hilt material ?

[A. G. Maisey]

Guwaya

I can understand why you believe I ask for too much from somebody when I expect a serious keris researcher to be able to read and understand Indonesian at least, and perhaps also Javanese.

One does not need to be a chicken to know what an egg looks like.

However, the keris is a cultural icon, and if we wish to understand the keris within the context of its originating culture we need to be able to approach the keris with a mind-set that at the very least can understand the Javanese world view and the way a Javanese person sees and understands those things around him. I do not believe that anybody who is not born Javanese can become Javanese, and speaking for myself, I would not want to become Javanese, but I do believe that it is possible for a person from outside Javanese society to learn the way in which a Javanese person thinks, and the way in which that Javanese person sees the world.

I do not believe it is possible to achieve this level of understanding in the absence of an understanding of language.

This attitude of mine appears to be shared by many, if not most anthropologists who engage in serious field studies. Time and time again I will read of an anthropologist who has embarked on some project or other, and the first thing they do is to move in with some local family and learn the language.

Now, in the keris we have perhaps the ultimate cultural icon.

My position is this:-

any understanding of the keris that is able to be gained in the absence of an understanding of the relevant language(s) can only ever be a technical understanding, it can never be an understanding on a societal or cultural level.

For a researcher who lacks the language skills, a native speaker as translator and guide might perhaps be of assistance.

I believe that somebody told me that Achim Weihrauch is currently living in Bali. If this is so, it may be possible that at some time in the future he may feel the need to revise some of his writing.



David

I greatly regret being unable to read Achim Weihrauch's entire paper. It has been repeatedly mentioned as the most thorough examination of the keris produced to date, and I know that he received assistance from at least one highly respected German authority on the keris. However, all I have knowledge of from his paper are the few words that Gustav has provided, and the error in that would be obvious to many people, people who have no interest in or knowledge of keris, at all.
Currently, I feel a little disappointed.

Now you have raised the question of whether the short swords mentioned in the Chinese text were truly prototype keris, or whether they might have been some other type of short sword.

In spite of what S.Lumintu has written, amongst the many weapons depicted in the reliefs of Candi Borobudur there are no weapons depicted there that could, by even the most extreme stretch of the imagination, be considered as keris-like in the slightest degree.

However there are a very few representations of weapons which could be regarded as prototype keris to be found in the reliefs of Candi Prambanan.

Candi Borobudur is a Buddhist building, Candi Prambanan is a Hindu building.

The representations of possible prototype keris are found in reliefs on a building of Hindu origin.

Thus, the keris can be associated with Hindu culture in Jawa, but it is exceedingly difficult to associate it with Buddhist culture in Jawa.

Dharmavamsa was a Hindu ruler.

Dharmavamsa re-established relations with China, and in the early 11th century he moved the center of Javanese power to East Jawa from Central Jawa, he died in 1007. Dharmavamsa's son-in-law was Airlangga who established the kingdom of Kahuripan.

Yes, I know, this is a long way round to answer what seems to be a simple question, but bear with me.

I believe that it is possible that the "short swords" sent to China were prototype keris, however, this is a possibility only, based upon the fact that Dharmavamsa was a Hindu ruler, and the prototype keris was a Hindu weapon.

On the other hand, in the Prambanan reliefs there are many types of swords and short swords and daggers shown, amongst these many bladed weapons there are only a very, very few possibly prototype keris.If we can assume that the frequency of occurrence of weapon types in the Prambanan reliefs is representative of the frequency of occurrence of weapon types in Javanese society at that time, then, using a statistical assumption, it is unreasonable to assume that the "short swords" sent to China were in fact, prototype keris.

This statistical assumption is probably a reasonable one because it is generally accepted that the relief carvings of Borobudur and Prambanan do use representations of material objects to be found in Javanese society at the time of those carvings.

Here's the short answer:- no supportive evidence that the "short swords" were keris or prototype keris, and only a very small possibility that they were.

However, here is something further to consider:-

in later times we know that Javanese rulers, and not only Javanese rulers, but other quite ordinary Javanese people would gift a keris to somebody as a gesture of goodwill. Javanese rulers frequently gifted keris to other rulers and notables. When contact with Europe was established Javanese rulers gifted keris to the visiting Europeans and to European rulers.
We do not know how far back this custom started, but if it was current at the time of Dharmavamsa, then just maybe those were prototype keris that went to China.

Your other question relative to use of the word "proven". When I say "free translation", I mean that I have put the Indonesian into English, pretty much as a native speaker of English would phrase the same ideas; here is a word by word translation of the relevant section:-

Hal itu terbukti dari laporan musafir Cina = matter that proven from report traveller China;

terbukti = proven, but could also be translated and understood as "evidenced".

Yep, lots of speculation in there. Dangerous speculation that a lot of people who do not have adequate knowledge could easily accept as gospel truths --- and just maybe they are truly like unto gospel truths.

[A. G. Maisey]

I have received private correspondence that makes the point that a number of historians accept that the court of Mataram was moved to East Jawa by Sanjaya King Mpu Sindok in or around the year 930, thus Dharmavamsa was not located in Central Jawa when he sent tribute to China, but rather in East Jawa.

I am aware of this point of view, and there is evidence to support it, however there is also evidence to support the location of the court of Mataram as Central Jawa much later than the year 930.

In old Javanese history there are very few ultimate and inarguable facts. To me, the weight of evidence seems to point to Dharmavamsa being in Central Jawa when he sent tribute to China, however, to those who wish to believe otherwise I will accept that he may have been in East Jawa.

However, wherever Dharmavamsa was located, there is doubt that in 992 he was the ruler of Mataram, and it was he who sent tribute to China.

[guwaya]

"I can understand why you believe I ask for too much from somebody when I expect a serious keris researcher to be able to read and understand Indonesian at least, and perhaps also Javanese."


A. G. Maisey

I think I have to clear a misunderstanding here. I think your answer references to my sentence that you are hanging the ladder to high.

I choosed this words because I didn't want to compromise a person which is standing behind Achim Weihrauch and without his help Achim Weihrauch never would have been able to do his work, the person I think you are talking about in your answer to David.

In fact I agree completely with you that

"the keris is a cultural icon, and if we wish to understand the keris within the context of its originating culture we need to be able to approach the keris with a mind-set that at the very least can understand the Javanese world view and the way a Javanese person sees and understands those things around him."

In this context I also think that it is not

"possible to achieve this level of understanding in the absence of an understanding of language."

and you view that

"This attitude of mine appears to be shared by many, if not most anthropologists who engage in serious field studies. Time and time again I will read of an anthropologist who has embarked on some project or other, and the first thing they do is to move in with some local family and learn the language"

is absolutely true, more - it is a must in the cultural anthropology! Even if taking a native speaker as a translater this will be a problem and will not be enough for understanding the cultural background.

You are yourself expirienced in the javanese culture and so you might know how difficult it is to receive worthfull informations. Especially the javanase but you can transmit it to other indonesian ethnics try to be polite to foreigners and one of the behaviour of javanese people is that they if you come with a question they start thinking 'what kind of answer you might await' and if they think they know what you are awaiting they will give you an answer in this direction and this answer is of no worth for the serious researcher - not really. What I am talking about is related to a direct questionary system requestinig cultural aspects and background, a questionary system sociologist like to practise.

Under this point a research about a cultural system via a material cultural object is a good tool to receive generel or special cultural information which you otherwise might not have received or already with an interpretation beared in the head of the person you are asking to. If you ask via a material cultural object you will receive answers where the informant does not think that much first, he will talk, you let him talk and possibly will indirectly receive a lot of general informations abbout the cultural system. But herefore it is absolutely important that you can speak and understand the languge and as already postulated above, even a native translater would not be enough. It is hard to get true answers upon directly sensitve questions in Java or probably in Asia general.

"I believe that somebody told me that Achim Weihrauch is currently living in Bali. If this is so, it may be possible that at some time in the future he may feel the need to revise some of his writing."

This information is wrong - since his final work Achim Weihrauch has never been to Indonesia again. And if I take your statement

"any understanding of the keris that is able to be gained in the absence of an understanding of the relevant language(s) can only ever be a technical understanding, it can never be an understanding on a societal or cultural level"

then I must say that Achim Weihrauch is a great person in the practical, technical understanding of the keris. Not everybody is born to go into a native culture and live with the people. Therefore in former times there had been a so could 'fieldresearch pratica' at several universities - the aim was that students of cultural anthropology were "thrown into the field" to see if they are able to practise what they are learning at the writing desk.

Unfortunately in the present world studies like cultural anthropology are not featured well any more - not by the state. And the private companies as sponsors? - it will go to far here - everybody can imagine that they have interests.

I hope I could clear the misinterpretation of my words here and I also hope I was cautious enough not to compromise the at the beginning of this answer mentioned person to much.