The Keris of Majapahit

A. G. Maisey · 31st August 2015, 12:07 AM

In a previous thread Gustav mentioned that a keris under discussion made him think of Majapahit. I have been toying with the idea of trying to expand this comment into some form of discussion, but I have decided that in order not to hijack the previous thread it might be a good idea to start a new thread.

Just a little bit of background:- the Majapahit era (which many people abbreviate to "mojo") existed in East Jawa, near Surabaya, between about 1293 and about 1525. It was the last major Hindu-Buddhist kingdom of Jawa and following its collapse was replaced by Islam over most of Jawa. It is popularly regarded as the "Golden Age" of Jawa.

Over the past few months I've been discussing a question with a long-time friend, who although he is not an expert in the keris, does have a very solid understanding of the keris, and has collected them, along with other edged weapons for more than 40 years.

Much of our discussion would have been valuable to this Forum, but my friend is a bit of a Luddite, and does not have a taste for public, online discussions.

The question is this:-

"what did the keris of the Majapahit era really look like?"

This question must necessarily be a matter of opinion.
At the present time, there can be no wrong and no right, however, although we cannot really prove anything in this matter, we should be able to support our opinions with logic.

Does anybody here care to put forth an opinion in respect of the physical appearance of these very old keris, the keris of the Majapahit era?

Gustav · 31st August 2015, 03:56 PM

This surely also will be a longer discussion, and at the moment I am not well prepared to begin with such difficult subject. Yet I will be, next week.

At the moment I am able just to reply with another question.

My central problem when I see the Kerisses attributed to Majapahit is the discrepancy between the most often small and slender blades, looking "halus", and the obwiously massive and short blades in the few period depictions, or the two depictions I am aware of sheathed Keris, which are equally massive and short, which all obviously look "kasar". As do look the wearers, if we accept Bhima-Kertolo as "kasar".

Why there are no depictions of refined characters with refined, or lets say at least waved blades?

Jean · 31st August 2015, 05:30 PM

Alan,
Thank you for introducing this very fascinating subject!
I would summarize my opinion as follows and will develop it later:

1. First I would note that the Majapahit period extended over more than 2 centuries and it is likely that the krisses changed a lot during this "golden age" period, i.e that the krisses from the early period were very different from those from the late one.

2. I don't know what the krisses from the Majapahit period looked like as to my knowledge no specimen with proven provenance (royal regalia, museum pieces, etc) was ever identified with a good certainty, except maybe the kris from Knaud. All the krisses depicted on the East Java temples dating from this period are still of the early "leaf" type. The amulet or "sajen" krisses which are called Majapahit krisses by some authors have no proven link with the Majapahit period.

3. The supposed features of the krisses attributed to Majapahit are described in the Javanese tangguh classification basically as follows:
The pawakan/ pasikutan looks eerie and gives a deft impression, the iron is "melted" and looks dry, the pamor is strong and deeply buried into the blade, the shape of the blade is more slender toward the tip and it looks pointed, the waves are quite widely spaced, the gandik is slanted and rather short, the pejetan is boto adeg "brick standing-up", the front of the ganja and the sogokan are short and smooth. In brief, a very elaborate and fully modern kris!

4. After the collapse of Majapahit, the empus are said to have moved to Bali and West Java (Pajajaran) and continued to make krisses in the Majapahit style. From the end of 16th and during the 17th century, some high krisses were brought to Europe from Banten (West Java) and Cirebon. These krisses look similar to the strong balinese krisses which we know, but not at all to those attributed to tangguh Majapahit. It may therefore be interpreted that the krisses from the late Majapahit period were similar to the krisses brought from Banten to Europe during the late 16th and 17th centuries.
Regards

A. G. Maisey · 31st August 2015, 11:39 PM

Thanks for your interest Gustav and Jean.

Gustav, you have identified a key point, possibly the key point that we must consider in this matter.

I understand that your further responses may be a little delayed, but when you are able, could you suggest a supportable reason for this variation?

Jean, yes, as Gustav has pointed out, there is wide variation in the form of keris that can be attributed to Mojo.

You comment that you don't know what a Majapahit keris looked like.
Jean, nobody does, and that is why I have raised this question. There are a lot of very strong indicators that point to the form of the Mojo keris, but perhaps first of all, we need to define what we mean by "keris of Majapahit".

As for Tangguh Majapahit, the indicators used to classify keris under this system vary. May I ask the source of the indicators you have provided?

May I also ask you the same question that I asked Gustav:- can you suggest a supportable reason for the wide variation in keris form?

You have pointed out that Mojo was a fairly long lived era, most especially so by Javanese standards, but apart from just the passing of time, do you have any other ideas?

Jean · 1st September 2015, 09:46 AM

Hello Alan,
The compound & summarized indicators which I mentioned for the blades attributed to tangguh Majapahit are mainly based on the Ensiklopedi Keris, and complemented by the book "Keris Jawa" by Haryoguritno, and the book "Pengetahuan tentang keris" by Koesni. There are some discrepancies between the 3 sources indeed but they are not really conflicting, but some indicators are mentioned in one or 2 sources only.
I have few ideas regarding the possible variation of the kris form during the Majapahit period but they are not very original nor supported so I will leave others develop them.
Regards

A. G. Maisey · 1st September 2015, 10:47 AM

Yes Jean, there is variation in the indicators for tangguh, all these recent publications you mention have drawn on older publications such as "Panangguhing Dhuwung".

I don't use any of the published sources, either recent, or older, but rely on what I was taught by Mpu Suparman, during the 1970's he was the Penangguh for the Boworoso Tosan Aji in Surakarta, that is to say, his opinion in respect of tangguh carried greater weight than the opinions of others.

For Majapahit he named 14 indicators: tanting, besi, pamor, baja, pawakan, gonjo, gandhik, blumbangan, sogokan, ada-ada, kruwingan, eluk-lukan, wadidang, sekar kacang. His descriptions of the indicators he used are fairly detailed, for instance, for the sogokan:-

" well formed and handsome, A rounded bottom and no pamor in evidence. There are keris Mojopahit that have a rather long sogokan, but in these cases the Pajajaran pattern is being followed, normally the sogokan is short"

If your sources use the word "pawakan" to describe the character of the blade, this would be disallowed in Surakarta, in Surakarta the correct word to describe the feeling generated by a blade would be "wanda", with "pawakan" being used for the overall visual appearance. Mpu Suparman describes the wanda of Majapahit as "brave".

So we have lots of variation in not only the indicators for tangguh, but the way in which those indicators are understood.

In essence, the tangguh system of classification is an element of the keris belief system. My personal opinion is that it can be relied upon to a limited degree for fairly recent tangguhs, such as Surakarta and HB, maybe even as far back as Mataram Senopaten, but when we get into the really old tangguh classifications I regard it as pretty untrustworthy as an indicator of age. My teacher would have disagreed with me, but his world view was different to my own.

The tangguh system was developed as a reaction to colonial dominance of the Javanese kingdoms, and the restrictions that colonial power and traditional standards of the aristocracy imposed upon Javanese men of noble birth. It was never intended as a tool to establish the actual age of a keris.

So, for the purposes of this present discussion I feel that we should leave tangguh classifications off to one side.

Perhaps an approach that looks at the sources of information available to us might be more useful than a system devised to help store wealth.

31st August 2015, 12:07 AM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,892	The Keris of Majapahit In a previous thread Gustav mentioned that a keris under discussion made him think of Majapahit. I have been toying with the idea of trying to expand this comment into some form of discussion, but I have decided that in order not to hijack the previous thread it might be a good idea to start a new thread. Just a little bit of background:- the Majapahit era (which many people abbreviate to "mojo") existed in East Jawa, near Surabaya, between about 1293 and about 1525. It was the last major Hindu-Buddhist kingdom of Jawa and following its collapse was replaced by Islam over most of Jawa. It is popularly regarded as the "Golden Age" of Jawa. Over the past few months I've been discussing a question with a long-time friend, who although he is not an expert in the keris, does have a very solid understanding of the keris, and has collected them, along with other edged weapons for more than 40 years. Much of our discussion would have been valuable to this Forum, but my friend is a bit of a Luddite, and does not have a taste for public, online discussions. The question is this:- "what did the keris of the Majapahit era really look like?" This question must necessarily be a matter of opinion. At the present time, there can be no wrong and no right, however, although we cannot really prove anything in this matter, we should be able to support our opinions with logic. Does anybody here care to put forth an opinion in respect of the physical appearance of these very old keris, the keris of the Majapahit era?

31st August 2015, 05:30 PM	#3
Jean Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,740	Alan, Thank you for introducing this very fascinating subject! I would summarize my opinion as follows and will develop it later: 1. First I would note that the Majapahit period extended over more than 2 centuries and it is likely that the krisses changed a lot during this "golden age" period, i.e that the krisses from the early period were very different from those from the late one. 2. I don't know what the krisses from the Majapahit period looked like as to my knowledge no specimen with proven provenance (royal regalia, museum pieces, etc) was ever identified with a good certainty, except maybe the kris from Knaud. All the krisses depicted on the East Java temples dating from this period are still of the early "leaf" type. The amulet or "sajen" krisses which are called Majapahit krisses by some authors have no proven link with the Majapahit period. 3. The supposed features of the krisses attributed to Majapahit are described in the Javanese tangguh classification basically as follows: The pawakan/ pasikutan looks eerie and gives a deft impression, the iron is "melted" and looks dry, the pamor is strong and deeply buried into the blade, the shape of the blade is more slender toward the tip and it looks pointed, the waves are quite widely spaced, the gandik is slanted and rather short, the pejetan is boto adeg "brick standing-up", the front of the ganja and the sogokan are short and smooth. In brief, a very elaborate and fully modern kris! 4. After the collapse of Majapahit, the empus are said to have moved to Bali and West Java (Pajajaran) and continued to make krisses in the Majapahit style. From the end of 16th and during the 17th century, some high krisses were brought to Europe from Banten (West Java) and Cirebon. These krisses look similar to the strong balinese krisses which we know, but not at all to those attributed to tangguh Majapahit. It may therefore be interpreted that the krisses from the late Majapahit period were similar to the krisses brought from Banten to Europe during the late 16th and 17th centuries. Regards Last edited by Jean; 31st August 2015 at 06:22 PM.

31st August 2015, 03:56 PM	#2
Gustav Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,248	This surely also will be a longer discussion, and at the moment I am not well prepared to begin with such difficult subject. Yet I will be, next week. At the moment I am able just to reply with another question. My central problem when I see the Kerisses attributed to Majapahit is the discrepancy between the most often small and slender blades, looking "halus", and the obwiously massive and short blades in the few period depictions, or the two depictions I am aware of sheathed Keris, which are equally massive and short, which all obviously look "kasar". As do look the wearers, if we accept Bhima-Kertolo as "kasar". Why there are no depictions of refined characters with refined, or lets say at least waved blades?

31st August 2015, 11:39 PM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,892	Thanks for your interest Gustav and Jean. Gustav, you have identified a key point, possibly the key point that we must consider in this matter. I understand that your further responses may be a little delayed, but when you are able, could you suggest a supportable reason for this variation? Jean, yes, as Gustav has pointed out, there is wide variation in the form of keris that can be attributed to Mojo. You comment that you don't know what a Majapahit keris looked like. Jean, nobody does, and that is why I have raised this question. There are a lot of very strong indicators that point to the form of the Mojo keris, but perhaps first of all, we need to define what we mean by "keris of Majapahit". As for Tangguh Majapahit, the indicators used to classify keris under this system vary. May I ask the source of the indicators you have provided? May I also ask you the same question that I asked Gustav:- can you suggest a supportable reason for the wide variation in keris form? You have pointed out that Mojo was a fairly long lived era, most especially so by Javanese standards, but apart from just the passing of time, do you have any other ideas?

1st September 2015, 09:46 AM	#5
Jean Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,740	Hello Alan, The compound & summarized indicators which I mentioned for the blades attributed to tangguh Majapahit are mainly based on the Ensiklopedi Keris, and complemented by the book "Keris Jawa" by Haryoguritno, and the book "Pengetahuan tentang keris" by Koesni. There are some discrepancies between the 3 sources indeed but they are not really conflicting, but some indicators are mentioned in one or 2 sources only. I have few ideas regarding the possible variation of the kris form during the Majapahit period but they are not very original nor supported so I will leave others develop them. Regards

1st September 2015, 10:47 AM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,892	Yes Jean, there is variation in the indicators for tangguh, all these recent publications you mention have drawn on older publications such as "Panangguhing Dhuwung". I don't use any of the published sources, either recent, or older, but rely on what I was taught by Mpu Suparman, during the 1970's he was the Penangguh for the Boworoso Tosan Aji in Surakarta, that is to say, his opinion in respect of tangguh carried greater weight than the opinions of others. For Majapahit he named 14 indicators: tanting, besi, pamor, baja, pawakan, gonjo, gandhik, blumbangan, sogokan, ada-ada, kruwingan, eluk-lukan, wadidang, sekar kacang. His descriptions of the indicators he used are fairly detailed, for instance, for the sogokan:- " well formed and handsome, A rounded bottom and no pamor in evidence. There are keris Mojopahit that have a rather long sogokan, but in these cases the Pajajaran pattern is being followed, normally the sogokan is short" If your sources use the word "pawakan" to describe the character of the blade, this would be disallowed in Surakarta, in Surakarta the correct word to describe the feeling generated by a blade would be "wanda", with "pawakan" being used for the overall visual appearance. Mpu Suparman describes the wanda of Majapahit as "brave". So we have lots of variation in not only the indicators for tangguh, but the way in which those indicators are understood. In essence, the tangguh system of classification is an element of the keris belief system. My personal opinion is that it can be relied upon to a limited degree for fairly recent tangguhs, such as Surakarta and HB, maybe even as far back as Mataram Senopaten, but when we get into the really old tangguh classifications I regard it as pretty untrustworthy as an indicator of age. My teacher would have disagreed with me, but his world view was different to my own. The tangguh system was developed as a reaction to colonial dominance of the Javanese kingdoms, and the restrictions that colonial power and traditional standards of the aristocracy imposed upon Javanese men of noble birth. It was never intended as a tool to establish the actual age of a keris. So, for the purposes of this present discussion I feel that we should leave tangguh classifications off to one side. Perhaps an approach that looks at the sources of information available to us might be more useful than a system devised to help store wealth.