"Malaysian kris/keris"

[A. G. Maisey]

"The Sundang is fairly well accepted as developing from some form of Indonesian keris."

This point has not been proven at all and is not even discussed in any literature on the keris. I don't think Cato even discussed it in his work on Moro swords."

Mr. de Luzon, your statement that the sundang is not proven to have developed from the Indonesian keris may be technically correct, but your statement does not reflect the consensus of opinion in this matter. As with many, if not most matters of a historic nature, absolute proof of origin of the weapon form that we now refer to as "keris" is probably impossible to present, however, a careful review of the available evidence of keris origin will demonstrate that the current consensus of opinion is very difficult to refute.

The weapon from which all keris have developed first appeared in Central Jawa during the Early Classical Period. All other types of keris developed from this first form, known today by scholars of the keris as the "Keris Buda".

The keris spread from Jawa through trade and gifting to other places throughout Maritime South East Asia. This spread probably began during the Majapahit era and continued during the Mataram era, indeed, by some measures, it could be considered to have continued up until the present day.

The sundang is a unique derivation of the original keris, this is certain, but it did come from the same root as all other keris.

Perhaps a little more generalised reading of the literature that deals with Javanese keris, and of the history of Jawa, most especially Javanese trade links, may be of value.

[Ian]

Alan and David:

Thank you for bringing your expertise and understanding of keris to the Ethnographic Forum. It is always good to refresh our understanding of the Moro kris and its origins. I think F. de Luzon is saying that he can find no clear evidence, to his satisfaction, that the Javanese keris begat the Moro kris. Like so much history of ethnographic weapons, this transition was not documented at the time and we are left to surmise the facts. Certainly, we can find older Moro kris that look more like Indonesian keris, and the keris clearly predated the kris, but that's about as far as the evidence takes us.

The back migration of the Moro kris to the "Malay sundang" is an interesting concept, and I'm struggling to think of another similar example in the area of edged weapons. The observation that Moro kris appear to have been imported into Malaysia for the manufacture of recent Malay sundang seems plausible, but I'm not sure to what purpose that would have occurred other than to market these for tourists and collectors.

Perhaps this topic has run its course for now.

Ian.

[F. de Luzon]

Originally Posted by David

Well, i never said "proven", i said "accepted". Frankly i don't need the scholarly writings of Europeans nearly a century ago to tell me what i can see and determine for myself through simple observation. Do you believe that the Moro Kris developed in a vacuum, yet for some reason carries the same form and iconography as it's cousin, the Indonesian keris, which developed centuries before it? Or perhaps you have seen examples of Moro kris which can be reasonably dated anywhere near the oldest know examples of Indonesian keris. If you have, i'd like to see them. Or maybe you have some photographs from a stele at an ancient Moro temple that can be dated to the 15th century (as can with the Candi Sukuh in Central Jawa showing Javanese keris) that shows depictions Moro style kris in use at the time, thereby dating their existence to somewhere near the same time when the Indonesian keris as we know to was developing.


Seriously? You posted the Winstedt article. I assume you've read it He clearly references Woolley, Wilkenson, van Ronkel, Banks, and others.


Language is a living entity. It does not only live for academic purposes. I am regularly in communication with a large group of keris enthusiasts from various parts of Indonesia and Malaysia. This is THEIR culture, not mine. It is not for me to critical their cultural "appropriation". If i want to communicate with them, which is, after all, the actual purpose of language, it is best for me to use terms they best understand. When i say "Malay Sundang" they immediately know exactly what i mean. It is not for me to "correct" them and i would only be risking alienating that community if i tried. Your mileage may vary.


No evidence seems to exist for either theory. Where in your scholarly works have you come across anyone saying that Malay Sundang blades that are not Moro were made by Indonesians living and working in Moroland that were then traded to Indonesians? Why is your "imagination" any more legitimate than mine. We are all just speculating here and to claim that you have the answers based upon solid and indisputable evidence provided to you through scholarly research is disingenuous at best.


Please don't misunderstand. I do not dismiss scholarship. I have read Winstedt, Woolley, Frey, Cato, Groneman, Tammens, van Duuren, Van Zonneveld, Gardner, etc., etc. However, as i am sure you know, great holes exist in these researches that may never be filled and i cannot think of any recognized author who has fully tackled and explained the origins of the Moro Kris or, for that matter, how the Malay Sundang developed. I am not attempting to prove a point here as give the current state of evidence i do not believe there is enough evidence to prove any points. We are left with logic, speculation and conjecture.

"Seriously? You posted the Winstedt article. I assume you've read it He clearly references Woolley, Wilkenson, van Ronkel, Banks, and others."

When you stated he was "re-hashing" other Europeans, I was of the impression you were referring to other writings that you have encountered aside from the authors he was not only "clearly" but obviously citing. He wasn't re-hashing, he was citing his sources.

"Please don't misunderstand. I do not dismiss scholarship."

I understand clearly. Please read your second sentence: "Frankly i don't need the scholarly writings of Europeans nearly a century ago to tell me what i can see and determine for myself through simple observation." You just did.

"I am not attempting to prove a point here as give the current state of evidence i do not believe there is enough evidence to prove any points. We are left with logic, speculation and conjecture"

Well, such will not prove anything. They will only raise questions.

[F. de Luzon]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

"The Sundang is fairly well accepted as developing from some form of Indonesian keris."

This point has not been proven at all and is not even discussed in any literature on the keris. I don't think Cato even discussed it in his work on Moro swords."

Mr. de Luzon, your statement that the sundang is not proven to have developed from the Indonesian keris may be technically correct, but your statement does not reflect the consensus of opinion in this matter. As with many, if not most matters of a historic nature, absolute proof of origin of the weapon form that we now refer to as "keris" is probably impossible to present, however, a careful review of the available evidence of keris origin will demonstrate that the current consensus of opinion is very difficult to refute.

The weapon from which all keris have developed first appeared in Central Jawa during the Early Classical Period. All other types of keris developed from this first form, known today by scholars of the keris as the "Keris Buda".

The keris spread from Jawa through trade and gifting to other places throughout Maritime South East Asia. This spread probably began during the Majapahit era and continued during the Mataram era, indeed, by some measures, it could be considered to have continued up until the present day.

The sundang is a unique derivation of the original keris, this is certain, but it did come from the same root as all other keris.

Perhaps a little more generalised reading of the literature that deals with Javanese keris, and of the history of Jawa, most especially Javanese trade links, may be of value.

Point well taken, Mr. Maisey. And I shall do that.

[F. de Luzon]

Originally Posted by Ian

Alan and David:

Thank you for bringing your expertise and understanding of keris to the Ethnographic Forum. It is always good to refresh our understanding of the Moro kris and its origins. I think F. de Luzon is saying that he can find no clear evidence, to his satisfaction, that the Javanese keris begat the Moro kris. Like so much history of ethnographic weapons, this transition was not documented at the time and we are left to surmise the facts. Certainly, we can find older Moro kris that look more like Indonesian keris, and the keris clearly predated the kris, but that's about as far as the evidence takes us.

The back migration of the Moro kris to the "Malay sundang" is an interesting concept, and I'm struggling to think of another similar example in the area of edged weapons. The observation that Moro kris appear to have been imported into Malaysia for the manufacture of recent Malay sundang seems plausible, but I'm not sure to what purpose that would have occurred other than to market these for tourists and collectors.

Perhaps this topic has run its course for now.

Ian.

I agree. My apologies for "hijacking" your thread. My intention was to deepen the discussion. Thank you.

[Ian]

F de Luzon, no problem. I think we have had a useful and lively discussion on this topic. Appreciate your thoughts.

Ian.

Originally Posted by F. de Luzon

I agree. My apologies for "hijacking" your thread. My intention was to deepen the discussion. Thank you.