[A. G. Maisey]

Pak Ganja, it seems to me that your posting of these interesting snippits of information is causing you to doubt the worth of your contributions.

You should not doubt yourself.

All of this is good, interesting material, especially for people who do not have access to the resources available to you.Even though I myself do have access to many of these resources, your extraction of the data and posting in precis form is interesting to me.

Firstly, allow me to thank you for correcting my error in a different thread. Yes, I agree, the use of the word "kres" occurred in an inscription dating from circa 842AD, not 500AD. I was wrong.One should never write from memory, it is always better to check facts first. Speed kills.

You have mentioned a number of inscriptions.

All these inscriptions date from after the time when Old Javanese was used as the language for the inscription.

Zoetmulder lists the word "kris" as existing in the Old Javanese lexicon, and he gives its meaning in Bahasa Indonesia as "keris".

The word "kris" can be accepted as the archaic form of the modern word "keris".

Nobody in their right mind could dispute this.

However, what is open to question is this:-

what was the physical form of object that was referred to as "kris" in these inscriptions?

We know that it is an almost universal trait of language development that over time the meaning of a word will change, and the physical form of objects to which an archaic word refers, will change.We have two elements of change occurring in parallel dimensions:- the abstract (term of reference), and the physical (actual object). Because of this constant and continuing change, we can have no confidence that simply because a similar word may exist in an archaic lexicon, that that word refers to the object that it may appear to refer to.

In the case of the keris, we have representations of keris-like objects at Candi Prambanan, and several other locations, but at the present time, we need to accept the Prambanan representations as the earliest.Prambanan dates from circa 850AD. It may well be that these objects shown at Prambanan were referred to as "kris".However, we do not know this, because regrettably none of the craftsmen who created the reliefs at Candi Prambanan were thoughtful enough to place little arrows pointing to these keris-like daggers, along with a caption, saying "this is a kris".

The matter is further complicated by the occurrence of other words in existence at the same time. Words such as "tewek" and "tuhuk".

In Old Javanese the word "kris" was a root word, so we had derivatives such as "akris", and "kinris", then we had "anris" and "aneris". It seems that very probably the word "kris" in Old Javanese referred to a dagger, not necessarily the specific type of dagger that we would now recognise as a keris.

Now, we know that the Modern Keris did not exist when these inscriptions were made, we also know that the keris-like dagger form is not shown being used in a rapier-like fashion until after the beginning of the twelfth century in East Jawa.

In summary:-

yes, the word "kris" does exist in Old Javanese; yes, keris-like daggers did exist in both Central Jawa and East Jawa prior to the 14th century

however, there is no evidence that will permit us to assume that the Old Javanese word "kris" was used to describe an object that we would now classify as a keris.

But all of the above has still not dealt with this troublesome word "kres".

Zoetmulder lists just six words in Old Javanese that commence with "kre---". Only six words, and none of these words are "kres".

The only reference to "kres" that I have seen, apart from the quotes in keris publications, was "patuk kres". I've already said that I can find no evidence that "kres" is a part of the Old Javanese lexicon, however, "patuk" is an Old Javanese word; it was a type of tool, very probably an adze. It is probable that a "patuk kres" was a type of small adze used for taking fine slices.I am drawing this conclusion based upon the meaning of "kres" in Moderrn Javanese.

I feel that to reach any definite conclusions in respect of this "kres" word as related to the keris, we need to do this:- go back to the original inscription, examine that inscription, ensure that the translation of it, and then the romanisation of the translation are both beyond question; if after this we are still left with the word "kres", we need to consider the possibility of an alternative rendering of the word keris, generated by either original inaccuracy, or possibly style at that time and place. When a perceived fact disagrees with other established facts, the perceived fact must be investigated fully to either confirm it or attempt to explain its variation from the established facts.