The Keris of Majapahit

[A. G. Maisey]

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]

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]

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

Care to develop your thoughts a little?

[Jean]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks for your further comment Rasjid.

Yes, the number of tiers in the roof of a meru indicates the hierarchical level of the deity, however, this only applies when the meru is located in a temple complex. When the tiered roof is located on a cremation tower, the number of tiers indicates the hierarchical level of the person being cremated.

Rulers and some other royalty could use 11 roofs in a cremation tower.

A commoner (sudra) was not entitled to any roofs in his cremation tower.

This hierarchical indicator was repeated in the luk of a keris blade.

In Old Javanese, the word or words that were applied to what we now know as a keris included "tewek" and "tuhuk", however, these words probably indicated a method of usage.Tewek occurs associated with weapons other than keris, tuhuk seems to occur only with the keris, or perhaps not with the keris, but rather with a stabbing weapon that is short enough to use overhand.

Other Old Javanese words that can be used for the keris are "duhung" & "kadgo". Tewek is a root word that produces a number of other words. "Curiga" is another word that can be used for a keris, and it has a connotation of something less than sharp --- just as in its other application of "doubt" :- doubt is not a sharp perception, it is still formatively dull.

The short and simple fact is this:- we do not really know what a keris was known as in Majapahit times, just as we do not really know what it looked like. However, Rasdan's suggestion that different hierarchical levels within the society carried different forms of personal weapons, and that these different forms had different names is very probably an accurate perception.

Gustav: there has been spasmodic debate for a long time as to the meaning of Ma Huan's "pu-la’tao", I think most scholars who have looked at this matter are in agreement that he was using a word that he had learnt in another place to describe the daggers worn in Jawa. Ma Huan visited Jawa in about 1413, but he did not begin the write drafts of his book until three years later, and it was not in its final form until some time after 1450. My guess is that he did not know what these daggers worn in Jawa were known as locally, or, if he had heard the word, it got lost between 1413 and 1450-something.

Old Javanese was not structured in the same way as Modern Javanese. Modern Javanese seems to have developed in the Second Kingdom of Mataram. It has been hypothesised that the rulers of Mataram enforced language levels as one of the ways in which they tried to legitimise their right to rule. The Old Javanese rulers did not have the same problems as did the rulers of Mataram, and Old Javanese was not nearly as highly structured as Modern Javanese. There probably were polite and impolite forms of speech, and possibly these forms did extend to the names used for the weapons of commoners and the weapons of nobility, but the name used could just as easily been because of form of the weapon, as because of status of the weapon.

On the use of the word "varna".
"Varna" is a word that is applied to all beings in creation , not only to human beings, and it classifies all those beings into four classes that broadly equate with caste as we now understand caste, but varna is not the same as "caste".

"Jati" is the same as "caste" as we now understand it.

However, caste in mainstream Hindu society was much different prior to the Muslim Mughals, and even they did not have as great an effect as did the British, who used caste to ease administrative difficulties.

I would suggest that since we are writing in English, that perhaps it may be advisable to use the English word caste, rather than "varna", or "jati", as we all know exactly what is meant by "caste".

[rasdan]

Hi Gustav, I think Ma Huan did know the higher society, he just didn't get to inspect higher ranking keris. Probably he sees lower officials keris. People at his level; people that he can be easily approach and ask to see their keris.

In the code of Melaka (probably around 1450s) it is stated that keris with gold hilts were prohibited to be used by lower ranking people unless it is a gift from the king. I don't know how the people at that time divide the ranking, but a later document shows that the ranking used in a Malay kingdom is quite complicated and probably derived from the caste system.

Apart from the clear cut kshatriya, vaisya, sudra etc they also have people in middle ranks. When a kshatriya married a vaisya, sudra etc. If i remembered correctly one of the middle ranks are called magadha (Megat in Malay) and there are other lower middle ranks also. If the Malay ranking system are derived from the caste system, I think that Majapahit also would have something similar. So perhaps Ma Huan meets these people? Again, if it is indeed a keris. Or probably he just sees a badik..

But come to think about it, this would confine the usage of luk keris to a very small group that is also can be argued.

On ivory, I am not aware of any prohibitions of using ivory for lower ranks/commoner whether in Majapahit or Melaka.

p/s: just saw Alan's comment on varna. Changed it to caste.

[rasdan]

G'day Alan,

Thank you for your explanation Alan. Just one question, do you know when does the word keris actually started to be used?

Guys,

This is rather silly, but I just thought that if Ma Huan really inspects a keris to a point that he sees the pamor, even if it is a straight one, wouldn't he be mentioning that the blade is asymmetrical and it has ganja? Apart from the luk, asymmetry and ganja also is features of a keris that cannot be ignored.