Majapahit Keris

[Jean]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

But when I wrote that these were Modern Keris at Candi Sukuh, it seems I was convinced at that time that they were indeed "Modern Keris" --- but perhaps "Pre-Modern Keris" might be more accurate,or maybe "Transitional Modern Keris" --- I could play with words all day and eventually I'd come up with something that would make most people happy.
I think I might have been the first to coin the term "Modern Keris", but I was certainly derelict in failing to define exactly what I personally regard as a "Modern Keris".

Thank you Alan. To me and probably many other kris collectors, the modern kris is a generally assymetrical dagger (with exceptions like dapur sepang), generally with a pamor pattern (with exceptions like pamor kelengan), and a slender shape (straight or wavy) unlike the early krisses shown on the 14th century carvings and bas-reliefs.
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Jean, I think you're probably right with what you think of, and perhaps most other collectors think of as a Modern Keris. But it is not so easy for me. Since you have drawn my attention to this deficiency of mine I've been turning this question over in my head, and I have come to the realisation that I think about this question of "Modern Keris" in a way that is possibly quite different to the way in which you, and perhaps most other collectors do.

My thinking gets back to the perennial question of defining exactly what a keris is. I think that perhaps the first time I saw the word "asymmetric" used to describe a keris was in Garrett Solyom's definition of a keris. It is obvious that what Garrett was looking at in Solo in the late 1960's and early 1970's were a whole heap of artistically fashioned daggers that were not symmetrical in form, so for Garrett, at that time, the use of "asymmetric" as a descriptor was perfectly reasonable, particularly so as Garrett was addressing these daggers from an academic base, not from a base that incorporated many years of collecting and keris study from outside of Jawa, nor from a historic base. He came up with a very good definition of what a keris was in the world of 1970. In fact, I myself have used similar definitions to Garrett's, I might even have quoted him on occasion, and I've been happy to go that route at that time.

But if I think about the way in which I now look at keris, I realise that for quite a long time I have been thinking of keris in a different way to the way in which Garrett thought of keris in the 1970's, and probably in a different way to the way in which most people think of a keris now.

In the Nagarakertagama we find this passage:-


"Exterminated were the animals, thrusted, lanced, cut, krissed, dying without a gasp”

The word "keris" does not appear in this passage, the word used is "kinris", which is from the word "kris" with the infix "in"> "kinris", which turns it into a verb.

So the passage is using a verb, based upon the word "kris", indicating that the animals were killed with krisses --- but were they? Iris is to cut, so in Old Javanese a keris was a "cutter", maybe the word is used to mean that the animals were killed with a variety of weapons that could cut. Maybe a keris (kris) in Old Javanese was generic and the individual weapons that fell under the umbrella of kris were in fact things like tuhuk and tewek that were defined by method use.

The actual Old Javanese used is:-

"--- Tinumbak, Inirás, kinris, pjah tanpagáp---"

So our romanised translation is subject to a bit of interpretation.

This Nagarakertagama passage has influenced my thinking about keris quite a lot, and I realise that in fact, when I think of "Old Keris" and "Modern Keris", I think of "Old Keris" as "Keris Buda", which in Javanese thought equates to "Keris from the Buda Era" = "Old Keris", and "Modern Keris" as keris that came after Keris Buda dropped out of general usage.

I do not really think about whether or not a keris must have a gandhik, or whether it must be asymmetric, I think about what it is not, rather than features that define what it is, so, if it is not a pedang, or a tombak, or a bendo or a golok, or something else similar, it is a keris, as long as it looks vaguely like a keris.

I probably want it to be able to be used as a keris is used, so in a way, the way in which I think about weapon definition probably reflects the way in which weapon names were expressed in Old Javanese, rather than the way in which 21st century and other recent collectors of these weapons think of weapon names.

But then again, if I say, "the way in which a keris was used", exactly how much do we know about the way in which a keris was used? Balinese keris were not used in the same way that we presently believe Javanese keris were used, and the way in which we believe Javanese keris were used has been heavily influenced by the way that keris are held in some dance performances.

There was a transitional period, and from this period we can find keris that have the square tang and metuk of the Keris Buda, as well as keris that have a tang that is flat on two sides, as well as keris that have the blade of a straight Modern Keris, but a symmetric gonjo.

In Bali, we find 16th & 17th century keris that that have the same features as these longer transitional blades that we see in bas-reliefs and statuary, some of these Balinese keris will have symmetric gonjos, some will have asymmetric gonjos, they all get referred to as keris, but when we get into sub classifications they get named as "keris pedang".

Possibly I should have been more careful in phrasing my reference to "Modern Keris" appearing at Candi Sukuh, but to have done so, and make sense, I believe it would have added at least several hundred words to the text, words that were not material to the objective of the article. I do not remember if I considered this at the time, or if was happy enough to let the reference run as "Modern Keris", but if I were to write "Interpretation" again, tomorrow, I would think about the advisability of referring to a transitional keris as Modern Keris. I don't really know at the moment which way my thoughts would run at the time.

So Jean, you see, it is pretty easy for you to understand exactly what a keris is, exactly what a Modern Keris is, and the difference between them.

For me it is vastly more difficult, and when I factor in the many more influences in development, it becomes even more difficult again.

[Gustav]

There are two details which visually caught my attention when I look at the picture of the initial post by Alan -

1) one feature of the dagger resembles the shape of the somewhat strange object known as the Keris of Knaud, I mean the concave shaping of the blade above Gandhik or where Gandhik should be.


It is the question if that feature is a damage or was intended.


2) the scroll (?) within the triangular symbol on the blade resembles the scroll found inside the 2 big Tumpal pointing upwards on the left and right side, and the 4 small Tumpal pointing downwards on 16th and 17th century figural hilts.

Of course it could be Bintulu (the image is just too small). Something we see also on Gandhik on later Keris.

[Gustav]

And speaking about strange and old KLO - there is a hardly known early Keris in Stuttgart. 1653 it came in to the Wuerttembergische Kunstkammer, but originally it belonged to the Johann Jacob Guth von Sulz collection. Johann Jacob Guth von Sulz lived 1543 till 1616, so there is some possibility it was collected already in the 16th century.

The sheath and hilt were supposedly made in Transylvania.

Blade is heavily reshaped, but there are some interesting and peculiar features on Sorsoran. The total length with hilt is 43 cm, so the blade could be 30 - 33 cm.

[A. G. Maisey]

A crop.

The blade indentation is damage

Gustav, why do you say the von Sulz keris is heavily reshaped?

[Gustav]

Alan, just to be sure - the area marked with red is damaged? Thank you for the cropped image.

Regarding von Sulz Keris - because the distance between center ridge and blade edge varies a lot. Generally it seems to have lost its original width above Sorsoran, it looks to me just like the edges were resharpened, sometimes seen on Keris in Europa used as (hunting) weapons. Very similar look above Sorsoran has the Keris on p. 94 in Jensen's book.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Gustav, the area you have marked with red is a big chip out of the blade.

Thank you for your reasoning on the possible re-working of the blade.

[Gavin Nugent]

Originally Posted by Gustav

Alan, just to be sure - the area marked with red is damaged? Thank you for the cropped image.

Regarding von Sulz Keris - because the distance between center ridge and blade edge varies a lot. Generally it seems to have lost its original width above Sorsoran, it looks to me just like the edges were resharpened, sometimes seen on Keris in Europa used as (hunting) weapons. Very similar look above Sorsoran has the Keris on p. 94 in Jensen's book.

I know little about these old keris and the history attached to them, but just a casual uninformed passing comment... there are numerous Sulawesi keris that in one sense or another follow this profile

I continue to read and learn.