How to read a greneng

[Gustav]

Alan, thank you for your invitation to a Q & A game, I know, you are strong at it. It was your job.

I am reluctant to play it with a person, who in the course of few days either isn't able to recognize own statements, or simply plays a game here.

If I was going in circles during our discussion, it was only because I was trying to follow you in it, but the figures you are making now are more complicated then circles.

I stepped into this discussion because I was intrigued by your statements regarding the "pure" Greneng:

In its most pure form the greneng consists of only the ron dha,sometimes repeated two or three times, this expression of form can sometimes be seen in Balinese keris, and in very old Javanese keris. The other couple of elements sometimes found in later Javanese greneng seem to have been included in the greneng after the keris had become an Islamic icon and was subjected to artistic expression

Later you reinforce that statement, regarding "other couple of elements":

Johan, we can see that in the keris as it is now, and during the period following the rule of Sultan Agung, there are many variations in the way in which the greneng is expressed, so yes, when I say "other elements" I mean anything and everything that can be found in a greneng that is other than just the ron dha.

"Anything and everything" sounds quite strong.


At that point I posted (besides a Greneng on Megantoro) a variation of Greneng on early Keris 1,2 and 3, which consists of two tripartite elements, separated by a Ron Dha, the same element repeated on Jenggot. So a quite extended form compared to your "pure" Greneng.

Your reaction on Keris 1 (with replaced Gonjo) was:

here we have a very good example of what happened when the keris became profane under Islam.

In this keris that you have posted a photo of, we cannot comment on the greneng, because of the replaced gonjo, we can only comment on the ron dha nunut.

The enhancements that occupy the place of the ron dha nunut and jenggot on this blade are very clearly not related in any way to the ron dha of the early Modern Keris within Hindu-Buddhist society.

Regarding Greneng on Keris 2 your remarks were:

in respect of the greneng and ron dha, I noted that they were "very confused".

On both Keris:

This confusion in the formation of the ron dha and greneng is not uncommon in keris from this period. We can only guess why this happened, it could have been intention on the part of either the person who ordered the keris, or of the maker, as a movement away from Hindu-Buddhist symbolism, or it could have simply been a lack of knowledge of the true form required. In any case this distortion of the ron dha is not uncommon and Gustav has given us a very good example of it.

These corruptions of form are most definitely not younger forms of keris enhancement. They are clearly, obviously and logically demonstrable corruptions. They do not appear in the Bali keris, and that tells us exactly what they are.

A question to you at this point: do you mean what you write?

Because after that I presented pictures of two Keris from Bali, 4 and 5, with that variation of Greneng. Keris 4 is, as you noticed, a younger one, probably at least 200 years younger then other Keris I presented.

Yes, I think Keris 4 has the same variation of Greneng as other five (that's why I posted it), it is the only younger one, it's Greneng is stylistically different.

The Greneng on Keris 5, which is an early one, is almost identical to Greneng on Keris 1 and Keris 6, and clearly the same type as on Keris 2 and 3.

With that I hoped to have proved, that this variation of Greneng, which quite extends beyound the "pure" Greneng you presented beginning with #18, aren't

aberrant features found upon keris that were made under Islamic influence

With your post #32 comes a new development in our statements. You take as help your own "Interpretation":

As we can see, right at the very beginning of this section that treats the ron dha I have separated the ron dha from the greneng, and have been very clear that the elements of which the greneng is comprised can vary.

I am inclined to see everything that you have put forward about this variant greneng form as re-enforcement of what I published in "Interpretation".

The elements of a greneng do vary.

May I remind you of your statement:

In its most pure form the greneng consists of only the ron dha,sometimes repeated two or three times, this expression of form can sometimes be seen in Balinese keris, and in very old Javanese keris. The other couple of elements sometimes found in later Javanese greneng seem to have been included in the greneng after the keris had become an Islamic icon and was subjected to artistic expression

and everything else you have said about this "variant greneng" before?

As next you state:

However, not all greneng carry the ron dha. As I said in post #21 of this thread:-

"--- where the ron dha read as "om" appears, it is intended, where it does not appear, it is not intended.---"

What do you mean with that? Are you speaking about the "pure" Hindu-Javanese or Balinese, or Islamic Greneng? If you speak about Hindu-Javanese or Balinese Greneng, you contradict to your own statement above. And the Greneng variation I presented includes a Ron Dha. Moreover, that passage in #21

"--- where the ron dha read as "om" appears, it is intended, where it does not appear, it is not intended.---"

you used in a different context - you referred to a missing Jenggot, not Ron Dha in Greneng, and in your opinion there not always is a Jenggot on early Keris:

You ask if we can assume that "om" was inferred in those cases where the ron dha does not appear as a jenggot. Frankly, I am not prepared to assume this, as I believe the inclusion of the ron dha preceding the kembang kacang was a later development. My attitude to this would be that where the ron dha read as "om" appears it is intended, where it does not appear, it is not intended.

And after that, as if you haven't written nothing before on that subject, you start to explain the same variation of Greneng from "Hindu" viewpoint.

Subsequently, you want from me some clear answers,

not a sliding sideways answer that avoids the thrust of the question

In this thread you are the person, who has left questions unanswered (Bjorn's about other Greneng elements and my about Ri Pandan), and you quite often chose not to answer because of your reasons - I doubt you are now in position to demand answers.


P.S.

My use of word "hypothesis" seems to bother you quite a lot. I used it in a sense of "assumption" (I already wrote about English as my fourth language). Honestly, I don't know how to name it - it appears to be able to change quite quickly.

[kai]

Hello Alan, hello Gustav,

I have been enjoying your discussion - please keep it going despite personal approaches of your studies or styles of communication! I have had a bit of a tough time to contribute due to moving targets and distractions - will try in a second or two to put down a few thoughts...

Regards,
Kai

[David]

I too have been following this thread with great interest. I believe this is one of the most interesting threads we have had here in some time, at least to me. Unfortunately the debate seems to be descending into a general "prickliness" which i feel at this point must be addressed. This is, for me at least, very important information to understand about the keris. I must, however, demand that the conversation remains civil. Please don't misunderstand, so far it pretty much has, but i would like both of you gentlemen to consider how you phrase your thoughts and believes carefully so that we can indeed keep this conversation friendly and on track. Thank you!

[kai]

Gustav has been kindly trying to present an assortment of early examples from European collections, let's say pre-17th century. While some of these blades will have been newly crafted to function as a gift, there also seem to be hints that others had already been in use for some period. For how long will be more than tough to tell much less to verify in most cases...

Most blades may be post-1525 (to follow Alan's suggestion). A few might even be older; I doubt we can expect any surviving in good condition to originate from Gajahmada's time though. Since we know that Mojopahit had been declining for a long time already and Islamic ideas/influences being known/present earlier, too, I don't see any reason to focus on any cut-off date (1525 or whatever): A blade may be older and already exhibit Islamic (or other) non-traditional ideas; another blade may be younger and still true to old traditions [possibly not so different to what we experience in the keris culture since Indonesian independence].

I guess I'm with Gustav in assuming that the oldest surviving figural hilts (i. e. those with intact linggam/yoni symbolism, etc.) are stylistically in line with what we can expect to have adorned keris Mojopahit, too. That these are mainly/always? found on keris from early European collections that might had originated (or been imported) from/via (western/)northern(/easternmost) Java is not a contradiction IMHO (considering that we also see antique hilts with stylistic similarities that are probably later and from Bali.

Regarding the special style of greneng shown by Gustav, I find it very interesting that it consistently occupies the position where one would expect ron dha and ron dha nunut (as well as ron dha at the jenggot); it's also interesting that this feature at the jenggot seems closer to the ron dha nunut than the ron dha. Moreover, this greneng configuration doesn't appear to be a mere corruption since several of the examples do exhibit a clear ron dha on the gonjo (i. e. between the 2 [almost] symmetric tripartite greneng features) - with the possible exception of #3 where this element seems to be rather too short/roundish for a decent ron dha (not positive though since the pic does not show the details clear enough). Since this variant is also found on later keris Bali (with 809-99 from the Tropenmuseum being old enough to exclude any contemporary influence of the pieces from European collections on Balinese pande), one would be inclined to believe that this variant predates 1525. At least that's the usual line of reasoning...

Considering the long period of Mojo decline, it could still be an early corruption, indeed. However, this hypothesis would necessitate additional assumptions to explain its survival on Bali (and apparent absence on late keris Jawa). Thus, it would be great to hear why you are so certain that this feature can't be based on any legit Mojo variant, Alan! Am I missing any stylistic details that militate against this notion? Mind you, I'm not insisting that this is a genuine Mojo variant (nor based on any) - just trying to explore all alternatives that can be supported by extant examples!

Regards,
Kai

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for your response Gustav.

You may not have intended to, but you have given me pretty much what I expected to get from you, actually what I was looking for, and I thank you for this. I believe I now do have an understanding of your objectives, and in a sense you have cleared the way for a positive approach to this matter, an approach that I will address in the near future.

You have raised a couple of things that I'd like to get out of the way before I move on, so here goes:-

1) in respect of my current position regarding the ron dha:- I very strongly suspect that originally there was no greneng as we now understand the greneng to be, I suspect that originally there was only the ron dha, the other elements were added later as the symbolic nature of the keris in Javanese society developed.

The only element of the greneng that I currently understand is the ron dha. I am confident that the other elements will eventually be found to carry a demonstrable interpretation, but that pleasure of discovery could be a long way into the future.

I repeat:- I have not ever published any hypothesis in respect of the greneng.

2) in respect of my terminology "very confused".

I lifted this from the notes that I made at the time I handled the relevant keris, it was the impression I got with it in my hands. I write notes for myself in a kind of shorthand, the complete train of thought was "in comparison with the normative model of the greneng this greneng is very confused". I regarded it as confused because of the variant form.

3) you ask me: "do you mean what you write?"

This is a good question Gustav, I'll try to give as good a response as I can.

Yes I do. Always. But only when I write it.

I can very well change my mind, most especially in discussion. You see, it depends upon what I write and where I write it.

If I undertake to write something that I consider to be of importance, I want that writing to be a matter of public record, and I'll run it through multiple drafts, I'll have it reviewed by several people whom I believe are in the position where they can give knowledgeable, objective comment and criticism, I'll triple check everything. Where that writing might be used in legal action I'll have at least two lawyers review it to ensure that no legal problems might arise because of its contents.

It takes a long time to produce thoroughly defensible pieces of writing, and even then I can still find something like a spelling error, or poor grammar in something that might have been submitted 6 months ago.

However, when I write something in correspondence, or to a colleague, or in a place such as our Forum, I write off the top of my head. I write most of the time without checking things, I write from memory, I write according to how I think or feel at the time. Sometimes I change my mind before I get to the end of a sentence, usually because I remember something that I had not previously taken into account, so I go back and do a delete:replace.

Some people might consider that my attitude towards this relaxed, social type of writing is a bit irresponsible. Well, it might be, but its the best I'm ever going to do for what I regard as social interaction, I simply do not have time to check and research everything I put into correspondence, notes, and online discussion groups.

In fact this is what I'm doing right now:- I'm writing as if I were talking with you. This is lightweight, relaxed social intercourse. It is not a report to a board of management, it is not a report or opinion to be used in prosecution in a court of law, it is not an article that I would like to be taken seriously; no, not at all. For me, it is relaxation. Fun. Something to do while I drink my morning coffee.

To return to your question:- "do you mean what you write?"

Yes Gustav, of course, but only when I write it.

What happens after that can depend upon many factors.

4) you have been so kind as to remind me of "everything else you have said about this "variant greneng" "

Thank you Gustav, but I really do not need this reminder, we're engaged in a flowing discussion here I think. Yes, admittedly at times this discussion has veered towards under-graduate style debate that takes place when somebody is trying to get noticed, but I don't consider that to be of any real importance.

In a formal debate the words uttered are considered by the moderator and points awarded for the argument put; in a court of law the words uttered are considered, weighed, balanced, and quite often somebody suffers as a result; in a discussion the words uttered are passing things and positions can change during that discussion. The whole point of discussion is to open up the subject of the discussion to scrutiny, and as more input is given, so the subject of discussion is more clearly seen.

I regard our exchanges here as discussion, not as debate. I provide some input, others provide additional input, the end result is hopefully a better understanding of the subject, which in this case I take to be our variant greneng, or more precisely, one element of our variant greneng.

5) Gustav, it seems that you have had an inordinate degree of difficulty in understanding my use of this phrase:-

"--- where the ron dha read as "om" appears, it is intended, where it does not appear, it is not intended.---"

What I mean by this is that if we find a ron dha present on a keris, it is there because either the maker, or the person for whom the keris was made wanted to put it there, in other words, its placement on the keris is intentional.

However, I have qualified my statement by the requirement that the ron dha is to be understood as the mantra "om".

So, if we understand the symbolism as a prayer, or mantra, and it is understood as "Ganesha, Siwa" when the kembang kacang and the sogokan are present, and then we add one "Om", it becomes "Ganesha, Siwa, Om", but then we add another "Om", so we have "Om, Ganesha, Siwa, Om", but sometimes there can be multiple "Oms" in multiple places, so each time there is an "Om" it is intentional. It may change the content of the mantra or prayer, or it may not, perhaps the supplicant might use "Om" without the prompt, but if "Om" appears, it appears intentionally.

6) you have pointed out that I have failed to answer a couple of questions, I regret this, but I seem to answer so many questions that I do sometimes overlook one or two.

Bjorn:- Gustav tells me that I have failed to respond to one of your questions, I think he is possibly referring to this question:-

"Alan, when you refer to the other elements in the greneng, apart from the ron dha, do you mean the tingil and ri pandan?"

My apologies for the delayed response, Bjorn. I mean all elements that can be found in any greneng apart from the ron dha. The thingil and ri pandan are actually a part of the ron dha, but the other elements that we sometimes find are not.

I'm possibly being a bit undisciplined in ascribing all and everything to Islamic influence, admitted, this is my current perspective, and I have this perspective because I have not yet thoroughly researched nor considered the greneng, my focus of attention for a very long time has been the ron dha, and really, that is all I'm prepared to comment upon with confidence when discussion involves the greneng.

Gustav, your ri pandan question.

In the Modern Keris it is regarded as a part of the ron dha, I regard it as a part of the ron dha. Future research might show it be something that needs to considered as a separate element, but right now both the thingil and the ri pandan are a part of a correctly cut ron dha.

7) thank you for clarifying your understanding of "hypothesis" Gustav; yes, "assumption" is perhaps a more precise word in this case.

Well, I think I've given responses to everything that you have raised Gustav. There are a few things that you have included in your post #35 that I have chosen to ignore, and this is intentional. You gave me the response I wanted, and the things I've chosen to ignore do not add anything to our discussion.

However, in respect of that discussion, this chapter of it is closed for me.

I do appreciate the way you introduced that variant greneng. I had previously regarded this form as just another variation, and I have never bothered to look closely at it, nor to attempt to interpret it. Because of your focus and the multiple examples that you have come up with, you have in fact performed the function of a researcher for me, something that I greatly appreciate, you have given me data that I had previously disregarded because of my own narrow focus, and although I might have eventually got around to the position of recognising this variation as something that needed to be looked at more closely, you have saved me a lot of time by presenting the examples that you have.

It is now clear that we have an element of keris design that is very probably an as yet not understood symbol. It obviously has a very long history, it seems to no longer appear in Javanese keris, and in spite of the 19th century Balinese keris you used as an example, it perhaps had already disappeared from Balinese usage long ago. This is a valuable contribution to our still deficient understanding of the keris.

Once again Gustav, I thank you most sincerely for your participation in this discussion, it did take a little bit of prompting to get what I wanted from you, but in the end, you came through. Thank you.

[A. G. Maisey]

Kai, yes, Gustav has been very helpful, and as I have indicated in my post above, I value his assistance very much.

You are absolutely correct Kai, we cannot use any cut off date for influences other than Buddhist-Hindu on the symbolism found in the keris. I said as much in my "--- they did not switch the lights off---" comment.

The keris may have been born into a Hindu-Buddhist society, but other people copied court style and those other people did other things with the Hindu-Buddhist symbolism. After Islamic domination the most important intentional influence was Islam, but there was always other influence as well, some of that influence was ignorance, some was probably not. As with any belief system, the Javanese Hindu-Buddhist belief system was not free of sects and divisions. I believe that for the core of court society, especially for the k'satriyas, the ron dha was understood as "Aum", but outside that core other forces were in play.

You have raised the matter of continuance into the modern era, my entire focus on this matter, right from and before the beginning of this current discussion has been, and continues to be, Jawa before Islam. Within this narrow focus I narrow the focus further:- the ron dha. All the time greneng, greneng, greneng occurs and re-occurs, but I cannot comment on the greneng, except in the context of the ron dha. I have not researched the symbolic content of the complete greneng with its multiple variations, I'm sure there is one, and eventually we will probably be able to present a supportable interpretation of the entire greneng, but that time is not now.

I do not want to get into hilt discussion. The hilt is additional to the keris, it is not the keris. The hilt can and does change according to circumstance, in older examples its interpretation can often only be known to the maker or the client. Styles are fairly readily identifiable, themes are perhaps identifiable, these can sometimes be linked to areas and eras, but just as with the keris itself, the hilts moved all over the place. Only in the setting of very recent courts can we link the hilt to specific usage and hierarchy. In brief:- the study of the hilt is linked to, but separate from the study of the keris. I do not have the time to engage in detail in this study.

Kai, I do not want to talk about grenengs. I do want to talk about the variant element that can be found in some grenengs, that Gustav has presented to us. Now that we have been able to identify and isolate this element, I want to get out of this thread and start a new one that has the very narrow focus of this element. Not the greneng, but the element of the greneng.

Did this feature survive on Bali? From my perspective I am not yet sure.

Kai, I am not at all certain that this variant element that Gustav has come up with is not something from pre-Islam. Read my response to Gustav. I will not be pinned to comments made in discussion, especially when I am trying to elicit complete disclosure from a source. When I publish an opinion I try to make sure I can support the opinion, when I float an opinion in discussion it is what is in my mind at the time I float it, and sometimes it is used to prompt a response.

In respect of Gustav's examples what I am currently prepared to rely upon is that these examples are a legitimate form that comes from an early period, the form is presented in various renditions, but all except one of those renditions carries characteristics that I consider to be sufficient to read the form as intended to have the same meaning. It is a consistent variation that is sufficiently dominant in its context to deserve thorough attention, and we have Gustav to thank for bringing it to our attention.

[A. G. Maisey]

David, it seems that you regard the exchanges in this thread as debate. To me, this is discussion. Debates are held as competitions to score points. Discussions are not confrontational nor competitive, they have the purpose of clarifying a situation, or information.

Yes, the discussion has veered towards debate, but from my perspective it has always been discussion and my comments have eventually given me the result I wanted. There is no unfriendliness here, I regard Gustav as a good friend, a little sensitive perhaps, but his sensitivity is a valuable part of his nature and gives him an ability to do things that are beyond many of us.

In this discussion I feel that we have finally reached a point where we can move away from lengthy circuitous exchanges and get down to a (hopefully) narrow focus on something of value. In order to facilitate this objective my personal feeling is that this present discussion should end here and a new thread be opened to permit us to focus on this variant element that Gustav has given us.

[David]

Well, that well may be Alan, however i'm not going to lock this thread. You and/or Gustav are, of course, welcome to open a new thread on this specific variant element if you wish, but members should feel free to continue posting here if they feel they have something relevant to add to what has already been said.