The Keris in Early Javanese Literature

A. G. Maisey · 2nd July 2008, 02:23 AM

In a recent thread in the Forum, that has now been locked, a very interesting question was raised.

A question that should be of interest to all serious keris researchers.

I have opened this question here not because I wish to revisit that closed thread, but rather because this is a most important question and I believe something that needs to be clarified.

The question was this:- when did the word "keris" first appear in Javanese literature.

Zoetmulder tells us that the word "keris" ( or kris, or any other variation of the romanised spelling) appears spread throughout Old Javanese manuscripts back to 919 CE.

He names some of these:-

Arjunawiwaha--composed Mpu Kanwa, patron--Airlangga, circa 1035

Sumanasantaka--composed Mpu Monaguna, patron--Warsajaya, circa 1204

Sutasoma--composed Mpu Tantular, patron--Ranamanggala, circa 1367

Kidung Harsa Wijaya--assumed 13th century

Then we have:-

Krsnantaka, Rangga Lawe, the Malat (Panji) tales, Wanban Wideha, Polenan--- some of these works in Old Javanese are late, some early, but in all cases dates are indefinite.

From this it can be seen that the word "keris" has been around for almost as long as the keris itself. Of course, it is very difficult for us to know exactly the form of the keris that was being referred to in these early texts, but it is probably reasonable to assume that these early references were to an object that bore at least some of the salient features of the modern keris.

I hope that this information will be of use to those amongst us who are involved in serious research into the early keris.

David · 2nd July 2008, 03:16 PM

Hi Alan. Thanks for bringing this up on this side of the curtain.

In that now lock thread you also presented this information:
In Old Javanese there are a number of words that are associated with the keris:-

akris:- to wear or use a keris
anris and kinris:- to use a keris

then we have:- iris, hiris, aniris, iniris and kahiris, all of which can be understood as to cut or to slice.

taking account of the grammatic structure of Old Javanese there is a clear relationship between the word "iris":- to cut, and keris, a cutting weapon.
To me this all makes a lot of sense, though it is not, by far, the only etymology that i have seen presented for the word "keris". I am curious if you or other forumites have any viable alternative etymologies for the word.
It might also be interesting to discuss other terms used for keris throughout the area such as dhuwung, kedutan, etc. How do these terms relate within their specific cultures and levels of society?
Also you mention that it seems the word keris has been around almost as long as the keris itself. Is there any evidence of an even early terminology then?

A. G. Maisey · 3rd July 2008, 01:51 AM

David, this business of keris etymologies has been going on for years, both in the early western keris writings, and especially in Javanese writings and discussions. If you plod through all of it, you feel as if you are drowning in rubbish.

There seems to be a relationship between "iris", and "keris", but whether there is or not, and how it developed , I don't know, and no recognised authority on Old Javanese has ever written on this, to my knowledge. All you can do is go to the works of Zoetmulder, Pigeaud, and a few other notables, and glean what you can from their writings. My preference is for the iris root, simply because none of the suggested alternatives seem to make any sense.

There is a problem with Old Javanese and that is that by the time academics got around to working with it, it was already a dead language. Much of the lexicon of Old Javanese flowed into Modern Javanese, but Modern Javanese became a hierarchical language, which the authorities seem to think, Old Javanese was not, or at least not to the extent that the House of Mataram forced Modern Javanese to become.So, when the academics began to compile a lexicon of Old Javanese, sometimes the word meanings came down to logical analysis. They could not always say with certainty exactly what was being referred to. Similarly, Old Javanese was undoubtedly an "non-standard" language, as is Modern Javanese, which means that the same word can take different forms that depend on varying factors. This means that we don't necessarily know if we are looking at a different word, or the same word with a different pronunciation.

It also needs to be understood that there was not just one "Old Javanese" language. There was the spoken language of Old Javanese, but early inscriptions were in Sanscrit, the earliest inscription in Old Javanese is the Sukabumi inscription from about 805. Then we have Kawi, which is a literary language and that uses a script that developed from the Indian Pallava script, and Kawi also has an old form.About 20-25% of all Javanese words, Modern and Old Javanese, derive from Sanscrit, however, when they have come into Javanese they do not necessarily retain the same forms and meanings as they do in Sanscrit. To understand all of this well is the domain of a specialist linguist, and I do not pretend for one moment to be such.

However, we do need to have some grasp of this background to be able to understand the limits of dealing with the Old Javanese language.With this in mind, the words found in the various languages that can be considered as "Old Javanese" languages, and that can refer to the implement that we would regard as a keris include, but are not necessarily limited to:-

tewek, twek, panewek, tuhuk, curigo, curik, duhun, and of course, kris.

there are many words that come from, or are associated with these nouns, but I'm not going to go there.

Equally, there are many variant spellings in the romanised representation of these words.

In modern Javanese, keris is ngoko (low level), dhuwung is krama (usually referred to as "high" level, but in fact a ceremonial variation of ngoko), wangkingan is krama inggil (high level krama), curiga is a literary usage, and can also refer to a dagger.

The formality of using the Javanese language is that the person of higher status "talks down" to those under him, thus as an example, on a scale of one to ten, with the King at ten, #6 uses krama to #8, but #8 uses ngoko to #6.

Montino Bourbon · 3rd July 2008, 07:50 AM

From what I understand, the Yahi of Northern California had four languages; one for men, one for women, one for women talking to men, and one for men talking to women.

Four different words for hat; man talking of men's hat, woman talking of women's hat, man talking of women's hat, woman talking of man's hat.

None of the different languages were 'higher' or 'lower'. It was considered a form of politeness to use the right language.

baganing_balyan · 3rd July 2008, 10:20 AM

In Malay languages, a root word remains the same even if you add a prefix, an infix or a sufix. "Iris" should be "kiniris" not "kinris," which has an incomplete root word. It would have been good if there is a word "kinris". That would mean that its root word is kris. Unfortunately, the later is an Anglicized word.

If iris is related to keris, I assume that there was a linguistic evolution that happened-- eris became iris. But it needs to be studies if in Javanese language, e can be i. In other Malay languages, it is not the case. In the Philippines, "ibon" and "ebon" are two different things. The former is bird and the latter is egg.

Malay languages are very sensitive with their vowel change. You change the vowel, the meaning changes. It is not also common to omit a vowel because that would be confusing. Imagine if you use kinris, and you know that "aris" (edge) and iris (cut), can you really say which is which?

If the word eris existed befored and meant the same as iris, then it is related to keris. But I doubt if eris is existed. The vowel "e' is a commonly used vowel in malay. If "e" usualy becomes "i", we would have kiris not keris.

A relationship between two words is not rare in Malay languages, but the root word is not altered when two meanings are connected. "Urus" (thin) is related to "kurus" (nurse), "ilig" (interest), "kilig" (shiver), and "alat" (basket), "kalat" mess.

Keris, for instance, if added with an infix -in-, it should have been kineris not kinris. In malay languages, vowels are important. In the philippines for instance kamot (scratch) becomes "kinamot" not "kinmot." "kurus" could be "kinurus" not "kinrus"-- that kind of spelling malay words is just to modern and too lingua Franca.

baganing_balyan · 3rd July 2008, 10:46 AM

Mr. Maisey, I know you are an expert of Javanese language and culture, but what really made me laugh-- inside though-- is your stubborn insistence that "kinris" appeared in early javanese text.

I refrain from questioning peoples knowledge of logic, but since you really want me to resort to it, this is my logical explanation that will hopefully open your mind and close the issue.

How could "kinris" appear in early javanese text when the javanese people that time period used a sanskrit-like script? If you ask me it's the fault of the translator not yours.

Maybe the original javanese word means cut or "gorok"-- Filipino gulok (bolo) comes from that word. Instead of using "gorok", the tranlator used keris. That's already problematic right there. Why would a verb be tranlated into a noun? I think the translator thought of gorok as a blade like gulok. The appropriate translation would have been "ginorok" not "kinris." By the way "gorok" is still widely used in relation to slaughtering animals. "kinris" is never used according to my indonesian friend.

If you read the javanese prose you posted, it is definitely about hunting, spearing, and cutting animals. I think you are lost in translation.

2nd July 2008, 02:23 AM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,892	The Keris in Early Javanese Literature In a recent thread in the Forum, that has now been locked, a very interesting question was raised. A question that should be of interest to all serious keris researchers. I have opened this question here not because I wish to revisit that closed thread, but rather because this is a most important question and I believe something that needs to be clarified. The question was this:- when did the word "keris" first appear in Javanese literature. Zoetmulder tells us that the word "keris" ( or kris, or any other variation of the romanised spelling) appears spread throughout Old Javanese manuscripts back to 919 CE. He names some of these:- Arjunawiwaha--composed Mpu Kanwa, patron--Airlangga, circa 1035 Sumanasantaka--composed Mpu Monaguna, patron--Warsajaya, circa 1204 Sutasoma--composed Mpu Tantular, patron--Ranamanggala, circa 1367 Kidung Harsa Wijaya--assumed 13th century Then we have:- Krsnantaka, Rangga Lawe, the Malat (Panji) tales, Wanban Wideha, Polenan--- some of these works in Old Javanese are late, some early, but in all cases dates are indefinite. From this it can be seen that the word "keris" has been around for almost as long as the keris itself. Of course, it is very difficult for us to know exactly the form of the keris that was being referred to in these early texts, but it is probably reasonable to assume that these early references were to an object that bore at least some of the salient features of the modern keris. I hope that this information will be of use to those amongst us who are involved in serious research into the early keris.

3rd July 2008, 07:50 AM	#4
Montino Bourbon Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Santa Barbara, California Posts: 301	I love that kind of language variations. From what I understand, the Yahi of Northern California had four languages; one for men, one for women, one for women talking to men, and one for men talking to women. Four different words for hat; man talking of men's hat, woman talking of women's hat, man talking of women's hat, woman talking of man's hat. None of the different languages were 'higher' or 'lower'. It was considered a form of politeness to use the right language.

2nd July 2008, 03:16 PM	#2
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,123	Hi Alan. Thanks for bringing this up on this side of the curtain. In that now lock thread you also presented this information: In Old Javanese there are a number of words that are associated with the keris:- akris:- to wear or use a keris anris and kinris:- to use a keris then we have:- iris, hiris, aniris, iniris and kahiris, all of which can be understood as to cut or to slice. taking account of the grammatic structure of Old Javanese there is a clear relationship between the word "iris":- to cut, and keris, a cutting weapon. To me this all makes a lot of sense, though it is not, by far, the only etymology that i have seen presented for the word "keris". I am curious if you or other forumites have any viable alternative etymologies for the word. It might also be interesting to discuss other terms used for keris throughout the area such as dhuwung, kedutan, etc. How do these terms relate within their specific cultures and levels of society? Also you mention that it seems the word keris has been around almost as long as the keris itself. Is there any evidence of an even early terminology then?

3rd July 2008, 01:51 AM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,892	David, this business of keris etymologies has been going on for years, both in the early western keris writings, and especially in Javanese writings and discussions. If you plod through all of it, you feel as if you are drowning in rubbish. There seems to be a relationship between "iris", and "keris", but whether there is or not, and how it developed , I don't know, and no recognised authority on Old Javanese has ever written on this, to my knowledge. All you can do is go to the works of Zoetmulder, Pigeaud, and a few other notables, and glean what you can from their writings. My preference is for the iris root, simply because none of the suggested alternatives seem to make any sense. There is a problem with Old Javanese and that is that by the time academics got around to working with it, it was already a dead language. Much of the lexicon of Old Javanese flowed into Modern Javanese, but Modern Javanese became a hierarchical language, which the authorities seem to think, Old Javanese was not, or at least not to the extent that the House of Mataram forced Modern Javanese to become.So, when the academics began to compile a lexicon of Old Javanese, sometimes the word meanings came down to logical analysis. They could not always say with certainty exactly what was being referred to. Similarly, Old Javanese was undoubtedly an "non-standard" language, as is Modern Javanese, which means that the same word can take different forms that depend on varying factors. This means that we don't necessarily know if we are looking at a different word, or the same word with a different pronunciation. It also needs to be understood that there was not just one "Old Javanese" language. There was the spoken language of Old Javanese, but early inscriptions were in Sanscrit, the earliest inscription in Old Javanese is the Sukabumi inscription from about 805. Then we have Kawi, which is a literary language and that uses a script that developed from the Indian Pallava script, and Kawi also has an old form.About 20-25% of all Javanese words, Modern and Old Javanese, derive from Sanscrit, however, when they have come into Javanese they do not necessarily retain the same forms and meanings as they do in Sanscrit. To understand all of this well is the domain of a specialist linguist, and I do not pretend for one moment to be such. However, we do need to have some grasp of this background to be able to understand the limits of dealing with the Old Javanese language.With this in mind, the words found in the various languages that can be considered as "Old Javanese" languages, and that can refer to the implement that we would regard as a keris include, but are not necessarily limited to:- tewek, twek, panewek, tuhuk, curigo, curik, duhun, and of course, kris. there are many words that come from, or are associated with these nouns, but I'm not going to go there. Equally, there are many variant spellings in the romanised representation of these words. In modern Javanese, keris is ngoko (low level), dhuwung is krama (usually referred to as "high" level, but in fact a ceremonial variation of ngoko), wangkingan is krama inggil (high level krama), curiga is a literary usage, and can also refer to a dagger. The formality of using the Javanese language is that the person of higher status "talks down" to those under him, thus as an example, on a scale of one to ten, with the King at ten, #6 uses krama to #8, but #8 uses ngoko to #6.

3rd July 2008, 10:20 AM	#5
baganing_balyan Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 89	In Malay languages, a root word remains the same even if you add a prefix, an infix or a sufix. "Iris" should be "kiniris" not "kinris," which has an incomplete root word. It would have been good if there is a word "kinris". That would mean that its root word is kris. Unfortunately, the later is an Anglicized word. If iris is related to keris, I assume that there was a linguistic evolution that happened-- eris became iris. But it needs to be studies if in Javanese language, e can be i. In other Malay languages, it is not the case. In the Philippines, "ibon" and "ebon" are two different things. The former is bird and the latter is egg. Malay languages are very sensitive with their vowel change. You change the vowel, the meaning changes. It is not also common to omit a vowel because that would be confusing. Imagine if you use kinris, and you know that "aris" (edge) and iris (cut), can you really say which is which? If the word eris existed befored and meant the same as iris, then it is related to keris. But I doubt if eris is existed. The vowel "e' is a commonly used vowel in malay. If "e" usualy becomes "i", we would have kiris not keris. A relationship between two words is not rare in Malay languages, but the root word is not altered when two meanings are connected. "Urus" (thin) is related to "kurus" (nurse), "ilig" (interest), "kilig" (shiver), and "alat" (basket), "kalat" mess. Keris, for instance, if added with an infix -in-, it should have been kineris not kinris. In malay languages, vowels are important. In the philippines for instance kamot (scratch) becomes "kinamot" not "kinmot." "kurus" could be "kinurus" not "kinrus"-- that kind of spelling malay words is just to modern and too lingua Franca.

3rd July 2008, 10:46 AM	#6
baganing_balyan Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 89	Mr. Maisey, I know you are an expert of Javanese language and culture, but what really made me laugh-- inside though-- is your stubborn insistence that "kinris" appeared in early javanese text. I refrain from questioning peoples knowledge of logic, but since you really want me to resort to it, this is my logical explanation that will hopefully open your mind and close the issue. How could "kinris" appear in early javanese text when the javanese people that time period used a sanskrit-like script? If you ask me it's the fault of the translator not yours. Maybe the original javanese word means cut or "gorok"-- Filipino gulok (bolo) comes from that word. Instead of using "gorok", the tranlator used keris. That's already problematic right there. Why would a verb be tranlated into a noun? I think the translator thought of gorok as a blade like gulok. The appropriate translation would have been "ginorok" not "kinris." By the way "gorok" is still widely used in relation to slaughtering animals. "kinris" is never used according to my indonesian friend. If you read the javanese prose you posted, it is definitely about hunting, spearing, and cutting animals. I think you are lost in translation. Last edited by baganing_balyan; 3rd July 2008 at 11:00 AM.