Sorry, what do you mean text 2,3,4 & 5 ?

Pusaka, i believe John is referring to your numbered illustrations.
John, the texts of 2 and 3 are the modern sanskrit letters for AUM linked together side by side to look like a Ron Dha Nunut.
And 4 and 5 are the ron dha and jenggot of the modern keris that Pusaka displayed. :)

Nechesh you say that the symbol I used for Om is modern, look again, did I use the modern symbol for Om?
Here is the Tibetan symbol for Om, slightly different in that the second character is inverted. The Tibetan symbol is certainly not modern.

Left: tibet

Very interesting thread and debate.....

But, how if the keris revealed came from the Animism and Dynamism period (because the Keris believed has the Tuah or supranatural power) before the Hindu, Budha or Islam period :confused:
Then, on the Hindu period, the keris has analyzed an given some symbols as the Ricikans which more real, beauty and has the sense... :confused:
So, Hindu, Budha and Islam period just continuing the keris cultures from the past period :confused:
.... or, the keris came from Hindu period, but with enthusiasm of Animism and Dynamism soul and pulling out the dogmatic values :confused:

Hi Pusaka. Here's a link to the Javanese Alphabet.
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/javanese.htm
Take note of the letter Dha. This alphabet dates back to the 4thC. It is certainly derivative of ancient Brahmi and so there is certainly a Vedic connection. But we have yet to find any physical evidence that the "modern" keris, with all it's present ricikan such as the Ron Dha, is older than, say, 14thC. So it seems likely that the Ron Dha was developed in Jawa at that time where regardless of Vedic influences, the Javanese language and alphabet was in full swing. Devanagari script was developed around the 11thC primarily to write Sanskrit from ancient Brahmi script. http://www.omniglot.com/writing/devanagari.htm
This early form of Devanagari was similar, but not exactly like the form with which you are familar.
As far as i know, the Ron Dha has always been related to the Javanese letter Dha in Jawa and the surrounding areas. Though there is clearly a resemblance to the symbol of the AUM i think this is probably just a very interesting coincidence, or perhaps synchonicity. I see no reason why this would be considered secret knowledge or why the Javanese would pretend this feature represented a Dha when it was really secretly the AUM. What is perhaps more occult is the intended meaning of the letter Dha in this circumstance. That might be a more valuable avenue of study.
None of this is to deny that the keris was first developed as weapon of a primarily Vedic culture. As other influences such as Islam moved into the area the keris symbolism evolved and changed. Stil, elements of Jawa's pre-vedic animistic culture persisted as well. The beliefs of the area can never be clearly defined as merely this or that. It is much more complex. :)

I used a variant of Om which is not modern by any account. It is difficult to say if the markings on the keris are Sanskrit or Javanese. Remembering that the Javanese alphabet would have been influenced by Sanskrit. If you chose the Javanese then the symbols are meaningless but if you chose the Sanskrit then there is meaning in those markings. One thing for sure is that they have meaning and personally I believe it is a variant of Om, the name of god.

Interesting, though the "dha" shown at the link does not seem to have a pronounced tail of an OM symbol. Still it's intriguing to find a probable Javanese alphabet on such a popular icon as keris yet to be have it's meaning decoded in it's country of origin? So the mystery remains unsolved...

Pusaka, you are certainly welcome to your personal beliefs, but the notion that this symbol is meaningless if it represents the Javanese Dha is somewhat arrogant on your behalf. Just because you are not aware of it's meaning does not imply that such meaning is nonexistent. Do you really think you have such a grasp of the Javanese culture to make such a statement?
Why do think it is difficult to say whether this "symbol" is Sanskrit or Javanese when the Javanese have been saying for centuries that it is indeed Javanese? :confused:

If the symbol is Javanese it is strange indeed that any Javanese person I asked what it meant they had no clue. There are many Javanese members in this forum and have they revealed what its meaning is? Its meaning is certainly not secret so I question why nobody seams to know the answer to what it actually means. If it is Javanese surely a Javanese person would understand it, but do they?
Using the Javanese alphabet you can account for only one letter, hardly a through explanation is it, what about the rest, can you explain that???

origin vs. creation
 

If a keris or kris form developed during an Islamic era and region, wouldn't it be considered a Muslim creation? We can make the general statement that the keris originated in Southeast Asia with Hindu/Budhist influences, but depending on certain forms, era and place, etc. wouldn't these variables dictate the specific designation of the creation?

Hi Pusaka,

Remember that what Nechesh said that the ricikan on the greneng and janggut plus the kembang kacang, are relatively new in keris history. These ricikan appeared no earlier than the 12th century but more likely were created in the 14th century.

There are Jawanese explainations to these ricikan, including in Harsrinuksmo's Ensiklopedi Keris. Not everything in Jawa is explained verbally, many things are meant to be understood through rasa -feeling and intuition. However if you accuse Jawanese of not understanding a venerated object of their culture, how do you explain your credibility to explain it?

I think that Mans' explanation is the best: that keris originated in Jawa in animistic times, and through time was influenced by Vedic culture, Chinese culture, Buddhist culture, Islamic culture and Western culture. Your explanation makes sense from one angle but from another angle (like the angle used by Neches) it is flawed. I once read an explanation from the point of view of the keris as a stabbing weapon which made perfect sense untill one remembered that the keris in Jawa was not primarily a physical weapon. Also there are many types of ricikan on the janggut, kembang kacang and the greneng.

Means that what ever our opinions on keris are, they are basically only our opinions. There is to much mystery in Jawa, let alone in the most mystical object from the culture to make definite assumptions.

Keep the good work on the keris study, just don't ignore what the jawanese have to say?

Warm salams to al,
KC

Let me make an analogy to another alphabet and culture for just a moment. In the Hebrew alphabet each letter has a specific meaning. Lets look at the letter Shin ("S" or "Sh"). The name for this letter actually means "tooth", but each letter in the Hebrew alphabet also has a numerical value, as with many other languages. The value for Shin is 300. The numerical value for the phrase Ruach Elohim (Spirit of God) is also 300, so in Qabalistic thinking Shin is equivalent. Therefore the letter Shin is also a symbol of the Spirit of God. A great deal can be represented in only one letter. I doubt the average non-orthodox Jew would be aware of this. Reformed Jews don't necessarily even learn Hebrew. Still, they consider themselves Jews and a part of that culture. So why would it be so surprising that a modern Javanese man, whose main language is Indonesian, not Javanese, who possibly doesn't even know the older language very well, who has rejected or forgotten or was never really taught the ways of the old keris culture, who possible sees it as just old superstition, would not understand the more occult meanings of the Javanese letter Dha in relation to the keris and the Ron Dha?

I have added the letter dha into the picture for comparison. Personally I think the markings on the keris looks more like the Sanskrit then the Javanese. The letter dha is more symmetrical whilst the marking on the keris is clearly not. If it is the 7th letter of the Javanese alphabet then I guess that is significant, for all those that know what the number 7 represents ;)

Looking at the mark in question next to the Sanskrit and the Javanese we can see that there is a closer resemblance to the Sanskrit. Actually very little resemblance to the Javanese dha(Sanskrit bottom, Javanese top)

That reminds me of Bonji in japanese swords. Bonji are debased Sanskrit inscriptions which have lost their meaning and are reproduced as good luck symbols devoid of much or their previous meaning.

So Pusaka, why do YOU think the Javanese refer to this feature as a Ron Dha and NOT a Ron AUM? Why, if it is indeed an AUM, do they hide the fact and pretend it is a Dha for all these years? Is there some kind of great Javanese conspiracy that we don't know about?
AGAIN, i must point out that you are comparing a relatively modern Sanskrit script that was not used in Jawa in the 14thC to features on a VERY modern keris blade when you are trying to establish a theory of ORIGIN for features that were developed for the keris 700 years ago. And these original Ron Dha did NOT look the same as the features you are showing us on this 21st century blade. So none of your illustrations really prove anything about the origins of the Ron Dha on the keris. Is none of this getting through to you?
Like i say, i like your creative thinking, but i think your basis is flawed and therefore your conclusion as well. You can't just keep saying i think it looks more like an AUM so it is, especially when you are looking at a new keris. I hope you continue asking these questions, but don't fool yourself into believing you have all the answers already or all your creative thinking will be for nought.

Nechesh, why don't you substantiate further with examples of some initial examples of 14th C Ron Dhas patterns and pin point how recent the OM symbols Pusaka has illustrated to enlighten us more. Quite frankly I personally know of one sanskrit OM symbol which I've no idea has been around for how long. And what would the OM character around the 14th C look like? When is/are the earliest recorded references to the "dha" on keris you could point us to?

I've noticed you've quite often drawn your arguments based on AM's info/research (tell me if otherwise) but personally I'll at this juncture treat Pusaka's (and others) arguments with equal respect and won't "rubbishing" them with your seemingly perennial "high pitch" tones until the riddle is conclusively resolved but like some say, we may never know for sure...

And Pusaka, I commend your composure and civility.

Nechesh, calm down, you’re a very angry person, it’s only a damn forum debate, relax. I notice that you go out of your way to make little of anything I say, but that’s fine.
As I said before is the symbol I used for Om really modern?

Simmer Down
 

Pusaka don't make public judgements on another person's demeanor . I think that you need to answer Nechesh's questions and he needs to answer yours and John's; that will allow the debate to continue in a civilised manner .

If this thread devolves into unpleasantness I'll close it ; everyone take a deep breath count to ten and resume .

A few things first Pusaka:
1. I am not at all angry, though maybe a little frustrated that you continue to put forth your theory with very little evidence as if it is an absolute. If you could show me an illusration of an AUM used in 14thC Jawa and then compare that to the earliest of Ron Dha known on keris i would be willing to give more weight to your aurguement.
2. I am not going "out of my way" to make little of everything you say. I am merely presently my own logical arguement to your theories based on what little i personally know about the keris. I would also love to solve this mystery. I don't know all the answers either, but i would like us to come as close as possible to the right conclusion based on solid evidence and observations. It may, as John suggests, remain a mystery. As i have said before, and will again, i like the way you think.This was a sincere comment, really. I actually think you are on the right track. I hope you will continue your research. I just think you have taken a slight wrong turn and if you think you are there already you are liable to miss something. Please don't take my diagreements with you personally. I am only trying to help you and all of us solve this mystery together. This is an academic discussion, not a personal one.
John, i find your ability to determine the sound pitch of internet writing astonishing. ;) Once again, i am merely presenting counter arguement. It wouldn't do us very well if everytime someone presented a theory that didn't quite ring true with us that we just threw up our hands and decided to go along with it. Repetition of an idea does not make it true. Remember WMDs? :rolleyes: My biggest complaint about Pusaka's theory is that he is using a 20thC keris w/ a 19thC Ron Dha form compared to a relatively recent AUM symbol to establish the origin of a symbolic keris feature that first appeared in a different form 600 yrs. ago. This is just bad research. I am sorry that i do not have any examples of the style of AUM symbol used in 14thC Jawa, but ALL these things have changed and evolved over the centuries. It would be wonderful if someone could find an authenticated example. I have, however, attached a drawing first sketched by Empu Suparman of the differences between Ron Dha of different periods of keris. It appeared, i believe, in a 1990 Knife Magazine article by, yes, Alan Maisey. You are correct that i do base a great deal of my understanding of the keris on Alan's writings and guidance. Still, i do have a mind of my own and we have not always agreed on all points keris. :)

To be honest nechesh I personally can see very little difference between the images you posted, just the characters are more defined in some then others yet they are still the same characters in all.

Secondly I don’t know why you think the Om symbol is modern, its my understanding that the symbol relates to Brahmi text which makes it ancient indeed. I will see if I can contact someone who will clear this up.

Can you please post the original illustration so that I may look at them in detail.

BTW John, Pusaka has already shown us 3 different AUM symbols, of which only one seems to fit fully into his comparison with 19thC style Ron Dha.

Sorry Pusaka, this is the only illustration i have of the various Ron Dhas. I am surprised that you can not see that only the Surakarta Ron Dha fits clearly into your theory for the AUM.
The Brahmi alphabet looks very different from the Sanskrit used in any of your AUM illustrations:
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/brahmi.htm

Om can be written in many ways, in its most simple form it looks like the number 3. The last image is how Om is written in modern Indonesia (far right)

If we examine the Indonesian symbol for Om we will find something very interesting. In fig 1 we have the symbol for Om, In fig 2 we have removed one of the characters and now we have the Indonesian symbol for Ong (one holy letter). What is interesting about Ong is that it is composed of the character for 3 but with an Ulu candra (crown) added to the top to signify it is holy i.e. the holy three. This is very similar to the Indonesian Mang (Holy letter). In fig 3 we have removed the Ulu candra and we are left with the character for 3. Three is holy in many religions for example the holy trinity in the Christian religion, in effect the 3 aspects of god. It is interesting that the character for 3 is the bases for the Om (symbol of god). Finally in fig 4 we have put the remaining characters side by side and we have a very interesting pattern when it is related to the markings on the Keris. We find that it fits all the illustrations that nechesh posted.

Interesting. Firstly, the final figure (4) which you claim is all the remaining figures of the Indonesian OM laid side by side does NOT fit all the figures of Ron Dha that i posted, it only fits the Surakarta Ron Dha. Look carefully. Fig. 4 shows 2 waves that face away from each other (back to back) and one wave facing inward on the right with a small peak in the middle. This small peak only exists on the Surakarta example in this sequence.
It seems a bit of a stretch for me to disassemble a symbol and piece it back together in a way that is no longer that symbol and still maintain that it holds the same meaning. In the end, lines are merely that, just lines, and if we try hard enough i am sure we can come up with a number of different letters or symbols that we can reconstruct to resemble the Ron Dha. I am afraid i neeed a little bit more than that to be swayed in your direction. If i remove the foot off an "E" it becomes an "F", if i invert a "W" it becomes an "M", if i turn an "N" on it's side it becomes a "Z". But what symbolic relationship do these letters have with one another? They have completely different meanings and intentions when viewed from different perspectives.
BTW, i believe the language and alphabet you are using in this last post might be Balinese, not Indonesian.
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/balinese.htm
The general Indonesian language is Bahasa and is usually written in the Latin alphabet. This is what "unites" all the islands in that nation with a common language. Balinese, of course, has the same Brahmi roots that all these other alphabets we have been discussing do, so we will see similarities in forms, but since it is generally accepted (though new theories could pop up :) ) that the keris as we are discussing it (w/Ron Dha) originated in Jawa and migrated to Bali it also seems likely that the origins of the Ron Dha also lie in Jawa, so comparisons of the Ron Dha to the Balinese alphabet makes no sense.

Personally I am satisfied that the markings relate to the Om symbol and have the same meaning, this is my own personal belief so I am not saying you must agree. Im sure there is very little difference between a Javanese Om symbol and a Balinese Om symbol. We can see relationships in them all.

John, you are absolutely right. And to Pusaka, my apologies for suggesting you were being arrogant to assume that if you saw no meaning in something that it simply doesn't exist. That was a judgement on my part and may very well have been an incorrect one. Sometimes we hit the enter key before we completely think things through. :o
Still John, your post here seems like something best dealt with in PM as i think we are back on the academic track now and i think finger pointing will only tend to derail that. Also, Pusaka seems the kind of chap who is very capable of fighting his own battles. :) Yes, i was guilty as well, and for that i am sorry. I had already PMed Pusaka to say as much and offer him help in his studies. Let's move on, shall we? :)

http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/indianarms.htm :)

Pusaka ( D C ) , i really don't care about the discussion , but please DO NOT use my keris picture for model without permission ...!

thanks for the link, mabagani!

Sorry Sang (W H) I did not think you would mind since you post them on ebay often, but sorry I should have asked you first. You know I sent you an email but you did not respond.

Hi Dear all,

Indeed that the origin of the keris has been debate for a long time by many people. They believed that the keris came from along time ago and they didn’t want to prove it. They just believed that as a culture.

In the world of the Jawanese keris, old keris from Budha era is very simple. It has no Kembang Kacang, Greneng or Ron Dha. Usually just Sogokan and Kruwingan. Then, on Kediri and Singosari period (11th-13th century), the keris made with more detail. Some ricikans as the features of the keris to be made. The religion of Singosari and Kediri people are Hindu and Budha. On the Majapahit till Mataram period (13th-19th century), the keris made with more complete. After Majapahit period, the Islamic culture has beginning.

So, we knew that the keris came without Kembang Kacang and Ron Dha, just simple shape, but in the other side, some keris has it with more detail ricikans like Ron Dha, Greneng, Sogokan, Blumbungan, Kembang Kacang, ect.. .. which has many senses, reasons, and can be interpretated as anything from each histories or backgrounds. Also the keris influenced by many religions and cultures on the way of the keris it self.

So, why we just talking about the Ron Dha and didn’t give argumentations about the other ricikans ? If we want to debate just about the ricikans, we must talking about the another ricikans too as the overwhole aspects on the keris it self. Then, how if we talk about the Sogokan or Blumbungan ? Where it came from ? Or which the religions has influenced this ricikans ? So, if the RonDha and Kembang Kacang or Greneng just stand alone, it can’t be used to represent where the keris from or the period of the keris, also which the religious or culture which influenced the keris.

Pusaka posted the pictures from New Balinese Keris which made with complete ricikans. I think it can’t be used to represent the old keris. And now, I posted the keris from Old period (before 10th century) till Mataram period (about 18th century). I hope useful to continuing this discussion.

Regards,

Mans.

Note :
Pusaka, you said that the pictures (the Balinese keris) which you used on this thread is for eBay ((For example look at this Gajah from an ebay keris a while back. I think its a good example)) . I didn’t think so, because this keris has never listed in eBay. I knew the man who has this keris. He said that he send you the pictures via P.M. Did you has permission from him before ? Sorry, just to clarification your wrote.

Ups, Sang Keris has told it :D :D

Nice photos Mans but because the markings are so worn its quite difficult to know what the markings on some of them would have looked like originally.

I would be more then happy to hear other peoples theory’s about the meaning of the marks. If you do think it just represents a letter then explain its meaning.

AS WITH ALL DISCUSSIONS PERTAINING TO THE KERIS/KRIS THERE IS MUCH CONTROVERSY AND IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO JUST FOCUS ON ONE ASPECT IN ITS EVOLUTION. THE KERIS CONTINUES TO EVOLVE TODAY BUT I THINK THE MORE RECENT CHANGES HAVE LESS TO DO WITH SPIRITUAL AND MAGICAL MATTERS AS THEY DID IN OLD TIMES. I WOULD THERORIZE THAT THE FIRST BIG CHANGE IN THE EVOLUTION OF THE KERIS WAS THE SEPARATION OF THE GANJA FROM THE BLADE AS IT IS VERY LIKELY THAT THE FIRST KERIS HAD ONLY A FAIRLY SIMPLE ONE PIECE BLADE. THIS PROBABLY CAME ABOUT DUE TO SOME SPIRITUAL OR MAGICAL BELIEF, I COULD MAKE MANY GUESSES AS TO WHY THIS WAS DONE, BUT AS THEY COULD NEVER BE PROVEN AND WOULD ONLY MUDDY THE WATER I WILL REFRAIN. :D
THE LATER MODIFICATIONS TO THE BLADE COULD HAVE BEEN DONE FOR MANY REASONS, 1. TO INDICATE THE TRIBE OR EMPIRE. 2. TAILSMANIC PROTECTION 3. TO SHOW REVERENCE TO A CERTIAN DIETY AND GAIN THEIR PROTECTION AND POWER. THERE ARE MANY POSSIBILITYS, BUT I DON'T THINK IT WAS DONE JUST FOR DECORATION OR TO ADD TO THE EFFECTIVE FIGHTING QUALITYS OF THE KERIS.

QUESTIONS :confused: WHERE IS THE POWER OF THE KERIS SAID TO RESIDE IN THE BLADE OR THE GANJA?
IF THE POWER IS IN THE BLADE WOULD THE GANJA BE THERE TO PROTECT THE WIELDER FROM THAT POWER OR TO CONTROL IT. ?

SO MANY QUESTIONS AND SO LITTLE OLD DOCUMENTED INFORMATION! :rolleyes:

Thanks Pusaka,
I think some forumities has told about the meaning of the marks on the keris.
In here, I just want to give the example of the keris from the old and distinguishing with the keris from next period. Why the old keris made with no ricikans as the keris from next generations :confused: Just the simple shape. Perhaps because on old period, their appreciation about the art or philosophy just like that :confused: Thats because perhaps, they just want the Tuah or something else in the Anmism and Dynamism faith.

So, if we want to know from where the keris, when it made, or which the culture or religions has influenced, we must know about the keris as overwhole aspects (Jawa = Pasikutan). Specifically on the iron, pamor and technique of forging. Not just the Dha which you try to analyzed. Its just the one aspect.

We can to keep changing some symbols or numeral to get the matching with the Ricikan on the keris. But how with another ricikans which has no compatible with any symbols like Ada-Ada or Kruwingan or Sogokan :confused:

So, I didn't think so that your theory about the Dha and Greneng can be used to give the reason that the keris came from India, Indonesia or somewhere else. Many region has self histories. So that why if we want to learn the keris, we must put it on the clear locus and focus.

For another example : http://www.diskusi.fotopic.net/c534452.html
The two keris at there came from Singosari (small) and Bangkinang (Riau / Sumatera). Its has different lenght, the iron forge ect, but also has similarities. So, can we analyzed that just from Ricikans ? I didn't think so. We can analyze more clear if we know about the journey of Singosari people to Sumatera and the other hand at past.

So, go back to Antonio questions, perhaps any forumities known the journey of Moro or Moslem people at there, where and where :confused: Did they has connections with India or Indonesia or etc :confused: Also we can connecting the story by period.

I just know (in the Jawanese history) that Sriwijaya Kingdom at Palembang and Majapahit Kingdom at East Jawa has the region till Moro about 9th century and 14th century. So, can we said that the Sriwijaya and Majapahit influencing the Moro Keris ? Then cultures of the Moro people continuing their appreciations about the art of the keris till now (free from religion values) :confused:

As mentioned, from the proto keris, forms branch off depending on the timeline and region, so it would be interesting to see a family tree with the various keris and kris to get a clearer understanding when symbols and types took place. In regards to the Moro kris, evidence from artifacts and written materials reveal ties to Indian culture and parallel interconnection to Indonesian kingdoms. Its also important to take in account cultural relationships to China throughout Moro history. In the early 15th century Sulu "kings" were recognized by Chinese royals when an entourage paid a visit to the mainland. Of interest, there is a village in China that trace their heritage to the early kings, one of the kings died on the voyage, some of the relatives stayed behind and the following generations to this day still take care of the tomb of their ancestor. The conversion to Islam in Mindanao and Sulu as well as the parts of the Visayas and Luzon began in the mid 15th and 16th centuries. From the early proto keris two distinct forms develop into what we call here the kris and the barung swords in the Moro regions.
http://www.geocities.com/sinupan/batara.htm
http://www.china-sd.net/eng/sdtravel/scenery/26.asp
http://www.bangsamoro.info/uploads/photos/26.jpg

Worthy of research
 

Ok Pusaka.... you have sold me, that at the very least... you theory is worthy of further research. After all gentlemen, it is a theory and as a theory, worthy of testing. ;)

Finding the earliest example of this style Greneng will give you an approximate "date" or date of influence. While not an absolute "test," it may give a clue if it occurred before of after the Hindu influence.

It may be a starting point. :)

Is it possible that the Indonesian dha is derived from Sanskrit?

Why does Empu Djeno Harumbrodjo trace his linage back to the Indian Majapahit Empire? Does this not alone suggest that India played an important role in the history of keris?

Pusaka, to answer your first question, yes, the Javanese (not Indonesian) alphabet and Sanskrit do seem to have some common forms in their alphabets.
In terms of your second question, i don't think you have really met much resistance with your theory that the Javanese Mojopahit empire was linked to Indian influences. My argument was over the specificity of you AUM claim. I agree with you that the roots of the keris most probably lie in India. But that is just the roots. The ricikan that we have been discussing doesn't appear until sometime around the 14thC, so they were most probably developed in Jawa, not India. But the influences seem to be clearly there.