So, looking once more at the beautiful old Penn Museum keris in post #31 above, and reading up on all that has been said, I am starting to wonder if that three-pronged Gustav-element maybe still is around, but has been corrupted to such an extent through time that it is not easily recogniseable anymore? Please see the greneng on my Java keris and note the element on the far end of the gonjo, next to the ron dha (to the left of it, at the very end). Recall that the two "wings" on the sides of the thingil in the Gustav-element are not mirror images of one another; they are different. On my keris I think I see the same element: there's the thingil in the centre, and what remains of two side-prongs which slant differently.

I probably am "seeing things" because it is what I WANT to see, but I mention this for any comment you might want to make, even if it is "Whoa, boy!"

Johan

Hello Johan,

No worries, at this brainstorming stage all comments may help to spur our thinking. I have been trying to look into this in more detail but still need more time to come up with something reasonable, hopefully.

I guess the part you're highlighting is not an offspring of Gustav's element: The main difference seems to be the wide, rounded gaps (compared to the narrow and acute gaps with GE). I don't think that there's a missing link that will bridge this gap... ;)

We have several clues that may help to verify any working hypothesis:
1. Similar shape of the parts of the element? (Including evolutionary links for any changes.)
2. Positional information - is placement/function basically the same?
3. Rhythm (or language) - does the order of the greneng appear to be correct (or does the hypothesized meaning make any sense)?

It is very possible that the elements (or their parts) do change over time - we should be able to trace them back to the original element though to make a compelling case IMHO.

Regards,
Kai

Thank you Kai!

One last uncertainty which is still in my mind while we are on this topic of the greneng, is: how do we differentiate between a greneng element and PART of a greneng element? (You will recall the Gustav element actually consists of three parts - it was described as the "three-pronged element").

While the pic of the Java keris is still directly above, may I use it as an example? As far as I can make out, that greneng has only three elements. Reading from right to left (top to bottom), I see a ron dha on the blade, then another ron dha on the gonjo, and then ONE last element. I am asking if any of you in the know agree with me, or do you discern more than these three elements on this keris?

Johan

Johan, there are a number of earlier posts in this thread that identify elements of a greneng. I think I probably posted most of them, and I did this to try to make the point that the entire subject is confused and full of contradiction.

The keris you are now inquiring about is probably classifiable as Pajajaran, this places it as west Jawa, into Sunda. The greneng is not the typical Javanese greneng we are accustomed to, and the element that takes the place of the kanyut is not nameable under present convention.

However, having seen the way this idiocy works, I am sure that some people would not have much difficulty in giving every pimple in the sorsoran, either accidental or intentional, a long complicated totally meaningless name --- and they still would not understand anything at all about what they were looking at.

Gentlemen, this is a fascinating discussion. I'll have to go somewhere quiet while I contemplate the issues raised.

This goes to show how new collectors can become swept up in the enthusiasm of the old collectors: when the old collectors become engrossed in their fascinating discussions over "every pimple", we newbies get enthused and want to participate in like fashion. I, as a retired lecturer, who frequently made use of practical examples in classroom discussion, was however quick to bring in an actual keris so that what can be said about the greneng is directed to a point. (Recall our posts concerning the Penn Museum keris?)

I don't think the ENTIRE subject has become confused; what might need to be done is that the confusion where it surfaces should be addressed. We now & then tend to leave discussions hanging in the air.

I glean from what has been said about the greneng in the pic, that there ARE indeed three elements of which two are ron dhas and one cannot be interpreted. Especially appreciated is the bold statement by Alan that "the greneng is not the typical Javanese greneng we are accustomed to, and the element that takes the place of the kanyut is not nameable under present convention."

Personally I see a (worn) ripandan above the rondha located on the wadidang (blade side) and another ripandan or protrusion below the rondha located on the ganja but it is not really important.
Regards :)

Johan, when we undertake to study the keris we have a choice:- we can limit our study to the information that can be found in books, and if we live in a western country, for most people that means an even further limitation of limiting our study to books printed in a modern European language.

Alternatively we can immerse ourselves in SE Asian languages, including their archaic versions, and to do that effectively we need to learn how the people who are born into these languages as native speakers of the languages think. Just knowing the words is not sufficient, to understand the way a word is understood by a native speaker we need to adopt the native speaker's world view and terms of reference. We need to understand the content of the word, not just its sound and meaning.

If we opt to study the Javanese keris, this means that we need to learn Bahasa Indonesia, basic Javanese in at least 3 levels, and to be able to read and understand romanised Old Javanese. Nice additions would be Balinese, Madurese and Sundanese, but these are probably not essential as there is a degree of mutual intelligibility between these languages and Modern Javanese.

Now, one of the peculiarities of Modern Javanese is that it is a very socially focussed language, in matters concerning human interaction it becomes very finely tuned, for example, depending upon what part of the body bears a pimple, that pimple will in all likelihood have its own explicit name.

This overburden of definition is something that permeates the Javanese soul, and when we look at the lexicon that is attached to the keris we can clearly see this very fine focus on categorisation and detail.

Perhaps this would not be a problem, if the Javanese people as a whole thought in a similar way to Europeans, but they do not.

The Javanese language is what is known as a "non-standardised language" by linguists. Moreover, it is a language that is at its finest when it is spoken, as body language, inflection and tone can carry meanings that words alone cannot.

It is as if every Javanese person has the belief that every word he or she utters is his or her personal possession, and that word means precisely what the owner of the word wants it to mean, no more, and no less. Humpty Dumpty.

The enchanting nature of the language is coupled with a rather confusing national characteristic whereby total agreement and cooperation on all levels and in all matters is perceived, but the actions which follow very often do not relate in any way to the previous perception.

When we come to the keris, what we find is that all over Jawa there are keris study groups. The purported function of these groups is the study and better understanding of the keris. The real function is social, and as with most social groups in any society, that group becomes a vehicle for the advancement of the alphas within it.

There is propensity for these groups to either adopt a lexicon and philosophy of their own, or to adopt one from some obscure long forgotten text. Why? Because they like to be different, to differentiate themselves from others.

Sometimes these lexicons of keris terms get published, and the result is that if we pick 20 keris books published in Indonesian, or especially in Javanese, and over a span of time what we find is an amazing variation in terminology. Even very highly regarded publications are not exempt from this. For example, the foundation stone of dhapur at the present time is the Surakarta Pakem, that was issued under the aegis of the Surakarta Kraton in the 1920's. It can be quite enlightening to go through that Pakem and compare the characteristics of the listed dhapurs with what is currently accepted.

When we get to the names of the various elements of keris characteristics, the ricikan, we again find no small degree of inconsistency.

Is this important?

Well, since virtually all the names of the various features are either descriptors or euphemisms that have absolutely nothing at all to do with keris, in my opinion it really doesn't matter what words are used, except insofar as it is necessary to communicate with somebody who is within our own keris group.

What is important in the study of the keris is not the names of the various little characteristics, these names carry no information, they give no hint of any meaning, and they vary from place to place and person to person. They are close to useless.

What is important is to gain an understanding of the keris in all its dimensions.

Nothing else is worth the effort.

Now, to return to our choices in keris study.

You maintain that when confusion surfaces it should be addressed.

A very admirable sentiment Johan.

Do we include the cultural owners of the keris, that is to say, the Javanese, Balinese and so on in our attempts to address confusion? Because that is where the seat of the confusion lays, and it is deeply entrenched in the nature of the society.

Or do we acknowledge that to understand the keris we need to first understand the world view of the cultural owners?

Perhaps if all we want to be is a collector of curiosities from places we do not understand it might be best to simply adopt our own lexicon, and our own points of reference.

If we did this there would be very little confusion, and when that detestable beast did raise its ugly head we could very promptly address it.

But then we face another problem:- the nature of the keris has been deliberately confused in Jawa itself, ever since the time when it was adopted by people other than its originators.

Well, I must say this: that these sentiments of yours should be regarded as required reading by all new and not so old keris "students". Keris 101, if I may call it that. I thank you warmly for your efforts to instill this insight into our members. I especially admire your patience. I regret that I did not have such patience as a lecturer. Some of my students wanted me to lower my standards so that they need not study so hard. Some would request a remark to get them an extra mark to help them come into the running for a re-examination. I tell them: "You already know so little; you want me to help you know even less?" Lecturing sometimes became a laugh a minute though: In Afrikaans we have the word for "cow udder", which, when you misspel the word by one vowel, it becomes "chicken egg". I warned my students that I would negatively mark them if they should write chicken egg where they mean cow udder! Yes, keep the standard high, I agree, and this also goes for our keris knowledge.

Still, I love it when a ricikan like in the pic above is discussed and members tell what they see and understand.

(I can't think what a "kanyut" could be - but I shudder at the possibilities!)

:D

Looks like this thread has drawn to a close. I also need to withdraw then, but there is one aspect still hanging in the air, which I request Alan to solve for me, if you would be so kind. Concerning the keris pictured in post #41, you wrote: "The keris you are now inquiring about is probably classifiable as Pajajaran, this places it as west Jawa, into Sunda. The greneng is not the typical Javanese greneng we are accustomed to, and the element that takes the place of the kanyut is not nameable under present convention."

How do I understand "classifiable as Pajajaran" in this case? AFAIK, Pajajaran is a tangguh, which is a 12th century category: the estimated age in which a keris was made. You cannot mean the specific keris in question is that old, so I am thinking there is another explanation of your choice of words, perhaps the fortified capital city of the Sunda kingdom? Please advise, and I thank you in advance for your patience.

Johan. :)

Johan, I advise you to carefully read the numerous threads about the tangguh classification and its limitations, and the kanyut is simply the tip of the ganja (see post# 9 from Alan).
Regards :)

Johan, regrettably the diagrams in my previous posts are not very clear, they're OK if you know what you are looking for, but if you do not, they can be confusing.

The kanyut is the second last named part before the extreme end of the greneng, it is the part that looks like the decline of a hill, the last part is the buntut mimi, which viewed from above becomes the buntut urang.

There has been extensive discussion on tangguh over years in this forum. Different people think about it in different ways. The best way for a collector who is outside the heart of the keris world in Central Jawa to think about it is that the names are simply classifications. Names associated with old eras will refer to old keris, names associated with recent eras will refer to more recent keris, but it is best not to think of the name of the classification as always inferring an age for the keris. With younger keris, say, after mid-17th century, there can be a grain of accuracy in a link between name and era, but in older keris not a lot of people will accept that the tangguh name really links to the age of the keris, but it is likely that the name will link to a geographic location.

EDIT

This might be useful Johan:-

http://www.kerisattosanaji.com/keristangguh.html

This is just a thought, and allowing that nothing is cast in stone when 'reading' a keris, is it possible that the feature identified in Gustav's examples is a representation of Siwa's trisula and hence a continuation of the Shivatic notation.
cheers
DrD

Yes David, in the ones that look more recent this could be a possibility, especially since the keris itself is representative of Siwa, however, when we look at what appears to be the earliest representation of this triple element (Gustav's first example) it would take a very big stretch of imagination to turn that into a trisula

I'm sure I was not the only one who gained knowledge & insight through this thread, so thank you on behalf of all those, to Alan and the other "old hands" who frequently are asked to answer sticky questions from members, some of whom demand "black-or-white" answers! Of course it has become clear that everything pertaining to the keris as a collector's item is not all that cut and dried. It remains, however, to be discussed further and more deeply, and legitimate conclusions drawn from these discussions.

Reading up widely on matters keris, we have all found to our confusion that there are many statements made concerning the keris, and many of these must be dismissed with disdain. So it is up to us as collectors to sift all these notions to get at the truth. Long live Keris Warung Kopi! :D

Overwhelmed
 

I must say, I do love this Keris forum but am a little overwhelmed with this thread. I've been back to this thread so many times in the past week/s with the intention to write something I thought might be of some worth and then keep wondering, do I contribute or not? Not through lack of wanting to share, but in essence trying to understand if what limited input I can offer, am I on the right path? Does my subject matter have relevance or not? The quandary because the thread has some very deep elements to it and some very perplexing points have been raised.

By noting that I have OLD Java, Sumatra and North Malay blades with what I take to be the features in question, does this help, or is it only those from Java/Bali which are relevant to the conversation/context?

Gavin

IMHO, go ahead, Gavin!

I also have a few ideas in the works to post soon and one never knows which seed grows best... ;)

Regards,
Kai

IMO the discussion should focus in priority on Javanese and Balinese blades (the Mother kris country).
Regards

Well Gavin, i think that if you have keris from outside the Jawa/Bali nexus that you think have this feature (with all respects to Gustav i have trouble referring to it as "Gustav's Element" ;) ) i think it would be interesting to see them, especially considering that the general thought here seems to be that the understanding of the ron dha's true meaning and the "reading" of the greneng was lost in the keris' transition to Islam. Let's see what you have. :)

I know I dubbed the feature I have in mind "Gustav's Discovery", or "element" or "whatever", and I did that for ease of identification. If anybody wishes to call this specific feature something else, it is not any sort of a problem to me.

However, if we look closely at "Gustav's Element" (for want of a better name) what we find is that there is not just one single element to consider. I think Gustav called it a "tri-partite" element at one point, but that "tri-partite" element has a number of forms that may or may not be related.

The form shown in Post #26, is, I believe, the oldest example shown (gold kinatah), and is a distinct example that shows detail and style that I believe is the most pure of the examples shown, "pure" in the sense that an attempt seems to have been made to represent in iron a form that might be able to be identified elsewhere:- note the tiny spike from the root of the central curved spike, something like this cannot be accidental, it must be able to be interpreted, a matching form in another medium must exist.

However, if we look at the other examples it seems to me that we could be looking at a different representation of something, in the other couple of examples shown in this original thread, and in other examples that I have seen, the same distinct statement that we can see in the Post #26 example does not exist. By a very large stretch of imagination it might exist, or it might be a distillation, or a corruption, or something else entirely.

For example, look at the "tri-partite element" in Post #31. This is a Bali keris. Anybody who has done even the smallest amount of reading on Balinese culture and society will be aware of the importance of the number 3 in Bali. To quote Murni & Copeland :- "everything comes in threes in Bali".

The "tri-partite" element in a Bali keris is open to any number of possible interpretations. As Dr. David suggested:-

"This is just a thought, and allowing that nothing is cast in stone when 'reading' a keris, is it possible that the feature identified in Gustav's examples is a representation of Siwa's trisula and hence a continuation of the Shivatic notation."

This idea is totally defensible and fits perfectly, for the form shown in this Bali keris. The keris itself is an icon of Siwa, why not put another icon of Siwa into the enhancements on a keris? It is a good idea, but it needs some sort of confirmation, and speaking only for myself, I have not encountered that confirmation, even though I could mount a very good logical argument to support the "good idea".

But does this element in the Bali keris look like the element in the keris with kinatah? To my eye it does not. There are any number of three part elements in a keris, but the original as shown in Post #26 is quite unique and distinct.

This form in Post #26 is the form that needs to be addressed:- solve this riddle and then it is possible to look at later variations of the "tri-partite" form and consider if we are looking at a derivation of the original, a corruption of the original, or something else entirely.

We need to identify the form of the tripartite element shown on the keris with gold kinatah.

Then we have a beginning.

Everything else comes later.

Is this what you are looking for?
 

I've taken a snippets from 4 keris and a Sundang...is this helpful and on point?

Gavin

Hello Gavin,

Well, all seem to be nice blades and deserve to be posted in dedicated threads, especially the keris Jawa and the Malay Sundang (or Sulu kalis?) IMHO.

All your examples exhibit a ron dha nunut; despite the differences in wear, it would be good to also include the whole gonjo since the carvings are often better preserved here than on the (usually thinner) blade.

In Gustav's motif/element, there is no classic ron dha nunut: the central opening in the form of the letter/syllable "dha" is missing and the "spikes"/parts/elements building the free space in-between are also of a different form. This motif is repeated on the gonjo (the best example has a replaced gonjo though) and also visible on the jenggot side (above/on the sekar kajang). I don't see this with any of your examples.

Regards,
Kai

Hi Gavin,

Below is a comparison between a Malay greneng and the Javanese greneng in question. I think the Malay greneng below is a variation from the Javanese where the Dha on the Malay keris is at the normal position and the "bump" dha is probably a copy of the probably older Javanese style.

The difference is that on the Javanese examples (which is probably older), there is no Dha at the normal position, just a gap - which makes me think that the dha was shifted to the upper position on a third element that the "bump" dha style. Plus on the Javanese examples there is a gap between the ganja and the blade that resembles the gap on Megantara greneng.

The ri pandan style in your #3 and #4 in my opinion is newer development as many keris with this greneng style uses newer homogeneous steel that has no grains (probably late 1800's to early 1900's) rather than the older grainy wrought iron. (This is in the case where the keris does not use pamor - your #4 looks like it uses pamor). But this is just my amateur observation, I cannot demonstrate what I write here even as a hypothesis let alone a theory that can be proven.

Thanks guys. "I feel like the child who has not yet learnt anything" like Alan mentioned in the thread leading to this point.

Gavin