The Keris of Majapahit

A. G. Maisey · 3rd September 2015, 02:58 AM

Theo's chapter 7 keris are certainly not particularly old keris. In fact, for at least 100 years these larger keris in the form of a keris sajen have been produced specifically for collectors, some of the really recent ones professionally aged, can be a real trap for young players. There are probably a few truly old ones around, but I very much doubt that even these can be attributed to the Majapahit era.

Jean, you ask '---what is left?---' .

We have a plethora of art works.

We have a good quantity of monumental works.

We have a multitude of literary sources that deal with history, culture and society.

One thing is certain:- we can learn only a very limited amount from sources that deal specifically with keris. We must recognise the Javanese keris for what it is:- a cultural icon.

Quote:-

If you keep doing what you have always done, you will keep getting what you always got.

I'm sure somebody famous gave us this quote, but I don't know who. However, it is particularly relevant to the study of the keris. We keep on reading keris books because we want to learn about the keris, but we invariably only get rehashes of the same information, much of it drawn from the same limited sources.

If we want to learn about the keris we must look in a direction other than the books about keris.

Jean · 8th September 2015, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

If we want to learn about the keris we must look in a direction other than the books about keris.

Hello Alan,
I was away for few days and I am surprised to find that nobody commented on this topic, which shows how difficult it is.
I agree with your statement but would comment as follows:
With so many Indonesian experts (may be stuck with their traditions) and brilliant Western scholars studying the Javanese & balinese cultures in detail for centuries, the mystery of the kris from Majapahit has not been resolved. Do you expect that there are any major remaining written sources or archeological pieces which would allow to progress on this subject?
For most Indonesian kris experts & collectors, the kris from Majapahit equals the kris from tangguh Majapahit, while for Westerners the kris from Majapahit may have looked like this one?

Regards

A. G. Maisey · 9th September 2015, 01:25 AM

Jean, this matter of keris history and development is not only difficult, I tend to believe that it is something that is not of much interest to most collectors.

You are correct in that a very large number of academics have studied Javanese & Balinese culture and society for a very long time, however, it appears to me that when these scholars do address the keris, it is addressed in terms that apply to present day attitudes, they seem never to attempt to investigate origins, development, history of the keris. So yes, we are left with a lot of unanswered questions.

I have firmly believed for a long time that the only way we can get close to some sort of understanding of the development of the Javanese/Balinese keris is to look very closely at the history and society of the developmental era. I believe that we can be fairly confident in fixing this developmental era to the period prior to the cessation of major migration to Bali from Jawa (+/- 1512), and after the foundation of the Kingdom of Majapahit (+/- 1293).

Within this period of time art works and monumental works were produced on a fairly prolific scale. Often we find depictions of weapons that contain sufficient identifiable characteristics to place them as keris, or what we now recognise as keris. However, this production of art was not consistent throughout the entire period.

Can we find any depictions, anywhere within this vast body of work, of weapons that look anything like the large, artistic keris that you have posted a picture of in post # 16? In fact, I cannot recall finding a weapon with a waved blade in the art works of this period.

Why?

So. now I would like to pose this question:-

was the keris of Majapahit a single form of keris, one that we would now identify as a Modern Keris?

Ma Huan gives us arguably our best summarised picture of Jawa circa 1400, it is found in the Ying Yai Sheng Lan:-

http://faculty.washington.edu/qing/h...lan%5B1%5D.pdf

I suggest a reading of the Java segment of this document, for those who are not already familiar with it. Java is "Chao-Wa"

rasdan · 9th September 2015, 07:29 AM

Just a speculation, there's no mention of wavy blades because Ma Huan only looked at a commoner's keris which is straight; reflecting the owner's status? Or the wavy ones are only for Kshatriyas not for other varnas?

A. G. Maisey · 9th September 2015, 07:46 AM

Looks like you're tuned in the time and place Rasdan.

Care to develop your thoughts a little?

Jean · 9th September 2015, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

So. now I would like to pose this question:-

was the keris of Majapahit a single form of keris, one that we would now identify as a Modern Keris?

Ma Huan gives us arguably our best summarised picture of Jawa circa 1400, it is found in the Ying Yai Sheng Lan:-

http://faculty.washington.edu/qing/h...lan%5B1%5D.pdf

I suggest a reading of the Java segment of this document, for those who are not already familiar with it. Java is "Chao-Wa"

Hello Alan,
Thank you for giving us access to this very interesting and often referred paper from Ma Huan.
However it seems that he only visited the Majapahit ports (Tuban, Gresik and Surabaya) but was not in contact with the Hindu Majapahit court, and the Kings whom he refers to were probably just the local Governors. The small knives which he describes (pu-la-t'ou or beladau?) worn even by the kids may not be krisses at all, like the Acehnese used to wear the rencong besides the kris? I agree with Rasdan that the big wavy krisses may just have been worn by high ranking people and not commoners, and were possibly introduced after Ma Huan's visit?
The description of the indigenous Hindu people by Ma Huan is particularly negative and not in accordance with the high Majapahit civilization!
Regards

A. G. Maisey · 9th September 2015, 03:19 PM

Just so Jean.

If we wish to find an answer to a question, we first need to produce a question that may assist in the production of an answer. Often it is more difficult to construct the question than it is to construct the answer.

Here below are a few questions that may assist in helping us to construct an answer to the question posed in post #1 of this thread.

1) Were the daggers carried by the common people keris, as we understand a keris to be?

2) Was the level of culture and society amongst the bulk of the populace of a level that refined weapons of any type might be supposed to be common?

3) Is it possible that the keris as we know it was only present amongst those entitled to weaponry within the kraton hierarchy?

4) Is it at all likely that the keris carried by members of kraton society would ever be seen by anybody except those who were close to these people?

5) . What form of keris is shown in monumental works of the Majapahit era, and in art works of the Majapahit era ?

6) Upon what examples of keris did the artists draw?

7) The Majapahit era lasted for over 200 years, it did not exist after about
1525.
The peak of migration from Jawa to Bali was in about 1512.
Majapahit was at its peak from about 1330 to 1389 --- the reign of
Hayam Wuruk.
Gajah Mada exercised effective control of Majapahit from about 1329
until 1364.
The decline of Majapahit commenced following the death of Hayam Wuruk.
In the period following the collapse of Majapahit, Jawa was in turmoil.
The form of the Modern Keris was fully developed by 1600.

8) During what period of time were social conditions conducive to the
incorporation of socio/religious iconography into the keris?

rasdan · 9th September 2015, 07:51 PM

Well, I don’t have much apart from what I read here previously Alan. What I know is that Majapahit is a hierarchical society. So status is probably reflected in objects they carried daily.

In your Pre-Islamic Interpretation paper, you mentioned that the number of tiers in Balinese temples reflects the level of the deity worshipped in the temple. More tiers showing the higher level of the diety. The number of tier happens to corresponds to the number of luks on a keris where 11 luk is the highest level if we count the luk in the smith’s way of making the luk. I think this is highly possible and I would imagine that the mantra for every luk is different. In this case, a commoner probably was only allowed to carry a straight blade. If the blades observed by Ma huan have luks, he would certainly mention it because it is a very important feature for a keris.

In Ma Huan’s journal he used the word pu-la’tao for keris. If I’m not mistaken, in Negarakertagama a different word was used for what is probably a keris. But it is not keris, dhuwung or curiga. (I am not too sure about this as I didn’t really study it throughly) Negarakertagama was written somewhere in the 1360 not too far from Ma Huan’s record in early 1400s. So, I am guessing they are using different name for different level of keris. A commoner keris is a pu-la’tao and at keris of nobles or priests are called with a different name – if what they carry is indeed a keris.

Gustav · 9th September 2015, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rasdan

If the blades observed by Ma huan have luks, he would certainly mention it because it is a very important feature for a keris.

I agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rasdan

In Ma Huan’s journal he used the word pu-la’tao for keris. If I’m not mistaken, in Negarakertagama a different word was used for what is probably a keris. But it is not keris, dhuwung or curiga. (I am not too sure about this as I didn’t really study it throughly) Negarakertagama was written somewhere in the 1360 not too far from Ma Huan’s record in early 1400s. So, I am guessing they are using different name for different level of keris. A commoner keris is a pu-la’tao and at keris of nobles or priests are called with a different name – if what they carry is indeed a keris.

Interesting idea, yet here we have a problem or a bunch of problems: Ma Huan introduces pu-la’tao describing kings appearance, not commoners, and speaks of "one or two short knives", which the king wears.

Of course we could argue, Ma Huan never made it behind the "double gates, very well kept and clean". If he wasn't acquainted with the high society of Majapahit, he also wouldn't know the term for the "knife" used in highest language level. He absolutely doesn't mention the varna, yet on other hand describes the hilts of pu-la’tao as made from "gold or rhinoceros’ horn or elephants’ teeth". As we know, gold and ivory was later in Bali reserved for the upper varna.

3rd September 2015, 02:58 AM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,893	Theo's chapter 7 keris are certainly not particularly old keris. In fact, for at least 100 years these larger keris in the form of a keris sajen have been produced specifically for collectors, some of the really recent ones professionally aged, can be a real trap for young players. There are probably a few truly old ones around, but I very much doubt that even these can be attributed to the Majapahit era. Jean, you ask '---what is left?---' . We have a plethora of art works. We have a good quantity of monumental works. We have a multitude of literary sources that deal with history, culture and society. One thing is certain:- we can learn only a very limited amount from sources that deal specifically with keris. We must recognise the Javanese keris for what it is:- a cultural icon. Quote:- If you keep doing what you have always done, you will keep getting what you always got. I'm sure somebody famous gave us this quote, but I don't know who. However, it is particularly relevant to the study of the keris. We keep on reading keris books because we want to learn about the keris, but we invariably only get rehashes of the same information, much of it drawn from the same limited sources. If we want to learn about the keris we must look in a direction other than the books about keris.

9th September 2015, 01:25 AM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,893	Jean, this matter of keris history and development is not only difficult, I tend to believe that it is something that is not of much interest to most collectors. You are correct in that a very large number of academics have studied Javanese & Balinese culture and society for a very long time, however, it appears to me that when these scholars do address the keris, it is addressed in terms that apply to present day attitudes, they seem never to attempt to investigate origins, development, history of the keris. So yes, we are left with a lot of unanswered questions. I have firmly believed for a long time that the only way we can get close to some sort of understanding of the development of the Javanese/Balinese keris is to look very closely at the history and society of the developmental era. I believe that we can be fairly confident in fixing this developmental era to the period prior to the cessation of major migration to Bali from Jawa (+/- 1512), and after the foundation of the Kingdom of Majapahit (+/- 1293). Within this period of time art works and monumental works were produced on a fairly prolific scale. Often we find depictions of weapons that contain sufficient identifiable characteristics to place them as keris, or what we now recognise as keris. However, this production of art was not consistent throughout the entire period. Can we find any depictions, anywhere within this vast body of work, of weapons that look anything like the large, artistic keris that you have posted a picture of in post # 16? In fact, I cannot recall finding a weapon with a waved blade in the art works of this period. Why? So. now I would like to pose this question:- was the keris of Majapahit a single form of keris, one that we would now identify as a Modern Keris? Ma Huan gives us arguably our best summarised picture of Jawa circa 1400, it is found in the Ying Yai Sheng Lan:- http://faculty.washington.edu/qing/h...lan%5B1%5D.pdf I suggest a reading of the Java segment of this document, for those who are not already familiar with it. Java is "Chao-Wa"

9th September 2015, 07:29 AM	#4
rasdan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Kuala Lumpur Posts: 368	Just a speculation, there's no mention of wavy blades because Ma Huan only looked at a commoner's keris which is straight; reflecting the owner's status? Or the wavy ones are only for Kshatriyas not for other varnas?

9th September 2015, 07:46 AM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,893	Looks like you're tuned in the time and place Rasdan. Care to develop your thoughts a little?

9th September 2015, 03:19 PM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,893	Just so Jean. If we wish to find an answer to a question, we first need to produce a question that may assist in the production of an answer. Often it is more difficult to construct the question than it is to construct the answer. Here below are a few questions that may assist in helping us to construct an answer to the question posed in post #1 of this thread. 1) Were the daggers carried by the common people keris, as we understand a keris to be? 2) Was the level of culture and society amongst the bulk of the populace of a level that refined weapons of any type might be supposed to be common? 3) Is it possible that the keris as we know it was only present amongst those entitled to weaponry within the kraton hierarchy? 4) Is it at all likely that the keris carried by members of kraton society would ever be seen by anybody except those who were close to these people? 5) . What form of keris is shown in monumental works of the Majapahit era, and in art works of the Majapahit era ? 6) Upon what examples of keris did the artists draw? 7) The Majapahit era lasted for over 200 years, it did not exist after about 1525. The peak of migration from Jawa to Bali was in about 1512. Majapahit was at its peak from about 1330 to 1389 --- the reign of Hayam Wuruk. Gajah Mada exercised effective control of Majapahit from about 1329 until 1364. The decline of Majapahit commenced following the death of Hayam Wuruk. In the period following the collapse of Majapahit, Jawa was in turmoil. The form of the Modern Keris was fully developed by 1600. 8) During what period of time were social conditions conducive to the incorporation of socio/religious iconography into the keris?

9th September 2015, 07:51 PM	#8
rasdan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Kuala Lumpur Posts: 368	Well, I don’t have much apart from what I read here previously Alan. What I know is that Majapahit is a hierarchical society. So status is probably reflected in objects they carried daily. In your Pre-Islamic Interpretation paper, you mentioned that the number of tiers in Balinese temples reflects the level of the deity worshipped in the temple. More tiers showing the higher level of the diety. The number of tier happens to corresponds to the number of luks on a keris where 11 luk is the highest level if we count the luk in the smith’s way of making the luk. I think this is highly possible and I would imagine that the mantra for every luk is different. In this case, a commoner probably was only allowed to carry a straight blade. If the blades observed by Ma huan have luks, he would certainly mention it because it is a very important feature for a keris. In Ma Huan’s journal he used the word pu-la’tao for keris. If I’m not mistaken, in Negarakertagama a different word was used for what is probably a keris. But it is not keris, dhuwung or curiga. (I am not too sure about this as I didn’t really study it throughly) Negarakertagama was written somewhere in the 1360 not too far from Ma Huan’s record in early 1400s. So, I am guessing they are using different name for different level of keris. A commoner keris is a pu-la’tao and at keris of nobles or priests are called with a different name – if what they carry is indeed a keris.