How to read a greneng

[Gustav]

Alan, the ivory hilt I introduced in my last post is quite remote from North Coast Jawa hilts.

It seems to me a little bit reckless to classify every old Keris in European collections with upright Blumbangan as Banten and every old hilt with a demonic figure as North Coast Jawa. It reminds me of Keris experts in Javanese tradition from not so remote past, who classified the same blades from old European collections invariably as Bali - because they didn't fit in their belief system.

Now these Keris, this variation of Greneng, and obviously also the hilt don't fit in your system.

You name this rare form of Greneng "aberrant features found upon keris that were made under Islamic influence" and in #28 you write "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."

There actually is a quite well published state Keris from South-Bali in Tropenmuseum Amsterdam, Col. Nr. 809-99, which has a Greneng, closely related to the variation I presented in my last posts - "It consists of two identical elements with a Ron Dha in the middle. That element is repeated on Jenggot."

Apart from this I have nothing new to add to #29.

[A. G. Maisey]

Gustav, I feel that we have reached a point in this discussion where I need to attempt to clarify a few points, but before I do, I have a question:- is the photo below, the hilt that you believe is not stylistically a North Jawa hilt?

In respect of the Banten classification, yes, I agree completely with you that no classification can be given upon the basis of a single feature. Where the Banten classification is concerned, we have a bit of a problem, because in the old literature, Banten and the North Coast in general are not recognised as tangguh by the Surakarta pakem, and that guide is the foundation stone of all the tangguh classifications that we are currently privileged to have available.

During the 1980's, the people I associated with in Solo, who did understand tangguh, tended to dismiss all North Coast keris with characteristics that did not fit comfortably with Central Javanese forms as "diluar Jawa", and thus not worthy of consideration. I'm not sure why this should be, but because I need to address a wider community than the Solo community, I long ago took the decision to attempt to identify characteristics that are generally accepted as being present in Banten and other North Coast keris. In fact, the North Coast needs to be sub-divided, just as Central Jawa is sub-divided, with different keris styles being recognised as being associated with different places.

I am inclined to the view that insofar as Banten is concerned, the blumbangan is not a decisive identifying feature:- older Banten keris tend to follow the Majapahit style, later ones tend to follow Mataram, and sometimes Pajajaran, but here again we have a problem, because there are several styles of keris that can be given a classification of Pajajaran.

In any case, yes, I agree that Banten keris cannot be classified simply on blumbangan form.

Again, I have no argument with the idea that figural hilts are not limited to North Coast Jawa. I prefer the term "figural" rather than "demonic", or "raksasa" because it sometimes is not possible to determine exactly what the figural representation was intended to represent.

In respect of a particular hilt (sorry, I'm not yet certain which hilt you mean), you tell me that:-

"--- obviously also the hilt don't fit in your system.---"

Quite frankly Gustav, I don't know what you are talking about here, as I have never put forward anything on the classification of keris that used the hilt as a prime element of classification. In my view, hilts must be considered separately to the keris itself.

Now, about the greneng and ron dha.

You have referred to "your system", " your hypothesis", meaning a hypothesis and/or system that I have put forward, and you have claimed that certain variations in the way a ron dha is cut are incompatible with this hypothesis of mine to which you refer. Since I have not constructed any hypothesis or theory in this thread, I'm guessing that when you refer to the "system" & "hypothesis" that I put forward, you are referring to something I have published as a paper or article, so again, I'm guessing, but I think the only candidate for any sort of hypothesis in respect of the matters being discussed here is my "Interpretation" article.

In fact, I have not at any time, nor in any place constructed a hypothesis that deals with the greneng. In "Interpretation " I did put forward a hypothesis that deals with the ron dha. I open the section of "Interpretation" that deals with the ron dha with these remarks:-

"The ron dha is a part of the greneng, and in Javanese and Balinese keris, the individual elements of which a greneng is comprised can be subject to a degree of variation. However, the consistent element in a correctly cut greneng is the ron dha. In a few forms of keris, the ron dha can also be found on the opposite edge of the keris, in a symbol known as the jenggotan, which depends like a beard from the kembang kacang."

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.

No argument about this.

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.---"

The Troppenmuseum keris (TM 809.99) that you have offered as an example of a variant greneng is a 19th century keris, and the form in which the greneng is cut is not uncommon in Balinese keris. The crucial factor with this keris is that it does carry ron dha, the fact that the way in which those ron dha are presented as part of a whole is only one of a multitude of ways in which the ron dha can be presented, and is not really relevant.

Just a side bar on this particular Balinese greneng form:- it is possible, perhaps probable, that in the context of Balinese belief, this three pointed element in the greneng could be read as a reference to the Tri-Murti; another possible interpretation would be that in one of its more elaborate forms it is a representation of the pejyor, which relates to the Gunungan, and of course the keris itself is a Gunungan representation.

Actually, I have not yet researched nor considered at length this variant element in the greneng, so don't shoot me if I put forward something different when I publish on the greneng. The above is just something that occurred to me while I was typing. It is not at all difficult to generate interpretations of the symbolism, either real or imagined that we can find in the keris. The difficult part comes in building a sufficiently strong structure to support the interpretation.

To sum up:-

the ron dha is one element of the greneng; where the ron dha appears in a keris that has been made as a socio-religious artefact within a society that has embraced elements of the Hindu faith, that ron dha can only be read as "aum" (or, if you prefer "om").

In those cases where the ron dha does not appear in a greneng, or has been replaced by a variant element, this can be because of intentional substitution, error, or possibly some other, as yet unthought-of reason.

[Gustav]

Alan, I feel there is a serious need to recapitulate the development of our discussion (which I value very much). At first - the part concerning Greneng.

In #26 I posted an picture of a pre-17th cent. Keris (1) with replaced Gonjo, with an uncommon variation of Greneng. In #29 I described that Greneng form as "consisting of two identical elements with a Ron Dha in the middle. That element is repeated on Jenggot". I would like to add "identical TRIPARTITE elements".

Your comments on it in #28 regarding it's Greneng in #28 were:

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

"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."

"I agree that this keris you have shown us is probably older than the first half of the 17th century. This is a North Coast blade, very possibly classifiable as Banten, and it demonstrates very nicely the point that I made in respect characteristics associated with the Hindu-Buddhist belief system, however, those features in this keris have been distorted."

................................................

In the same post I mentioned the Keris Dresden Inv. Nr. 2895 (2), with the same variation of Greneng.

Your comments on it and obviously on that Greneng variation are:

"Dresden 2895 can be seen in Jensen's Kris Disk, chapter 3, page 22. This kris has its original gonjo and is an excellent example of the early Modern Keris under Islam. Jensen measured it as 41.8cm, I measured it at 42.4cm. It has a single front sogokan and in respect of the greneng and ron dha, I noted that they were "very confused". In any case Dresden 2895 is a big keris, in the hand it is very similar to a Bali 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 (sic?) 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."

.................................................. .............................


In #29 I posted a picture of a part with Greneng visible of Keris from Munich Inv. Nr. Gr. 598 (3)

Your comments in #30 on it and obviously also the previous Keris are:

"However, I do feel that by introducing aberrant features found upon keris that were made under Islamic influence we are wandering away from the barrier that I set myself at the beginning of this discussion. Quite simply I do not want to extend any of my comments into the era of Islamic influence.

The keris that you have introduced to discussion are keris that were made under Islamic influence. They are North Coast Jawa keris, probably classifiable as Banten, and that removes them from any discussion of the keris as a Javanese Hindu-Buddhist artefact. These keris that you have presented and that you wish to discuss have no place in a discussion of the keris within the Javanese Hindu-Buddhist era.

You tell me that these aberrant keris do not fit my hypothesis, but I have not yet published any hypothesis that deals with keris of this type and era. In fact, this perverted corruption of a religious icon does ideally fit into my unpublished work, but I am not at the present time willing or able to take discussion into this era."

In #29 I explained, why I am reluctant to see that variation of Greneng as an "confusion in the formation of the ron dha and greneng":

"regarding the Greneng variation I presented, I don't think it is as simple as "They are clearly, obviously and logically demonstrable corruptions. They do not appear in the Bali keris, and that tells us exactly what they are". This Greneng appears on a very small number of Keris, and they all are older then first half of 17th cent. After that this variation disappears. Speaking of myself, I haven't seen many Keris from Bali, which could be somewhat supportably datable as older then perhaps 18th cent. We have much less reasoned to say on subject older Keris in Bali then we have regarding older Keris in Java - and that isn't much.

This variation of Greneng clearly don't fit in your hypothesis, but I am not sure, if it is a reason enough to deem it as a corruption from Islamic period.

It consists of two identical elements with a Ron Dha in the middle. That element is repeated on Jenggot. Stylistically I don't see any confusion there."

.................................................. .....................

Finally, in #31 I posted a picture of a state Keris from South-Bali, Tropenmuseum Amsterdam, Col. Nr. 809-99 (4), which displays the variation of Greneng which is the subject of our discussion.

Now in #32 you suddenly write:

"The Troppenmuseum keris (TM 809.99) that you have offered as an example of a variant greneng is a 19th century keris, and the form in which the greneng is cut is not uncommon in Balinese keris.

Just a side bar on this particular Balinese greneng form:- it is possible, perhaps probable, that in the context of Balinese belief, this three pointed element in the greneng could be read as a reference to the Tri-Murti; another possible interpretation would be that in one of its more elaborate forms it is a representation of the pejyor, which relates to the Gunungan, and of course the keris itself is a Gunungan representation.

Actually, I have not yet researched nor considered at length this variant element in the greneng, so don't shoot me if I put forward something different when I publish on the greneng. The above is just something that occurred to me while I was typing. It is not at all difficult to generate interpretations of the symbolism, either real or imagined that we can find in the keris. The difficult part comes in building a sufficiently strong structure to support the interpretation."

We are still speaking about the same Greneng variation, which you deemed as a "These corruptions of form are most definitely not (sic?) 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."

Besides, I am not completely convinced Tropenmuseum Amsterdam, Col. Nr. 809-99 is a 19th cent. Keris, yet it is very possible. Today, while searching I found a picture of a Keris from Bali Inv.nr. 67.766, VKM Vienna (5), which obviously is an older one, very close to old Javanese, and Keris Skokloster Inv. Nr. 6960 (6).

The variations of the Greneng form on initial Keris 1, Keris 5 and Keris 6 are very close, nearly identical. These and Greneng on Keris 2, 3 and 4 are close enough to be understand as variations of the same form.

I hope, that is suficient to free this Greneng form from it's curse as "clearly, obviously and logically demonstrable corruptions" on "aberrant" Keris.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The sidetracks of our discussion were also the use of Jenggot on KK, on which you wrote in #28:

"Gustav, in respect of this statement:-

"--- if an early Keris had Kembang Kacang and Greneng, there almost automatically was also Jenggot on KK, mirroring the Greneng (the only exeptions I can think of would be Sempana type blades, but I have seen better preserved specimens with small Jenggot).---"

I do not accept that there was any "automatic" inclusion of the RD as jenggot in pre-1525 keris. There was absolutely no need to always, automatically include the RD to be read as "aum" in this position. Sometimes it was there, sometimes not. There may have been socio-cultural reasons for inclusion, there may not have been. At this time I am not prepared to hypothesise on the presence or absence of the RD as "aum" preceding the KK as Ganesha."

My answer on it in #29 was:

"Regarding my use of word "automatically" regarding the parallel use of Greneng and Jenggot, I am aware, it also doesn't fit in your hypothesis. I for myself wanted to express with it my oppinion, which is adeqately supported by Keris from early collections as material evidence, that there is no KK without Jenggot on old, well preserved Keris, except perhaps Sempana in some cases. If we speak about a corruption during the period following the rule of Sultan Agung you mention in #21, KK without Jenggot is one indeed."

Perhaps I made the mistake naming your theory (?) a hypothesis - my apologies for incorrect use of a language, which is the fourth one I (never properly) learned.

After that discussion on that subject ceased.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding your attribution of pre-17th cent. Keris from old Kunstkammer collections mostly as Banten and therefore as (corrupted) early Islamic Keris (as I understand, all of them), and the figural hilts on them as (Islamic) North Coast Jawa - I have nothing to add, as we are in an impasse regarding that subject. My thoughts, as you may suppose, is, that they are from different locations, of different age, and there are Pre-(Non)-Islamic Keris among them.

In http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=21327 I tried to explain to you the difference between 17th cent. (or earlier) and later Pasisir figural hilts, yet obviously failed. So I doubt, I could convince you now of something you cannot accept.

My apologies for the long post, yet it was necessary.

[A. G. Maisey]

Gustav
In respect of this:- " We are still speaking about the same Greneng variation, which you deemed as a "These corruptions of form are most definitely not (sic?) 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."
Yes, typo, the 'not' is out of place, residue of a deletion.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thank you so very much Gustav for your extensive quotes from previous posts to this thread. I have read through your entire post #33 several times, and I must confess that you have almost totally lost me. I was confused about where you were going before I read your post #33, after reading it I am even more confused.

It's my problem Gustav, no fault of yours. I never was particularly tolerant of this style of debate where things keep going in circles. Children and young adults do often seem to enjoy this type of exchange, I do not, and although I can understand the need for some people to engage in such exchanges it is really not something of which I like to be a part. I apologise for not withdrawing from this fruitless waste of words earlier. I admit, I do tend to be a bit long-winded when I write, this happens because I try to make things as clear as possible in order to prevent useless exchanges, but it appears that my efforts to reduce pointless text have resulted in a superfluity of such text.

I do appreciate your fixation on this tri partite element in the greneng, and your posted images are of interest. When I do further work on the greneng I will certainly pay attention to this variant.

However, after reading your most recent post I have come to a slightly different conclusion to your own. My opinion is that rather than a parade of isolated quotes, what we really need are some pointed questions and answers.

If I can get an understanding of what you are trying to do by continually re-enforcing my own ideas it would help me to make relevant contributions to this discussion. If I have written something in a previous post to this thread that you do not understand, or that you would like me to clarify, please ask me a direct question and I'll do my best to give a concise, relevant response.

Here below are some questions that you may or may not choose to answer. If you do choose to answer, please provide an answer that is to the point, not an extended quote, and make it a straight answer, not a sliding sideways answer that avoids the thrust of the question. If you cannot answer, or choose not to answer, I'm quite OK with that too, but please advise that you have chosen not to respond.

It would be really nice if you could make your answers concise and pointed. Where possible 'yes', 'no', 'no response', 'don't know' would all be very much appreciated.

My "system" : what is my "system"?

My "hypothesis" : what is my "hypothesis"?

Is the hilt shown as image #3 in your post #33 stylistically North Coast Javanese or not? If it is not stylistically North Coast Javanese, then what area would you associate this style with?

Have I stated that I have never published any hypothesis that relates to the greneng? Yes, I have used the word "greneng", yes, I have discussed the greneng, but have I published any hypothesis that addresses the form of the greneng?

Have I made it clear that the ron dha is to be regarded as only one element of the greneng?

Have I made it clear that the elements of which the greneng is composed do vary?

Are the tri-partite elements that you identify in the greneng, elements of greneng composition that vary from greneng composition which is regarded as the normative model?

Have I limited my hypothesis in respect of elements of the greneng to only the ron dha?

In your opinion, are the 6 keris that you have shown as examples in post #33 all from the period after 1500?

Do you consider the greneng elements indicated in image #4, post #33 to be the same as the greneng elements indicated in the other 5 images included in post #33?

What are you attempting to demonstrate by repeatedly posting examples of greneng variation ?

I said earlier that I am confused by the direction you have taken, hopefully your responses, if you choose to respond, will help to relieve that confusion.

[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.

[A. G. Maisey]

Of course David, I did not suggest that you should lock it, and I see no reason to lock it, but I feel that the area we have stumbled into is too important to get mixed in with the original material that got us to this point.

It is my intent to open a new thread as soon as I am able --- if somebody else doesn't do so before I get the time.

[Johan van Zyl]

I want to try to dispel some of the seriousness of this debate/discussion with a humorous anecdote of my own. Having varied interest, not only in the keris, I have followed many such debates, just as lengthy and convoluted as this one. A noteworthy example is the incessant "battle" that was carried on years ago in the letters column of one of our major agricultural magazines by a certain Dr Lucas Potgieter on hunting rifles and stopping power, and how to quantify the latter. His "antagonists" were a number of practical hunters equally adept in hunting as he. As the debate petered to a close eventually, with no "winner" having attained victory, one elderly hunter wrote in and said (I quote from memory): "I and my friends have been following this debate with great interest. We had not taken part at all, as we had been sitting high up in a thorn tree out of harm's way while the bulls were battling it out on the ground. It is only now that the dust is settling, that we see fit to come out of the tree."

I think that illustrates my own position during this debate/discussion!

I found myself admiring the limitless patience which the debaters had for one another's views. I have followed debates in other forums where the verbal attacks against parties expressing their opinions have been vicious to say the least. I saw none of that here.

My two cents worth is that the present "lengthy circuitous exchanges" do not serve to educate forum members effectively. At the same time I feel it would be a tragedy if knowledgeable people like Alan & Gustav (and others) decide to hold back their expert comments in order to prevent a circuitous "outbreak" of debate/discussion.

I myself now know a little something about my tiny collection of two kerisses, exactly because forum members were willing to answer and discuss my many and varied questions. For that I am eternally grateful.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks for your comments Johan.

Once again I will make the point that there was no debate going on in our exchanges. It was discussion. Debate involves attempts to convince people of something, I don't think Gustav was pushing any argument, he was just showing pics and making comments, similarly I was not pushing any argument, just commenting. Debate does not look anything like this. I've been involved in debates, real ones, face to face with a clock ticking and a necessity to make convincing argument. Debates can leave you bruised. Nobody gets bruised in discussion.

The reason Gustav and I are so polite to one another is because we were not debating. There is no need to get nasty in a discussion, but it is sometimes necessary in true debate to destroy not only the opposition position, but also the person presenting that position.

But we're nice people here, we don't do that sort of thing.