culture. After all, history itself is only a set of stories that everybody agrees upon. Probably no real harm in adding in a few myths and legends.

However, when that history moves to the world stage, we find that a somewhat different set of rules apply. Those miserable Europeans---and those of European descent--- want supportable fact, reason, logic, evidence. Damned inconvenient, and not at all comfortable!

Pak Ganja, I understand your culture, and I respect it. It is unique, and once we scratch past the superficial, has much to offer.
However, in this discussion group we are catering to a wide cross section of the international community. We are using the English Language, and the use of that language requires that we also use thought patterns that are able to be expressed using the medium of that language.
Regretably, Javanese word games do not easily translate in the English Language.

Take a parrallel example:- would it be reasonable if I posted my comments in the combination of Cockney rhyming slang and Australian patois that I use with many of my friends? Almost nobody who visits this forum would understand a word I said.

You are an educated man, and your English is excellent.

Could I request in the most humble and respectful fashion that you cease playing Javanese word games, and express yourself in a manner that may be comprehended by most of our readers?

What do I mean by this?

You tell us that "Pajajaran" can be interpreted as a "parrallel thing".
I understand the way you have arrived at this, and it is typical of Javanese word play.
"Jajaran" means "in rows".
Rows usually run in parrallel, so we can twist this to mean "parrallel".
"Jajaran" is a part of "Pajajaran", so we can repress the "pa" and we have "jajaran".
Two kingdoms , side by side, can be interpreted as "parrallel kingdoms".
Parrallel kingdoms are clearly "Pajajaran".

Standing in Kediri, and having a conversation in Indonesian or Javanese about the division of the kingdoms, this makes perfect sense, enlivens the conversation, and demonstrates the flexibility of your mind. Actually this play is possibly more understandable in Indonesian, than in Javanese, as "jajar" comes into Indonesian as "sejajar", which is in fact "parrallel"; in Javanese some mental gymnastics are required to generate the English Language idea of "parrallel".

Trying to express the same idea in English on an internet forum does not have quite the same effect.

There was only one Kingdom of Pajajaran, even though that kingdom did go through several moves, and it was located in Sunda, not East Jawa.

However, I have seen a tangguh of "Pajajaran III" given to a keris blade, and "Pajajaran III" was supposedly in East Jawa. This is a part of our tangguh system of belief, and not historically supportable.

Pak Ganja, it is most definitely not my place to try to advise you on how to present yourself, but were I in your position, I would give sober consideration to adopting a form of presentation that is slightly more comprehensible in international terms.

[ganjawulung]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

The other well known feature of Javanese culture that you have drawn attention to is the habit of mixing historically supportable fact with myth.

This is not just something that is a part of folk culture, but it can sometimes be found in text books.There is probably not a great deal wrong with this, provided it is used only within the culture. After all, history itself is only a set of stories that everybody agrees upon. Probably no real harm in adding in a few myths and legends.

Thank you, Alan for reminding me this "bad habit", about mixing history with myth. Fact with "dongeng" (story). Yes, even in text books you may find this "javanese habit". (So, no wonder about the side-meaning of "javanais" in some French sense as 'unlogical' or sometimes 'stupid').

Inscriptions, are factual evidence. But story like "Sombro" is indeed still "dongeng". Still have no factual evidence... Also the interpretation of Pajajaran. Kingdom of Pajajaran, then people will directly remember with Pajajaran in West Java. But "tangguh pajajaran" or maybe "tangguh pejajaran" -- is not factual but interpretation. It maybe translated not as tangguh from "Pajajaran Kingdom", but "tangguh pajajaran". Like "tangguh pengging". In story (not history), Pengging was not a name of any Javanese kingdom. It was only a small -- it was said in dongeng -- but important area before the Mataram (Islamic) period. Yes, this is what you mean by "word game". But sometimes, in speaking of Javanese keris, it seems quite impossible not to mention this kind of "mixing habit".

Oral traditions in the past Javanese culture, might be different with written tradition in noting evidence, events, in the western culture. But I found too, such habit when I was learning Latin language for six years intensively during my High School time.

Learning Latin -- or maybe Greek language too -- is different with learning English or French. In Latin, people must study folklore and legends too. For instance about the making of the city of Roma. All we had learned was legend, legend and legend. Or story on Gallia, which we interpreted as Early France. Also when I learned the poems (oratory) of Cicero book on Julius Caesar. We were ought to interprete, sometimes, on the meaning of the oratory on poems. Word games too. Very, very complicated for a non Latin native as me...

Were Latin Language everyday (one or two hours in schools everyday) I've learned unlogic? Not at all. Indeed, Latin language is very logic and obligatory to grasp the law and order of the complicated grammatical structure. Sometimes, even I have a "limited belief" that if you want to learn logica you must exercise with problem solving in Latin grammar....

French. Yes, it has the root on Latin structure. But I was ought to understand the different civilization. For me, learning language is also learning civilization. So I must know the civilization of the language too. I must learn to understand the habitude of the people who are native with the language.

Sorry for wandering a little bit. Of course, this is a waroeng...
Anyway, thank you Alan, for reminding me on this habit

Ganjawulung

[ganjawulung]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Yes, I've seen mention of this relief, but only mention.

I don't know where the relief is located, or where it may be seen. Is it still in situ, or off in a store house somewhere?

Dear Alan,

Maybe somewhere, in museum. But not in the National Museum in Jakarta. I've just visited the museum this afternoon. There are more than 20 prasasti there, mostly dated from 8th-10th century. Some from Mulawarman era (5th?). But not exist there, Dakuwu Inscription that were found in Grabag, Magelang. Someone in the Archeological dept of the Museum will try to search for me the existence of that interesting inscription...

Ganjawulung

[A. G. Maisey]

That sounds like a good start, Pak Ganja.