The Keris of Majapahit

[A. G. Maisey]

In a previous thread Gustav mentioned that a keris under discussion made him think of Majapahit. I have been toying with the idea of trying to expand this comment into some form of discussion, but I have decided that in order not to hijack the previous thread it might be a good idea to start a new thread.

Just a little bit of background:- the Majapahit era (which many people abbreviate to "mojo") existed in East Jawa, near Surabaya, between about 1293 and about 1525. It was the last major Hindu-Buddhist kingdom of Jawa and following its collapse was replaced by Islam over most of Jawa. It is popularly regarded as the "Golden Age" of Jawa.

Over the past few months I've been discussing a question with a long-time friend, who although he is not an expert in the keris, does have a very solid understanding of the keris, and has collected them, along with other edged weapons for more than 40 years.

Much of our discussion would have been valuable to this Forum, but my friend is a bit of a Luddite, and does not have a taste for public, online discussions.

The question is this:-

"what did the keris of the Majapahit era really look like?"

This question must necessarily be a matter of opinion.
At the present time, there can be no wrong and no right, however, although we cannot really prove anything in this matter, we should be able to support our opinions with logic.

Does anybody here care to put forth an opinion in respect of the physical appearance of these very old keris, the keris of the Majapahit era?

[Gustav]

This surely also will be a longer discussion, and at the moment I am not well prepared to begin with such difficult subject. Yet I will be, next week.

At the moment I am able just to reply with another question.

My central problem when I see the Kerisses attributed to Majapahit is the discrepancy between the most often small and slender blades, looking "halus", and the obwiously massive and short blades in the few period depictions, or the two depictions I am aware of sheathed Keris, which are equally massive and short, which all obviously look "kasar". As do look the wearers, if we accept Bhima-Kertolo as "kasar".

Why there are no depictions of refined characters with refined, or lets say at least waved blades?

[Jean]

Alan,
Thank you for introducing this very fascinating subject!
I would summarize my opinion as follows and will develop it later:

1. First I would note that the Majapahit period extended over more than 2 centuries and it is likely that the krisses changed a lot during this "golden age" period, i.e that the krisses from the early period were very different from those from the late one.

2. I don't know what the krisses from the Majapahit period looked like as to my knowledge no specimen with proven provenance (royal regalia, museum pieces, etc) was ever identified with a good certainty, except maybe the kris from Knaud. All the krisses depicted on the East Java temples dating from this period are still of the early "leaf" type. The amulet or "sajen" krisses which are called Majapahit krisses by some authors have no proven link with the Majapahit period.

3. The supposed features of the krisses attributed to Majapahit are described in the Javanese tangguh classification basically as follows:
The pawakan/ pasikutan looks eerie and gives a deft impression, the iron is "melted" and looks dry, the pamor is strong and deeply buried into the blade, the shape of the blade is more slender toward the tip and it looks pointed, the waves are quite widely spaced, the gandik is slanted and rather short, the pejetan is boto adeg "brick standing-up", the front of the ganja and the sogokan are short and smooth. In brief, a very elaborate and fully modern kris!

4. After the collapse of Majapahit, the empus are said to have moved to Bali and West Java (Pajajaran) and continued to make krisses in the Majapahit style. From the end of 16th and during the 17th century, some high krisses were brought to Europe from Banten (West Java) and Cirebon. These krisses look similar to the strong balinese krisses which we know, but not at all to those attributed to tangguh Majapahit. It may therefore be interpreted that the krisses from the late Majapahit period were similar to the krisses brought from Banten to Europe during the late 16th and 17th centuries.
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks for your interest Gustav and Jean.

Gustav, you have identified a key point, possibly the key point that we must consider in this matter.

I understand that your further responses may be a little delayed, but when you are able, could you suggest a supportable reason for this variation?

Jean, yes, as Gustav has pointed out, there is wide variation in the form of keris that can be attributed to Mojo.

You comment that you don't know what a Majapahit keris looked like.
Jean, nobody does, and that is why I have raised this question. There are a lot of very strong indicators that point to the form of the Mojo keris, but perhaps first of all, we need to define what we mean by "keris of Majapahit".


As for Tangguh Majapahit, the indicators used to classify keris under this system vary. May I ask the source of the indicators you have provided?

May I also ask you the same question that I asked Gustav:- can you suggest a supportable reason for the wide variation in keris form?

You have pointed out that Mojo was a fairly long lived era, most especially so by Javanese standards, but apart from just the passing of time, do you have any other ideas?

[Jean]

Hello Alan,
The compound & summarized indicators which I mentioned for the blades attributed to tangguh Majapahit are mainly based on the Ensiklopedi Keris, and complemented by the book "Keris Jawa" by Haryoguritno, and the book "Pengetahuan tentang keris" by Koesni. There are some discrepancies between the 3 sources indeed but they are not really conflicting, but some indicators are mentioned in one or 2 sources only.
I have few ideas regarding the possible variation of the kris form during the Majapahit period but they are not very original nor supported so I will leave others develop them.
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Jean, there is variation in the indicators for tangguh, all these recent publications you mention have drawn on older publications such as "Panangguhing Dhuwung".

I don't use any of the published sources, either recent, or older, but rely on what I was taught by Mpu Suparman, during the 1970's he was the Penangguh for the Boworoso Tosan Aji in Surakarta, that is to say, his opinion in respect of tangguh carried greater weight than the opinions of others.

For Majapahit he named 14 indicators: tanting, besi, pamor, baja, pawakan, gonjo, gandhik, blumbangan, sogokan, ada-ada, kruwingan, eluk-lukan, wadidang, sekar kacang. His descriptions of the indicators he used are fairly detailed, for instance, for the sogokan:-

" well formed and handsome, A rounded bottom and no pamor in evidence. There are keris Mojopahit that have a rather long sogokan, but in these cases the Pajajaran pattern is being followed, normally the sogokan is short"

If your sources use the word "pawakan" to describe the character of the blade, this would be disallowed in Surakarta, in Surakarta the correct word to describe the feeling generated by a blade would be "wanda", with "pawakan" being used for the overall visual appearance. Mpu Suparman describes the wanda of Majapahit as "brave".

So we have lots of variation in not only the indicators for tangguh, but the way in which those indicators are understood.

In essence, the tangguh system of classification is an element of the keris belief system. My personal opinion is that it can be relied upon to a limited degree for fairly recent tangguhs, such as Surakarta and HB, maybe even as far back as Mataram Senopaten, but when we get into the really old tangguh classifications I regard it as pretty untrustworthy as an indicator of age. My teacher would have disagreed with me, but his world view was different to my own.

The tangguh system was developed as a reaction to colonial dominance of the Javanese kingdoms, and the restrictions that colonial power and traditional standards of the aristocracy imposed upon Javanese men of noble birth. It was never intended as a tool to establish the actual age of a keris.

So, for the purposes of this present discussion I feel that we should leave tangguh classifications off to one side.

Perhaps an approach that looks at the sources of information available to us might be more useful than a system devised to help store wealth.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

So, for the purposes of this present discussion I feel that we should leave tangguh classifications off to one side.

Perhaps an approach that looks at the sources of information available to us might be more useful than a system devised to help store wealth.

Yes, Alan, I fully agree that the tangguh classification should be disregarded for the purpose of our discussion but it needed to be mentioned.
And the best source of information known to me is your remarkable paper "An Interpretation of the Pre-Islamic Javanese Keris"...
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Jean, I agree that we needed to mention tangguh, I'm glad that we have mentioned it and that we can shelve it.

Thank you for your comment on "Interpretation", but what was published was a greatly compressed version, and it does not address the keris across the entire spectrum of early Javanese society.

Then there is the Keris Sajen.

For a very long time these were called "Keris Majapahit" in the Western Community. Sure, they've always been "sajen" in Jawa but in the past even noted Javanologists were telling the world that they had identified the ancestor of the Modern Keris.

Can we be quite certain that the Keris Sajen is not the style that preceded the Modern Keris?

[rasdan]

G'day Alan,

This is a very interesting topic. Your question is "what did the keris of the Majapahit era really look like?" ? This is what I understand from our previous discussions on this topic. What ever flaw I have is due to my own limitation in understanding the explanations that had been given.

I don't think we would ever know for sure. Many people would quote tangguh system characteristics for Mojo, but since that it is generally known that tangguh system does not really represent the actual manufacture era (like you mentioned before), what we currently know may not be accurate at all.

This raises a question that I had been thinking, how does that tangguh sytem being developed? I would imagine it is being done by Kraton people using keris in the keraton, made by kraton empu according to kraton specifications. If this is true then the accuracy of the system is only as accurate as the reference used in the kraton at that time. Meaning that recent keris will have a higher accuracy and older keris have lower accuracy or probably not accurate at all. (also like you had mentioned before).

So, I think in order to even attempt to answer the question by using tangguh system as a guide (since there is probably no other guide that I know of), we must first at least know how the system is developed and how accurate it is, then learn the system and then answer the question. Which I don't know and I am sure would take many years to study.

So, how does the keris of the Majapahit tangguh look like? I think I may have a vague idea on one of the possibilities of the shape (Not material or tanting) of Mojo keris according to tangguh system, for a luk 9 keris with ganja wilut - from our previous discussions. I attached the picture below and I hope I didn't get too far from what can be accepted.

I am sorry I had forgotten where I get this photo from to give credits. Also sorry if my writing is rather incoherent.

[A. G. Maisey]

Rasdan, I would prefer not to comment on this keris, I don't want to get bogged down in a tangguh discussion.

Please accept my apologies.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

For a very long time these were called "Keris Majapahit" in the Western Community. Sure, they've always been "sajen" in Jawa but in the past even noted Javanologists were telling the world that they had identified the ancestor of the Modern Keris.

Can we be quite certain that the Keris Sajen is not the style that preceded the Modern Keris?

Hello Alan,
The top reference book regarding the krisses sajen is "Iron Ancestors" by Theo Alkema & partners. it is very documented and the pictures & drawings are excellent.
He addresses the question of the origin of the kris sajen as follows:

. He believes that the kris sajen does not belong to the "mainstream" kris category (page 17) but was developped separately and inspired by the bronze Dongson daggers (page 34), and that the kris sajen is older than the kris Buda which he considers as the forerunner of the modern kris (page 210).
. He makes a distinction betwen the early krisses sajen (small pieces) and the larger ones with more elaborate features (carved hilt, dapur, pamor, luks, etc.) which he believes was developped during the Majapahit period (page 106).

However there is no back-up evidence of his theory and none of the pieces presented seem to have a proven provenance except one belonging to the family of Sultan Iskandar Muda (17th century).

What do you think?
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

The idea of linking the Dongson dagger to the keris sajen has been around for a very long time. However, I tend to believe that there is no direct link between the two, most certainly no link that can be supported by either evidence or by logical argument. Indeed, Theo Alkema himself does not present the Dongson/Sajen link as a theory, but rather as a hypothesis or a suggestion.

The Dongson culture existed in Northern Vietnam between about 1000BCE and about 40CE. During the last couple of hundred years of its existence it came under increasing Chinese domination by the Han and eventually was absorbed into the territories under Han control.

The people of Dongson seem to have been sea farers who traded throughout SE Asia. Artifacts which could be of Dongson origin have been found in a number of places in the Indonesian Archipelago, notable are the bronze kettle drums. I am not aware of any Dongson daggers that have been found in the Indonesian Archipelago, let alone in Jawa itself.

There is a demonstrable link between the Keris Buda and the Modern Keris. This link relies not only upon physical similarities, but most importantly upon social function.

The lapse of time between the period in Dongson influence in SE Asia, and the first appearance in Javanese monumental works of keris-like objects is more or less 1000 years. Clearly far too long a period of time for there to be any link between the Dongson dagger and the keris of Majapahit, around 1500 years later.

There is no similarity in form between a Dongson dagger and the keris sajen. Quite clearly, the Dongson dagger is in no way keris-like. True, it has a figure as a hilt, as do many other weapons, but this does not make it a keris.

The above is a brief summary of some of the arguments that can be made against the Dongson Dagger as an ancestor of the Modern Keris, rather, sociological indications are that the Keris Sajen followed the Modern Keris.

Theo Alkema and I do agree on one thing:- whether the Dongson Dagger is, or is not an ancestor of the Modern Keris can only be presented as a hypothesis, in other words nothing is presented that can be proven, whatever stance one takes in this matter, it can only be disproven.

My opinion is that "Keris Majapahit" as a name for "Keris Sajen" is a misnomer. The keris sajen possibly may have existed during the Majapahit era, but it most certainly was not a prominent keris form of that time.

My opinion is that the so-called "Keris Majapahit" was not the keris form that preceded the Modern Keris.

I would hope that we may also place the "Keris Majapahit" on the shelf alongside the tangguh belief system as tools that we can use to help identify the physical form of the Keris of Majapahit.

[rasdan]

G'day Alan,

No worries about that. If we scrap tangguh, then we are probably left with historical records on how Mojo keris looks like. Unfortunately I haven't studied into that area yet.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

My opinion is that "Keris Majapahit" as a name for "Keris Sajen" is a misnomer. The keris sajen possibly may have existed during the Majapahit era, but it most certainly was not a prominent keris form of that time.

My opinion is that the so-called "Keris Majapahit" was not the keris form that preceded the Modern Keris.

I would hope that we may also place the "Keris Majapahit" on the shelf alongside the tangguh belief system as tools that we can use to help identify the physical form of the Keris of Majapahit.

Hello Alan,
I agree with your opinion, and would just like to suggest that the elaborate sajen krisses attributed to the Majapahit period by Theo Alkema in Chapter 7 of his book look like normal modern krisses but with an integral hilt, may be a style or regional variation?
And now that we have placed on the shelf the "tangguh Majapahit" and the "Keris Majapahit", what is left? I hope that Gustav or others will come with new ideas!
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Theo's chapter 7 keris are certainly not particularly old keris. In fact, for at least 100 years these larger keris in the form of a keris sajen have been produced specifically for collectors, some of the really recent ones professionally aged, can be a real trap for young players. There are probably a few truly old ones around, but I very much doubt that even these can be attributed to the Majapahit era.

Jean, you ask '---what is left?---' .

We have a plethora of art works.

We have a good quantity of monumental works.

We have a multitude of literary sources that deal with history, culture and society.

One thing is certain:- we can learn only a very limited amount from sources that deal specifically with keris. We must recognise the Javanese keris for what it is:- a cultural icon.

Quote:-

If you keep doing what you have always done, you will keep getting what you always got.

I'm sure somebody famous gave us this quote, but I don't know who. However, it is particularly relevant to the study of the keris. We keep on reading keris books because we want to learn about the keris, but we invariably only get rehashes of the same information, much of it drawn from the same limited sources.

If we want to learn about the keris we must look in a direction other than the books about keris.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

If we want to learn about the keris we must look in a direction other than the books about keris.

Hello Alan,
I was away for few days and I am surprised to find that nobody commented on this topic, which shows how difficult it is.
I agree with your statement but would comment as follows:
With so many Indonesian experts (may be stuck with their traditions) and brilliant Western scholars studying the Javanese & balinese cultures in detail for centuries, the mystery of the kris from Majapahit has not been resolved. Do you expect that there are any major remaining written sources or archeological pieces which would allow to progress on this subject?
For most Indonesian kris experts & collectors, the kris from Majapahit equals the kris from tangguh Majapahit, while for Westerners the kris from Majapahit may have looked like this one?
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Jean, this matter of keris history and development is not only difficult, I tend to believe that it is something that is not of much interest to most collectors.

You are correct in that a very large number of academics have studied Javanese & Balinese culture and society for a very long time, however, it appears to me that when these scholars do address the keris, it is addressed in terms that apply to present day attitudes, they seem never to attempt to investigate origins, development, history of the keris. So yes, we are left with a lot of unanswered questions.

I have firmly believed for a long time that the only way we can get close to some sort of understanding of the development of the Javanese/Balinese keris is to look very closely at the history and society of the developmental era. I believe that we can be fairly confident in fixing this developmental era to the period prior to the cessation of major migration to Bali from Jawa (+/- 1512), and after the foundation of the Kingdom of Majapahit (+/- 1293).

Within this period of time art works and monumental works were produced on a fairly prolific scale. Often we find depictions of weapons that contain sufficient identifiable characteristics to place them as keris, or what we now recognise as keris. However, this production of art was not consistent throughout the entire period.

Can we find any depictions, anywhere within this vast body of work, of weapons that look anything like the large, artistic keris that you have posted a picture of in post # 16? In fact, I cannot recall finding a weapon with a waved blade in the art works of this period.

Why?

So. now I would like to pose this question:-

was the keris of Majapahit a single form of keris, one that we would now identify as a Modern Keris?

Ma Huan gives us arguably our best summarised picture of Jawa circa 1400, it is found in the Ying Yai Sheng Lan:-

http://faculty.washington.edu/qing/h...lan%5B1%5D.pdf

I suggest a reading of the Java segment of this document, for those who are not already familiar with it. Java is "Chao-Wa"

[rasdan]

Just a speculation, there's no mention of wavy blades because Ma Huan only looked at a commoner's keris which is straight; reflecting the owner's status? Or the wavy ones are only for Kshatriyas not for other varnas?

[A. G. Maisey]

Looks like you're tuned in the time and place Rasdan.

Care to develop your thoughts a little?

[Jean]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

So. now I would like to pose this question:-

was the keris of Majapahit a single form of keris, one that we would now identify as a Modern Keris?

Ma Huan gives us arguably our best summarised picture of Jawa circa 1400, it is found in the Ying Yai Sheng Lan:-

http://faculty.washington.edu/qing/h...lan%5B1%5D.pdf

I suggest a reading of the Java segment of this document, for those who are not already familiar with it. Java is "Chao-Wa"

Hello Alan,
Thank you for giving us access to this very interesting and often referred paper from Ma Huan.
However it seems that he only visited the Majapahit ports (Tuban, Gresik and Surabaya) but was not in contact with the Hindu Majapahit court, and the Kings whom he refers to were probably just the local Governors. The small knives which he describes (pu-la-t'ou or beladau?) worn even by the kids may not be krisses at all, like the Acehnese used to wear the rencong besides the kris? I agree with Rasdan that the big wavy krisses may just have been worn by high ranking people and not commoners, and were possibly introduced after Ma Huan's visit?
The description of the indigenous Hindu people by Ma Huan is particularly negative and not in accordance with the high Majapahit civilization!
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Just so Jean.

If we wish to find an answer to a question, we first need to produce a question that may assist in the production of an answer. Often it is more difficult to construct the question than it is to construct the answer.

Here below are a few questions that may assist in helping us to construct an answer to the question posed in post #1 of this thread.

1) Were the daggers carried by the common people keris, as we understand a keris to be?

2) Was the level of culture and society amongst the bulk of the populace of a level that refined weapons of any type might be supposed to be common?

3) Is it possible that the keris as we know it was only present amongst those entitled to weaponry within the kraton hierarchy?

4) Is it at all likely that the keris carried by members of kraton society would ever be seen by anybody except those who were close to these people?

5) . What form of keris is shown in monumental works of the Majapahit era, and in art works of the Majapahit era ?

6) Upon what examples of keris did the artists draw?

7) The Majapahit era lasted for over 200 years, it did not exist after about
1525.
The peak of migration from Jawa to Bali was in about 1512.
Majapahit was at its peak from about 1330 to 1389 --- the reign of
Hayam Wuruk.
Gajah Mada exercised effective control of Majapahit from about 1329
until 1364.
The decline of Majapahit commenced following the death of Hayam Wuruk.
In the period following the collapse of Majapahit, Jawa was in turmoil.
The form of the Modern Keris was fully developed by 1600.

8) During what period of time were social conditions conducive to the
incorporation of socio/religious iconography into the keris?

[rasdan]

Well, I don’t have much apart from what I read here previously Alan. What I know is that Majapahit is a hierarchical society. So status is probably reflected in objects they carried daily.

In your Pre-Islamic Interpretation paper, you mentioned that the number of tiers in Balinese temples reflects the level of the deity worshipped in the temple. More tiers showing the higher level of the diety. The number of tier happens to corresponds to the number of luks on a keris where 11 luk is the highest level if we count the luk in the smith’s way of making the luk. I think this is highly possible and I would imagine that the mantra for every luk is different. In this case, a commoner probably was only allowed to carry a straight blade. If the blades observed by Ma huan have luks, he would certainly mention it because it is a very important feature for a keris.

In Ma Huan’s journal he used the word pu-la’tao for keris. If I’m not mistaken, in Negarakertagama a different word was used for what is probably a keris. But it is not keris, dhuwung or curiga. (I am not too sure about this as I didn’t really study it throughly) Negarakertagama was written somewhere in the 1360 not too far from Ma Huan’s record in early 1400s. So, I am guessing they are using different name for different level of keris. A commoner keris is a pu-la’tao and at keris of nobles or priests are called with a different name – if what they carry is indeed a keris.

[Gustav]

Originally Posted by rasdan

If the blades observed by Ma huan have luks, he would certainly mention it because it is a very important feature for a keris.

I agree.

Originally Posted by rasdan

In Ma Huan’s journal he used the word pu-la’tao for keris. If I’m not mistaken, in Negarakertagama a different word was used for what is probably a keris. But it is not keris, dhuwung or curiga. (I am not too sure about this as I didn’t really study it throughly) Negarakertagama was written somewhere in the 1360 not too far from Ma Huan’s record in early 1400s. So, I am guessing they are using different name for different level of keris. A commoner keris is a pu-la’tao and at keris of nobles or priests are called with a different name – if what they carry is indeed a keris.

Interesting idea, yet here we have a problem or a bunch of problems: Ma Huan introduces pu-la’tao describing kings appearance, not commoners, and speaks of "one or two short knives", which the king wears.

Of course we could argue, Ma Huan never made it behind the "double gates, very well kept and clean". If he wasn't acquainted with the high society of Majapahit, he also wouldn't know the term for the "knife" used in highest language level. He absolutely doesn't mention the varna, yet on other hand describes the hilts of pu-la’tao as made from "gold or rhinoceros’ horn or elephants’ teeth". As we know, gold and ivory was later in Bali reserved for the upper varna.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks for your further comment Rasjid.

Yes, the number of tiers in the roof of a meru indicates the hierarchical level of the deity, however, this only applies when the meru is located in a temple complex. When the tiered roof is located on a cremation tower, the number of tiers indicates the hierarchical level of the person being cremated.

Rulers and some other royalty could use 11 roofs in a cremation tower.

A commoner (sudra) was not entitled to any roofs in his cremation tower.

This hierarchical indicator was repeated in the luk of a keris blade.

In Old Javanese, the word or words that were applied to what we now know as a keris included "tewek" and "tuhuk", however, these words probably indicated a method of usage.Tewek occurs associated with weapons other than keris, tuhuk seems to occur only with the keris, or perhaps not with the keris, but rather with a stabbing weapon that is short enough to use overhand.

Other Old Javanese words that can be used for the keris are "duhung" & "kadgo". Tewek is a root word that produces a number of other words. "Curiga" is another word that can be used for a keris, and it has a connotation of something less than sharp --- just as in its other application of "doubt" :- doubt is not a sharp perception, it is still formatively dull.

The short and simple fact is this:- we do not really know what a keris was known as in Majapahit times, just as we do not really know what it looked like. However, Rasdan's suggestion that different hierarchical levels within the society carried different forms of personal weapons, and that these different forms had different names is very probably an accurate perception.

Gustav: there has been spasmodic debate for a long time as to the meaning of Ma Huan's "pu-la’tao", I think most scholars who have looked at this matter are in agreement that he was using a word that he had learnt in another place to describe the daggers worn in Jawa. Ma Huan visited Jawa in about 1413, but he did not begin the write drafts of his book until three years later, and it was not in its final form until some time after 1450. My guess is that he did not know what these daggers worn in Jawa were known as locally, or, if he had heard the word, it got lost between 1413 and 1450-something.

Old Javanese was not structured in the same way as Modern Javanese. Modern Javanese seems to have developed in the Second Kingdom of Mataram. It has been hypothesised that the rulers of Mataram enforced language levels as one of the ways in which they tried to legitimise their right to rule. The Old Javanese rulers did not have the same problems as did the rulers of Mataram, and Old Javanese was not nearly as highly structured as Modern Javanese. There probably were polite and impolite forms of speech, and possibly these forms did extend to the names used for the weapons of commoners and the weapons of nobility, but the name used could just as easily been because of form of the weapon, as because of status of the weapon.

On the use of the word "varna".
"Varna" is a word that is applied to all beings in creation , not only to human beings, and it classifies all those beings into four classes that broadly equate with caste as we now understand caste, but varna is not the same as "caste".

"Jati" is the same as "caste" as we now understand it.

However, caste in mainstream Hindu society was much different prior to the Muslim Mughals, and even they did not have as great an effect as did the British, who used caste to ease administrative difficulties.

I would suggest that since we are writing in English, that perhaps it may be advisable to use the English word caste, rather than "varna", or "jati", as we all know exactly what is meant by "caste".

[rasdan]

Hi Gustav, I think Ma Huan did know the higher society, he just didn't get to inspect higher ranking keris. Probably he sees lower officials keris. People at his level; people that he can be easily approach and ask to see their keris.

In the code of Melaka (probably around 1450s) it is stated that keris with gold hilts were prohibited to be used by lower ranking people unless it is a gift from the king. I don't know how the people at that time divide the ranking, but a later document shows that the ranking used in a Malay kingdom is quite complicated and probably derived from the caste system.

Apart from the clear cut kshatriya, vaisya, sudra etc they also have people in middle ranks. When a kshatriya married a vaisya, sudra etc. If i remembered correctly one of the middle ranks are called magadha (Megat in Malay) and there are other lower middle ranks also. If the Malay ranking system are derived from the caste system, I think that Majapahit also would have something similar. So perhaps Ma Huan meets these people? Again, if it is indeed a keris. Or probably he just sees a badik..

But come to think about it, this would confine the usage of luk keris to a very small group that is also can be argued.

On ivory, I am not aware of any prohibitions of using ivory for lower ranks/commoner whether in Majapahit or Melaka.

p/s: just saw Alan's comment on varna. Changed it to caste.

[rasdan]

G'day Alan,

Thank you for your explanation Alan. Just one question, do you know when does the word keris actually started to be used?

Guys,

This is rather silly, but I just thought that if Ma Huan really inspects a keris to a point that he sees the pamor, even if it is a straight one, wouldn't he be mentioning that the blade is asymmetrical and it has ganja? Apart from the luk, asymmetry and ganja also is features of a keris that cannot be ignored.

[A. G. Maisey]

Rasdan, I don't think we can know with any certainty when the word "keris" first was used, but it does appear in Old Javanese, along with other derivatives of "iris":- aniris, iniris, kahiris, mengiris; and we can go this route too:- akris, aniris, kinris, aneris. Seems to me that "keris", or "kris" was a very old word:- something that cuts.

Re Ma Huan's observation of a pu-la’tao, yes, just mention of the result of blade made of irons of varying characteristics is not really sufficient to brand a pu-la’tao as a keris, this is the reason why there has been debate over a lengthy period as to whether he really did see a keris as we know it, or whether he saw a personal dagger of a different kind, however, what he saw may well have been known as a keris at that time. We simply do not and cannot know.


Rasdan, I feel that it is entirely possible that within Majapahit Keraton society, only the ksatriyas would have had the right to carry keris. Others of lower rank may have been permitted to carry formalised tools, for instance wedung, but unless a lower ranked official was a ksatriya I feel it is unlikely that this official would have had a keris.

We must also not lose sight of the fact that any person within keraton society would not, and will not whip out his keris to let another unknown person inspect it. The keris amongst the higher ranks at this time, and even until today, had and has the status of a holy and respected object, it is not for casual inspection.

Personally, I do not believe that Ma Huan would have had the opportunity to see a noble keris, not even from a distance. The hilt, certainly, but the keris itself, no.

The possession of keris with luk was of course confined to a very small number of people prior to the use of the keris, along with other Javanese icons, to assist in the spread of Islam.

[Gustav]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

We must also not lose sight of the fact that any person within keraton society would not, and will not whip out his keris to let another unknown person inspect it. The keris amongst the higher ranks at this time, and even until today, had and has the status of a holy and respected object, it is not for casual inspection.

This is why I think, the role of Keris Luk as a status indicator for somebody other then oneself would be difficult or nearly impossible. It would never be meant do draw outside of Keraton, and I believe, there would be very severe restrictions about drawing it within Keraton, where the most people anyway should be aware of other peoples rank.

This is why the hilt form and/or material makes a better status indicator, like in Bali.

Alan, one question regarding Keris Luk (in general the theory seems to be very plausible to me): there are some very old Keris with Luk only at the base of blade and the tip. Do you have an explanation for these forms?

[A. G. Maisey]

Gustav, I don't really want to repeat everything that I have written in "Interpretation", I began this thread not to parade my own ideas, but rather to hear the ideas and opinions of others. May I gently suggest that you re-read my rationale in respect of luk as related to hierarchical status? Incidentally, this was not something that came to me as revelation out of a clear blue sky, it was given to me by a Balinese Brahman around 30-odd years ago, however, I must admit I did not understand sufficient at the time to fully comprehend what was told to me, it took a while for my informant's words to become clear to me.

Yes, a keris hilt can also indicate status, as can any number of other dress indicators, body language indicators, or language indicators, but there is nothing like the constant presence of one's personal shrine to remind a man who he is and what his position is. The necessity was to control the man who wore the keris, not to indicate that man's status to others. By inclusion of religious iconography the keris became a personal shrine.

No Gustav, I have no comment at all to make at this time on the further development of the keris that followed the initial introduction of religious icons into its character.

[A. G. Maisey]

Picking up on Rasdan's mention of ranking systems in Malay societies, perhaps the following may be useful in providing some small understanding of the difficulties involved once one becomes involved in trying to understand the ways in which hierarchy functions in Balinese and Javanese society.
This was lifted from the writings of Ni Wayan Murni and Jonathon Copeland, who authored an extremely informative little book:- "Secrets of Bali: Fresh Light on the Morning of the World". For those who would like to gain a better understanding of the inside of Balinese society this book is probably essential reading

Balinese caste system

It seems likely that caste came to Bali with the Hindu-Javanese invasions. It was not a wholesale adoption of the Indian caste system.
The three upper castes, the Brahmans, Satrias and Wesias are called the triwangsa, which means "three peoples". Legend had it that the three upper classes came from God and had divine superiority - a story, of course, not disputed by the gentry themselves. The rest, the 90 per cent. of the population, are called Sudras.
All castes in Bali are further stratified, for example, there are five Brahman strata, all of equal importance. All Brahmans are said to be descended from Nirartha, the Javanese priest who came with the Majapahits and influenced Balinese Hinduism. For more on Nirartha, see the article entitled Balinese History - Pre-history to the Europeans. Everyone knows his stratum.
The gentry are also referred to as wong jero, which means insiders and the Sudras are referred to as wong jaba or outsiders, because the Sudras lived outside the palace or puri. The others lived in or near the puri.
There are no Untouchables in Bali and intermarriage is allowed (unlike India). There always was a certain amount of mobility. The king of Klungkung changed from being a Brahman to a Satria when he became ruler. Brahmans are debarred from ruling in Bali (unlike India). Deserving subjects could be raised by the ruler and call themselves Gusti. The Dutch made the caste system rigid.
Mixed marriages, however, still result in a change of status. The rules concerning mixed marriages are complex. A high caste man may marry a lower caste wife, although if this continues for three generations, the high caste may be lost. The children automatically receive their father's status. His wife remains a Sudra, but enjoys a higher position and changes her name and receives the title Jero. A high caste wife, however, should not marry a lower caste man.
The Dutch forbade discrimination on account of caste. This was adopted by the Republic of Indonesia, which holds that everyone is equal. Nevertheless, caste still exists and is respected by many people. It manifests itself by politeness and good manners, which are important to the Balinese. So, a waiter or a bellboy, who is a Brahman, would normally be spoken to in High Balinese as a mark of respect for his caste.
When a Sudra meets a nobleman, he bows his head. Pavilions in palaces and houses are tiered to allow people to sit in accordance with their status. High castes sit high. A round about way to ascertain a person's caste is to ask where they sit. At meals, the highest-ranking person eats first. No one leaves until he declares the meal over.
When Balinese meet they speak in Middle Balinese. As soon as it becomes apparent that a person is a Brahman, he will be spoken to in High Balinese, no matter what his job may be, and a lower posture will be adopted.
In India caste is an outcome of one's own actions in previous incarnations. In Bali, however, one's title indicates how far one's family has sunk from its divine origin or to be more precise how far one's paternal line has sunk.
Clans
There is another classification. People are divided into clans or Warga, which is a separate category from caste. There are about 22 clans and they have each enjoyed a golden age in ancient Bali. They all claim to be direct descendants of influential religious or political figures, for example, the Bujangga Waisnawa clan claim descent from Rsi Markandya. Some cut across caste boundaries. The biggest and most important is the Pasek clan, to which about 60 per cent. of the population belongs. Within the Sudras, the title groups of Pandes, Paseks, Bandesas and others, are attributed higher status than ordinary commoners.
Paseks
The Pasek clan has many responsibilities, the most important of which is to maintain four very sacred and important temples in Besakih, Gelgel, Padang Bai and Amlapura. The Paseks trace their origins to a Brahman Sage called Empu Geni Jaya, who was one of four Brahmans invited to come from Java to deal with disputes caused by the Bali Aga, the native people of Bali. His seven children, all Empu or Sages, are the founders of the Paseks.
Pandes
Another well-known and respected clan is the Pandes, a clan, who started as smiths and specialised in forging metals and krises. The kris originated in Indonesia. It is a long asymmetrical dagger with distinctive blade patterns, achieved through alternating laminations of iron and pamor (nickelous iron). It is in two parts, the blade, the wilah, and the scabbard, the warangka. Scabbards may be decorated with gold and jewels, but the real value is in the blade. The blades and scabbards may be made by different artists. Unlike the other arts, there is no Indian influence.
The Pandes are a hereditary clan, as are the Paseks. The Pandes consider themselves set apart from the caste system. They command respect because of the importance of their job. In the old days, even Brahmans spoke to those working as smiths in High Balinese. They are also permitted to have 11 tiers on their cremation towers, an honour only permitted to persons of very high caste. They also have their own priests and consecrate their own holy water.