H4ow to count Luk???

[ariel]

In a recent thread the owner had a doubt how many luk his keris had. Alan then mentioned the "old" and the "current" versions of counting luk ( the current one adds 2 to the old one).

I always thought that the correct ( being the novice in the field, the only one I know) way of counting luk is:
-Count first concavity on the janggut side
- Start zig-zagging from side to side and count each concavity
- Occasionally, the last one , i.e. at the very tip, might be of uncertain origin, in which case one might mistakenly count even number of luk.

Am I correct?
Thanks in advance for the lesson.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Ariel, you are absolutely correct.

However the way in which we count luk is in my opinion a learnt convention, one that can be attributed to the collapse of Hindu - Javanese society, and the rise of Islam in Jawa.

You can read my thoughts on this here:-

http://www.kerisattosanaji.com/INTERPRETATIONPAGE5.html

this link will take you directly to my thoughts on luk, however, reading the previous pages will assist in your understanding of where I'm coming from.

I would venture to say that at the present time I am probably the only person in the world who holds this opinion in respect of the luk count.

[ariel]

Vanna Ghirighelli mentions in her book that she has two 12-luk and one 10-luk kerises. She further states that the number 12 is the indonesian ideal of harmony.
True?

[David]

Ariel, i have certainly heard the idea of 12 being a significant number in Javanese Mysticism and that one can find the occasional rare 12 luk keris, but i can't say that i ever saw one that couldn't be interpreted as either actually 13 or perhaps a 13 luk keris that has been worn down sufficiently over time and now only appears to be 12. This is not to say that a 12 luk keris does not exist, but when you ask if this is "true" i think you enter into a fluid territory. If you read Alan's treatise on the subject you will note his hypothesis that the number of luk are based upon certain Hindu principles that were part of the Javanese culture at the time of the origin of the keris. At some point since the advent of Islam Java this system/method of counting underwent a change. So, do we count Ms. Ghirighelli's 12 luk keris as 12 or 10? Does it matter if the keris being counted originated in a Hundu or Islamic Jawa? Is it more likely that a keris breaks from the long tradition embraced in both the Hindu and Islamic influenced Javanese cultures of odd numbered luk or that the blade simply worn down over time to appear as an even number? I think what is "true" in this case might depend upon what belief system you choose to embrace.

[A. G. Maisey]

Ariel, I have often heard of keris with an even number of luk, but whenever I've actually seen these even luk keris they have invariably appeared to me to be as David has suggested:- older keris that have been altered, perhaps because of damage.

In no keris tradition of which I know, is the existence of a keris with an even number of luk a valid occurrence.

I have yet to hear any acknowledged ahli keris in Jawa accept the existence of an even numbered keris, however, I have quite frequently heard of keris with an even number of luk from salesmen and those who dwell on the fringe of the World of the Keris.

My personal opinion is that the keris with an even number of luk was never created as an original and valid production. However, as with many things associated with the keris, all are entitled to their own opinions.

[Battara]

I have always read that a lucky and good keris should have an odd number of luks. To my understanding this applies to Indonesian keris and Moro kris both.

[Jean]

IMO (which may be argued) these two blades can be interpreted as having an even number of luks (respectively 6 and 12 luks) according to the modern counting method. However they have an odd number of luks (respectively 5 and 11 luks) according to the Hindu method. This is the case everytime the last luk points to the back of the blade (wadidang) and not to the front (ganja). The first blade shown has been worn-out with age but the second one is a recently made piece.
Regards

[Sajen]

Hello Jean,

I count by the old blade 7 luk and by the recent one 13 luk.

Regards,

Detlef

[Jean]

Hello Detlef,
If you start counting the luks from the first concave one above the gandik I wonder how you can find 7 luks on the first blade? However for the other one I admit that the 13th luk can be interpreted although it is not clearly visible.
Regards

[David]

Originally Posted by Jean

Hello Detlef,
If you start counting the luks from the first concave one above the gandik I wonder how you can find 7 luks on the first blade? However for the other one I admit that the 13th luk can be interpreted although it is not clearly visible.
Regards

I agree Jean. By the "contemporary" method of counting i would interpret the new keris as 13. It is true that it does not make a full swing to the front of the blade at the top, but it also doesn't point back. So given that even numbered keris are generally not acknowledged by ahli keris i would lean towards the odd alternative. Your old keris appears presently as 6, but could have easily have lost a luk through either time or intention.

[manteris1]

I only know one way, Alan gave me a sheet years ago and I use that...................jimmy

[David]

Originally Posted by manteris1

I only know one way, Alan gave me a sheet years ago and I use that...................jimmy

Yes Jimmy and that is the method that is most generally accepted and therefore IMO the one that holds the most weight amongst contemporary keris collectors today. But Alan put forth a different idea in his recently published treatise on pre-Islamic keris which, also IMO, make a whole lot of sense as to the original way to count luk when the keris was influenced mostly by Hindu culture. Neither myself, nor do i believe Alan, are suggesting that this possible original method should be applied today, but understanding it as a possibility hopefully increases our understanding of the origins of the keris itself. You can read that section of his treatise here:
http://kerisattosanaji.com/INTERPRETATIONPAGE5.html

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by Jean

Hello Detlef,
If you start counting the luks from the first concave one above the gandik I wonder how you can find 7 luks on the first blade? However for the other one I admit that the 13th luk can be interpreted although it is not clearly visible.
Regards

Hello Jean,

have learned that I have to start from the first concave above the gandik and have to end at the same side and this with an uneven figure. See picture. It seems to be an old and worn blade and I think the last luk is too worn that you still can see it.

Regards,

Detlef

[Jean]

Originally Posted by David

I agree Jean. Your old keris appears presently as 6, but could have easily have lost a luk through either time or intention.

Hello David,
I agree that the old blade most probably had 7 luk initially and was shortened due to wear.
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Jean, to my eyes both the keris posted by you as examples of possibly even luk keris are not in even the slightest degree able to be interpreted as other than a 7 luk keris and 13 luk keris when using the current convention of count.

The form of the point on the 13 luk is very usual for this style of blade and the 7 luk blade is simply not able to be counted as anything other than 7.

I do have a Pengging blade that could be counted as an even luk blade, because the final luk takes the point back towards the back of the blade, and the blade is not eroded to the degree where we could plead that this has been caused by the passage of time. However, the current convention of count (CCC) demands that the count finish on the same side that it started, ie, the gandhik side or front of the blade, so even where you cannot see any clear turn back to the front of the blade you are compelled to add the additional non-existent wave.

In the most simple of terms:- if we follow the CCC it is impossible to produce a luk count that gives us an even number. Just can't be done.

Incidentally, how long is the 7 luk keris?

[rasdan]

G'day Alan,

Regarding your Pengging keris. Do you have any idea on why does the last luk was made in such a way?

If we assume that Jeans keris is not corroded badly, can we say that it have 5 luks if we count according to the Hindu counting method?

[A. G. Maisey]

No Rasdan, I do not. It seems to be a not particularly unusual characteristic in a Pengging keris, but why it was done I have no idea at all.

Re Jean's keris, yes, if we used the alternate method, it would be 5 luk.

[rasdan]

In that case, do you think that it is OK for us to assume that some Pengging's Empus adopted the Hindu luk counting method?

I have seen a positively absolutely "even" luk keris only once - on a Sulawesi Bugis keris. In Bugis culture they have 5 genders. Male, female, male but lived as female, female but lived as male and the last one is Bissu which is neither male or female or we can say that they have both attributes.

I am thinking that an "even" luk Bugis keris probably belonged to a Bissu, but if this is true then we should be able to see at least several examples as there had been countless Bissus since the dawn of time.

Probably only some Bissu decide to have an "even" luk keris. Or maybe it does not belong to a Bissu, but the maker used the Hindu luk counting system?

[A. G. Maisey]

Rasdan, I'm sorry, but I do not like to engage in speculation involving things I know nothing about. I know nothing about the relevant cultural practices of the Bugis people. I know nothing of the matters of which you write.

Regarding Pengging keris makers. Pengging was concurrent with Majapahit, but that does not mean that a keris that is classifiable as Pengging in accord with the Javanese system of tangguh necessarily originated in the time and/or area of Pengging. The Majapahit court was not exclusive of Islam, and Pengging was established by a Muslim official from the court of Majapahit.

Regarding "positively absolutely even luk" keris.

If the luk were counted using the current convention of count as practiced in Jawa it is a total impossibility to count an even number of luk.

Why is it so?

Because this convention demands that you finish the count on the same side that you started; if there is no luk you simply add one. You are not permitted to complete the count with an even number. We are dealing with a convention, not with an actuality.

This is what I have been specifically taught by two very senior keris people. Its not my idea, I'm only repeating what I've been told.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Jean, to my eyes both the keris posted by you as examples of possibly even luk keris are not in even the slightest degree able to be interpreted as other than a 7 luk keris and 13 luk keris when using the current convention of count.
The form of the point on the 13 luk is very usual for this style of blade and the 7 luk blade is simply not able to be counted as anything other than 7.
In the most simple of terms:- if we follow the CCC it is impossible to produce a luk count that gives us an even number. Just can't be done.
Incidentally, how long is the 7 luk keris?

Hello Alan,
Thank you for your reply.
I acknowledge that according to the CCC the small blade should be interpreted and counted as 7 luks and although I do respect conventions and religions I am sorry that I can see and count only 6!
The blade is 28.5 cm long, it is a skeleton blade which probably had a normal lenght of about 35 cm originally. I have shown it alongwith another very old blade with 7 luks and a similar ganja of exactly the same size (7.6 cm long, probably a bit longer originally). In my view the short blade had probably 9 waves originally and not 7, what do tou think?
Best regards
Jean

[rasdan]

If we set the current convention aside, what do you presume is the actuality of luk number Alan? Does the age (not necessarily the tangguh) and the maker (empu or pande) makes a difference? I would imagine the Pengging keris makers doesn't have to be a Hindu to adopt a Hindu system probably?

[A. G. Maisey]

Jean, as I wrote in my response to Rasdan:- "we are dealing with convention, not actuality"

If we are to study any cultural artefact, a large part of that study involves learning the way in which the people in the society or societies concerned see and understand that artefact. We cannot claim to have any knowledge nor understanding of a cultural artefact unless we are able to understand that artefact in the same way that the people in the culture concerned understand it.

This understanding must always involve an understanding that governs the way in which the artefact is seen and understood by the people who are acknowledged authorities within the relevant culture.

Now, if we are not a part of the society or culture concerned, we can always invent our own way of understanding any cultural artefact, and that way may serve our purpose better than the accepted conventions within the culture that owns the artefact. But by using our own way of understanding we have consciously taken the decision that the understanding of the artefact within its originating culture is not relevant to our purpose.

So now let us consider this matter of the number of luk in a keris blade.

The currently applied convention used to count luk in a keris blade demands that the count begin at the first depression in the blade above the gandhik, and this is the first luk. The second luk is the first depression in the blade on the opposite edge of the blade, that is, the first depression above the wadidang. Counting continues by crossing the blade diagonally until the point of the blade is reached. The count must complete on the same side of the blade that it began. Observance of the rule that sets down how to count blade luk demands this. If there is no blade depression, or the shape of the point section of the blade is such that no clear luk can be seen, this is completely unimportant:- the count must finish on the same side that it began. All keris must have an odd number of luk, whether they actually have that odd number of luk, or not, so where there is no luk the convention demands that we add a luk.

The convention I have outlined above is the current convention that applies in Jawa. I do not know when I first became aware of it, but I do know that it was very clearly stated to me by two men who were both Empus in the Karaton Surakarta.

It is possible that luk are counted in different ways in different societies.

I recently proposed that in early Hindu-Jawa, keris luk were counted in a way that results in a total of two luk less that the number obtained by using the current method of counting luk. But that method is no longer employed in Jawa.

It seems that at one time in Brunei luk were counted by counting every instance where the edge of the blade deviated from a straight line, so if this method were to be applied to most 7 luk Javanese blades the result would be that the blade had 14 luk.

Another way of counting luk is to count both negative and positive depressions in the blade. If we apply this method to most Javanese 7 luk blades the result will be 11 luk.

There are possibly other ways in which luk can be counted, but all these other ways are not relevant to the convention applied in Javanese keris culture.

No matter what our field of study may be, there are certain conventions that we must follow if we wish to be taken seriously. Engineers are required to think and act in certain ways in the practice of their profession, as are lawyers, accountants, physicians, carpenters, plumbers and people who carry boxes and push brooms. Each profession demands that those who practice that profession think in a particular way that is recognised as correct within the relevant field of knowledge. This is the rationale behind the concept of education. Education is only in part about imparting knowledge, that knowledge in and of itself is not particularly important, it will always exist in other places and can be accessed by anybody, not just the professional in the field. The truly important element of education is that it teaches the student to think in a particular way.

It is no different with keris:- we must observe the relevant conventions and think in a particular way if we are to be taken seriously by others in the field of keris study. Certainly we can always invent our own rules that may suit our own purposes, but in most cases it is probably best to use those rules only for our own personal purposes.

In response to your question, yes it would seem that the blade under discussion did originally have 2 more luk.

[A. G. Maisey]

Again I must apologise to you Rasdan, I'm not very clear on exactly what you are asking here, but I'll answer what I think you are asking.

If we are talking about the number of luk in a Javanese keris blade there is only one way to determine that number, and that way bears no relationship to actuality:- it is part of a system of belief.

This being so, it is impossible for me to answer in terms of actual luk, only in terms of perceived luk.

In any system of belief we do not deviate from the conventions that are acknowledged as correct within that system.

Keris classifiable as Pengging are not like other Javanese blades in a number of ways, they are recognised as being quite peculiar in a number of respects. Why this is so I simply do not know.

The time and place where a keris was manufactured does result in it having certain identifiable characteristics, and this is also often true of keris made by different makers.

Whether luk are counted by the way I proposed as being used in early Jawa, or whether they are counted by the way that is used now, the only difference is that the number of luk will vary by two.

My proposition is dependent upon a hierarchical societal structure that cannot exist within Islam.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Jean, as I wrote in my response to Rasdan:- "we are dealing with convention, not actuality"

All keris must have an odd number of luk, whether they actually have that odd number of luk, or not, so where there is no luk the convention demands that we add a luk.

....

Whether luk are counted by the way I proposed as being used in early Jawa, or whether they are counted by the way that is used now, the only difference is that the number of luk will vary by two.



.

Forgive me, Alan, but that does not make much sense to me. If the keris has an odd number of luk, it has the odd number of luk. And if the even number, - then the even.

If I have 2 legs, I have 2 legs. If I lose one, no convention would prove that I am not a handicapped person. One cannot state the desired outcome and then manipulate the data.

This "convention" sounds a lot like Marx Brothers : " Who do you believe, me or your own cheating eyes?"

Also, isn't it true, that if your method is correct, any keris with an even number of luk by the "old convention" will still have an even number? 12-2 =10, after all.

[A. G. Maisey]

Once again Ariel, you are absolutely correct.

However you are correct only from the view point of a person who has not yet learnt the elements of the belief system that governs an understanding of the Javanese keris.

In this Forum it has often been repeated that an understanding of the keris is dependent upon an understanding of the belief system that is attached to the keris. The whole thing is based on belief. Everything that is of any importance in the world of the Javanese keris is based upon belief. It is a field of knowledge that has quite specific rules attached to it, rules that are not unlike the rules that govern major religions:- we cannot understand any major religion by reverting to logic. The same is true of the keris, logic has no part in its understanding.

The way in which the waves, ie, luk, are counted in a Javanese keris blade is no less dependent upon this belief system than is anything else in the world of the keris.

Of course, if we wish to step outside the rules that govern this understanding for Javanese people, then we can make our own rules and decide for ourselves how we wish to count those waves. This then would be our own understanding, not the understanding of the people who originated and own this cultural icon, the keris.

However, such an approach would seem to be out of step with the approach taken by collectors in any field of ethnography that I can think of, where the collectors and students who live in societies that are foreign to the society that is home to the object collected or studied, do strive to try to understand the object of their interest in terms that are in synch with the understanding of the people of that originating society.

As an example we could perhaps consider the field of nihonto. Have collectors in this field followed their own guidelines, or have they endeavored to understand the way in which the Japanese people approach the subject?

If we wish to understand the keris we really have no alternative but to try insofar as we are able to understand the perspective of the Javanese people.

But if we only wish to collect the object and divorce that object from any understanding of it, then we can take any approach to its collection that we wish.

[Jean]

Thank you Alan for this very informative discussion, and also to all the participants in this debate, whether keris believers or just collectors
Regards

[rasdan]

Yes Alan, I am asking about the actual number of luk. I just thought that it is possible for a non-Hindu keris maker to use a Hindu way of counting/making the luk. But still of course that does not explain the last luk ending towards the wadidang phenomena. Anyhow, thank you Alan for you insight.

[A. G. Maisey]

Jean, I do think that it is valid to collect things, including keris, just for the sake of collecting. The urge to collect things that give us pleasure seems to be universal. Thus its probably unfair to refer to anybody as "just" a collector.

Similarly I do not believe that it is necessary to become a "keris believer" in order to appreciate many of the qualities of the keris.

However, I do most definitely believe that for anybody who wishes to understand the keris, and keris culture, it is absolutely necessary to understand, or at least try to understand the belief system that is incorporated into keris culture:- we need to understand what the Believers believe, we do not need to become one.

I'd like to make an analogy.

Let us say, just for argument's sake, that I am a devout Buddhist.

During my childhood I had contact with a kindly Catholic priest who had come to my village to provide medical aid. Because of this contact, very early in my life I gained an interest in the paraphernalia of the Faith that I saw this priest using, most particularly was I attracted to his crucifix.

As I grew older I began to buy any crucifix that I might happen to stumble upon, and by the time I was an adult I had a very considerable collection of crucifixes. I did not understand exactly what was so important to Catholics about these little crosses, but looking at them and handling them gave me pleasure. Not only did I not understand the importance of the crucifix to those who were adherents to the Christian Faith, I had not the vaguest idea of any of the beliefs of this Faith.

But I did like my crucifixes.

There is a lot more to this story:- went to live in the city, I began to attend church services, gained an understanding of the Christian Faith, I furthered my education, went to university and after years of study I gained a doctorate in comparative religion. Eventually I truly understood what my crucifixes were all about. In fact, I understood my crucifixes very much better than most people who practiced the Christian Faith.

I did not become a Christian, I remained a Buddhist.

But I did understand Christianity, and I did understand exactly what a crucifix meant within that Faith.

My understanding had the effect of intensifying my pleasure in my collection of crucifixes.

[ariel]

I just re-read the topic. Took me only 2 years to get back to it.

Alan, your last post had a truly beautiful example of the dichotomy between knowledge ( science, learning, understanding etc. ) and a true belief, between the rational and the spiritual. Perhaps, the best I have ever heard.
Thank you.

[A. G. Maisey]

I thank you Ariel, for your compliment.