How to read a greneng
 

In another thread Alan made the following 2 remarks.

In short, the greneng is a mess, as it is, it does not carry any message at all.
The greneng is the big surprise to me:- it is correctly cut, the man who cut it knew what he was doing, but his level of knowledge was at pandai level, not mpu level. He has cut correct Mataram rondha, but has cut them poorly, and the complete greneng says less than it should.


This to me raises some questions. How should one read a greneng? What should the greneng express/say? And how has this expression changed according to region and time?

Bjorn, I'm not sure I can answer this without offending some people on both sides of the fence. I do touch on the subject in my "Interpretation --- " paper. I don't think I want to bring discussion about this matter into this forum.

I do have another paper in the works in which I am a little more detailed, there are two possibilities for publication of this, and I'm not yet certain of exactly which publisher it will run with. Its probably better all round if if I say no more about any of this at the present time.

Apologies, Alan. I was not aware this is a contentious issue.

I went over the relevant part in your "Interpretation..." paper again and look forward to publication of your next paper.

Probably not contentious --- those who believe one thing believe it completely, those who hold a different view have equal faith, so it is not something that is subject to heated argument, rather it is something of a sensitive nature.

Possibly this thread could be steered in a slightly different direction: the aesthetics of a greneng.

It's easy to observe whether we like a greneng or not, but what if we look at it more objectively. What criteria should a greneng possess, e.g. what constitutes a well cut rond dha as opposed to a poorly made one - even when the latter one is aesthetically pleasing.

Do the pakem contain anything on how the individual elements of the ron dha should be shaped? I've often read that the way in which an mpu makes a greneng is akin to a signature, but I imagine that there are constraints on what he or she can and cannot do. On Moro kris we often see greneng, but these are wholly different to those in Jawa, quite possibly because no such restraints are in place there.

Bjorn, here are some images that will be of use.

The drawings are from the hand of Empu Suparman Supowijoyo, and have been taken from a lecture that he gave in about 1980.

The page of images showing greneng forms attributed to various empus is from Haryono Haryoguritno's "Keris Jawa".

The various forms of greneng are from "Keris Jawa" also.

The two pages of text are from Raffles "History of Java".

In respect of the greneng forms attributed to Surakarta empus, it is not clear in the book, but in private conversation Haryonoguritno is reported as having said that in all honesty he was unable to distinguish the work of one empu from another. I have heard this from two people, who have no connection with each other. Thus, "attribute" is the correct way to look at these greneng.

As with much else --- some would say "all else" --- to do with the keris, the attribution of various forms of greneng and ron dha to various classifications (tangguh) is an item of belief. However, it is a crucial item of belief, because where a ron dha is found in a keris it is the key element in assignation of a tangguh.

But this can be confusing, because some extremely good quality keris, that have very obviously been made according to the parameters of one tangguh, can have a ron dha that points to a different tangguh.

For example, in the current era in Surakarta the two empus who began the keris revival were Empu Suparman Supowijoyo and Empu Pauzan Pusposukadgo (Pauzan rejected the title of "empu" for religious reasons, he used the designation "Pandai Seni Keris", however he was known as an empu by everybody). Empu Suparman invariably cut a Surakarta greneng, Pauzan usually made his keris in the Mataram form and usually cut a Mataram greneng, or occasionally a variant greneng in accord with his own interpretation.

Although the gentlemen of Jakarta who exercise very great control over the current World of the Keris in Jawa have decreed that we now have a tangguh that covers all keris made since Indonesian Independence, the great empus of the current era, Empu Suparman and Empu Pauzan did not recognise this. Empu Suparman made Surakarta keris, and although this concept of "Tangguh Kamerdekaan" did not come into being until after his passing, I can assure you the very idea of this would have horrified him, he was dedicated to Surakarta. Empu Pauzan made Mataram style keris in the Surakarta era, and as with Empu Suparman, was a Surakarta Karaton Empu.

When we move outside of Jawa we find that the greneng of keris from other areas is often just notches that have no meaning at all. Because of this, and for other reasons, many old-time traditionalists in Jawa would not recognise that these "keris" from other areas were in fact genuine keris, these other "keris" were merely keris-like objects that had been made by people who did not understand what a keris truly was, and the people who carried these keris were simply trying to copy their betters without understanding anything. They were in fact children who had not yet learnt anything.

Now, it is important to understand that this was a very Java-centric attitude, but it did reflect the mindset of some people:- the Keris was holy, these imitators treated it as profane. They had no understanding.

The key to the greneng is the ron dha.

Common belief is that the form of the ron dha is a representation of the Javanese letter dha, and the various forms of the ron dha reflect the form of the letter dha at a particular time in history.

The word "ron" means "leaf" and is Krama for "godhong". It refers to the lontar leaves upon which traditional writing was done and by extension to the letters written upon those leaves. The Javanese letter "dha" equates to "d".

Aesthetically a greneng should be cut so that it appears to be identical when viewed from each side, it should reflect the true form applicable to the classification, where a feature is repeated it should be identical to the other feature, for example, if a greneng has two ron dha, each of those ron dha should be absolutely identical.

Hello Alan,
Thank you for the very educative post! :)
Regards

Thanks Jean, but really, everything I have presented in post # 6 is common knowledge, and as is often the case, 'common knowledge' is the very lowest level of 'knowledge' that is intentionally constructed to obscure truth.

Actually, nothing in this world changes:- we all absolutely knew that there were weapons of Mass Destruction, didn't we? Yeah, right. The level of knowledge permitted to the masses is intended to make management of those masses easier.

Without getting too deeply into this, consider the terminology that is used to describe other of the various characteristics of the keris:- kembang kacang = bean shoot, sogokan = poker, blumbangan = pond. Yes, all these features resemble the names given them, but those names are euphemisms (in the strict Oxford sense).

The term "ron dha" is also a euphemism.

In Old Javanese the word 'ron' still means 'leaf', but the word 'dha', which in Modern Javanese is only taken as the name of a letter of the Hanacaraka alphabet, and a plural marker that can be considered as synonymous with 'sami' or 'padha', has a distinct separate meaning.

In Old Javanese the word 'dha' can be understood as 'good', or as a 'call', 'cry, 'exclamation', 'appeal', dependent upon context.

So if we consider "ron dha" in an Old Javanese sense it has an entirely different meaning to that which applies in Modern Javanese. But this Old Javanese meaning is still a euphemism --- although a euphemism that is much closer to reality than the common idea of 'letter dha'.

Then we have the relationship between Old Javanese letters, especially those used to write Kawi (the Old Javanese literary script), and Old Javanese numerals.

Never forget that Javanese symbolism is multi-symbolism, if we ever think that we understand something we will never find the truth, there is always something hidden.

Om Mani Padme Hum.

I am very much intrigued by this thread. I've gone to my two krisses and inspected the grenengs minutely. My Javanese kris has two identical ron dhas, but the Bugis kris seems not to have even one.

I suppose the clarity/readability of the greneng message can get reduced by age & honest wear, just like a set of letters which have become worn.

Thank you for your informative reply, Alan. I'll have to spend some time on this to absorb it all.

I often wondered whether the ron dha in a greneng were supposed to be identical or not, because quite often they are not - even though on their individual merits they look to be aesthetically pleasing.

And I enjoyed learning how ron came to mean letter also.

Johan, also keep in mind what Alan wrote above: "When we move outside of Jawa we find that the greneng of keris from other areas is often just notches that have no meaning at all. Because of this, and for other reasons, many old-time traditionalists in Jawa would not recognise that these "keris" from other areas were in fact genuine keris, these other "keris" were merely keris-like objects that had been made by people who did not understand what a keris truly was, and the people who carried these keris were simply trying to copy their betters without understanding anything. They were in fact children who had not yet learnt anything."

The Bugis are an ethnic group from outside of Java and thus not made in accordance with the same rules and regulations. Actually, apart from Bali perhaps, I don't recall ever hearing that there are such rules and regulations in areas outside of Java.

Bjorn, 'ron' doesn't actually mean 'letter', it infers 'letter', the word for 'letter' is 'aksara' in Old Javanese.

One of the characteristics of Javanese language, and I guess of all Javanese behaviour is that very often, most particularly with high status or polite language usage, is that what is said is indirect, which to a degree permits the recipient of a spoken or written message to understand that message in a way that is in accordance with his level of need, or of prior understanding.

This characteristic seems to have undergone development since the rise of the Second Kingdom of Mataram in the late 16th century, but it was probably always present in Javanese communication to some degree.

In respect of Bali and keris form, it is perhaps most useful not to think of Bali as a separate entity to Jawa, but as the "Far East" of Jawa. I personally think in terms of the Jawa-Bali nexus. The old East Javanese kingdoms had some rulers from Bali, and there had been a flow of people from Jawa into Bali for at least several hundred years before the final collapse of Mojopahit. There was some movement of people from Bali back to East Jawa also, but I rather suspect that the people who did move back to East Jawa were people who had Javanese roots, not the indigenous inhabitants of Bali.

Bali received the keris from East Jawa, and because of this, the form of the Balinese keris most closely echoes the form of the true keris of Mojopahit times. This is re-enforced by the fact that early Banten keris resemble in many ways the Balinese keris.

This is not because there was a direct exchange between these two widely separate places, but rather because after the collapse of Mojopahit there was migration, especially migration of craftsmen, from Mojopahit to West Jawa, as well as from Mojopahit to Bali.

Never forget that the people of the Archipelago did not ever regard water as a barrier, they thought of all water, both sea and rivers, as highways.

Having read everything that was said above, I now come to a question I would like to ask. It is a question I would think somebody somewhere sometime in this forum would inevitably ask. Perhaps it has not been asked yet because it might be imprudent. Let me be impetuous and ask it in any case. I stand to learn by the answer.

It is this: Can we not take a single representative example of an existing, properly cut ancient Javanese greneng of which the interpretation is clear, or might have already been done, and demonstrate that reading here?

I realise the danger that if this is done, there might be individuals clamouring for their own kerisses' grenengs to be "read"! I myself won't be in that queue, however, because I believe that will be a ridiculous request.

But I ask the question concerning a single representative (Javanese) example, and I myself will be interested in this single demonstration greneng being interpreted.

(And for that matter, it relates very well with Bjorn's introductory post #1 above.)

Johan, it is not possible to understand anything if that anything is taken out of context.

If we take a sentence from, let us say Shakespeare, is it possible to understand the message that the selected sentence carries, lacking the context of the play?

I suggest to you that it is totally impossible.

So it is with the keris and everything that pertains to it.

In any case, I have been pushing my own little barrow for more years than I can count, trying to get some people to try to understand just a little bit about what it is that they collect.

Very few people are prepared to make the effort to learn their ABC before they try to read "War & Peace".

There are no short cuts. We must put in the hard work first.

Regrettably.

When it comes to the keris in Jawa we need to put in a lot of what might seem like irrelevant effort before we can even begin to understand, then it becomes a matter of "understand what?" even if we understand the words, does that mean that we understand the message, or further, that we understand that message in context?

Collectors prefer to collect. Its what they do. Their interest is in the physical.

I am now 76 years old. I have had an interest in the keris for more than 60 years. For the last almost 50 years I have actively studied the keris. I probably will not live very much longer, and I will die knowing very, very little about the keris.

Here is a beginning for you:-

http://www.kerisattosanaji.com/INTERPRETATIONPAGE4.html

Well, as a 71-year old, let me say to you, Alan: we're still young enough for very many years, and may those years be filled with further fulfilling labours. I have been a scholar all my life and am learning still. Looking at your very many threads and posts, I have come to view you as a teacher in the most honourable sense of the word, and I ask you to please continue teaching.

To show how right you are in encouraging members to read up incessantly in keris lore, I'd like to give an example of my own "research".

(Coincidentally, your Interpretation Part 4 is the very same paper I have been studying during the few days this thread has been running. I had judged it earlier to be most informative with this topic in mind.)

The seemingly irrelevant efforts I have been making by delving into all aspects of the keris (under your insistence, for which I thank you) has given me much food for thought. So I have discovered that the Indonesians (of which the greater part were Javanese) who were brought to this country during the sad time of the slave trade, helped in the development of Afrikaans, my mother tongue. In fact, in time, those Javanese and Bugis learned to speak Dutch, and they, together with the European colonists who came over, changed the Dutch into Afrikaans. The size of this contribution to the language, made by the Indonesians, was not evident during early studies, but today it is acknowledged. Today Afrikaans is the adopted (read: only) first language of not only people like myself (eleventh generation South African) but also thousands of people living here in the Western Cape Province, whose forebears came from Java, Sulawesi and the like.

I have read a lot of Shakespeare, and have seldom understood it in its correct context. Yet I have read it, talked about it, quoted from it, and taught it to my grandchildren. I will not withhold it from them because of their imperfect understanding of the Bard's life and times.

So I give you a wide smile :D :D :D of appreciation and ask you not to be withholding because of uncertainties in Keris lore, but please keep on teaching in this forum!

Johan

Thanks Johan.

Psalms 90:10

I'm not planning on flying anywhere at the moment --- except may to Blitar next March to do a photo cover of Panataran. But I am at the point where I can positively count the time left on my fingers and toes --- maybe. That's not long. It took me half that time to read and understand Pigeaud's "Java in the 14th. Century". More than double that time to get a reasonable understanding of the Javanese language. My problem is I'm a slow learner, so I need more time than most people to get a thorough understanding of anything.

Understandings come easy, but thorough understandings are very, very draining.

Three score & ten is the blink of the eye, and it is already a sextet of summer solstices behind me.

So true! But let me describe my own mindset in regard to our "available" threescore-and-ten plus bonus years before coming to the on-topic point of this post (and I'm saying this not for Alan specifically, but also for all the younger set): Carry on flying till the end; if you stumble, get up again; spend your days right up to the last one.

Here's a humorous incident which has some bearing on what I'm trying to say: In the public service department where I worked as a lecturer for 36 years there developed over time a habit for those on the point of retirement, to either 1) not arrive to work that day, 2) to go home after morning tea, 3) to be picked up by family after midday lunch, 4) or at the least to not make use of the shuttle vehicle, but to drive to work on your own steam.

I volunteered as driver of the shuttle for about 20 years, and it was expected that I surrender the bus the previous day of my retirement. I said no. Not only did I decide to fulfil my duty as shuttle "pilot" there & back, but it included being at work the entire day. I raised a lot of eyebrows, but they were understanding, because I was being consistent to the last. The same goes for life - carry on till the end, especially in the way you deal with friends, family and people around you.

Now before the moderator hurls me from the forum for off-topic comments, let me get on to the greneng once again. I realise that my few concise words can be misunderstood - reminds me of the speaker who was asked to give a talk of an hour's duration. He said he could do that right away. When urgently contacted to say the talk would have to be cut to ten minutes, he replied that they would have to postpone the talk as he needed a lot of time to prepare!

The greneng is one example of the incorporation of religious symbolism put into the keris. But the greneng consists of a number of elements, and I'm wondering if these elements could be seen as one "message"? Can one compare the entities as being in a relationship to one another, in the same way as the separate words in a sentence are in relationship? Could the "message" of the greneng be understood as worship? If the ron dha could be understood as a mantra symbol, could not the whole greneng be understood as a prayer?

All right, so the other elements of the greneng cannot be letters of the alphabet. But they could be stylised representations of something? Could they have been cut there as the empu's appeal to the principle god Siva? Moreover, on a single keris there are elements of symbolism to Ganesha also. But the greneng seems to be different in that the elements are arranged in line, as if they are interconnected.

Alan admits that iconography interpretation is a neglected field of research. But surely that does not mean one should not keep asking questions? Sometimes we are confronted by such a staggering accumulation of observations that we cannot see the forest for the trees. Me, I'm seeing the trees but not the forest! Perhaps this post is my way of asking whether it might be a good idea to narrow down the field a bit and make a few daring conclusions with regard to the Javanese greneng.

Johan, any remarks I may make in respect of ron dha, greneng and keris iconography in general are to be understood only within the context of the Pre-Islamic Javanese keris and/or the Balinese keris.

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. The ron dha is sometimes also seen as an addition to the kembang kacang or the gandhik.

Thus, reading across the sorsoran gives:-

"Aum, Ganesha, Siwa, Aum"

Perhaps a re-reading of the relevant parts of "Interpretation---" may answer your questions in respect of religious intent.

Some people in Jawa today refer to the keris as a "prayer in steel".

Alan, when you refer to the other elements in the greneng, apart from the ron dha, do you mean the tingil and ri pandan?

Reading a mantra across the sorsoran certainly seems appropriate in the context of Majahapit times. And the mantra om ganesha siwa om seems logical when a jenggot is present.
However, in many cases there is no jenggot. Can we assume that it would then be implied? Or possibly we should read the mantra from right to left (om siwa ganesha). As far as I know, a mantra must start with om, though not all mantras end with om.

My interpretation is based only on general knowledge of mantra, and no specific knowledge on how these were used in pre-Islamic Indonesia - so my interpretations may be very flawed.

[QUOTE=A. G. Maisey]Thanks Jean, but really, everything I have presented in post # 6 is common knowledge, and as is often the case, 'common knowledge' is the very lowest level of 'knowledge' that is intentionally constructed to obscure truth.

Hello Alan,
As a collector and classification maniac, I learned 2 important issues from your post:
. The drawings from Empu Suparman showing the differences in the shape of the gonjos and greneng for the various tangguh is an unique information that I never saw in any book.
. I did not realize that the ron dha (when presnt) was such a crucial tangguh indicator, from memory it is not mentioned in the EK and not clearly in the book KJ.

Thank you again!

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.

In post #18 I qualified my remarks in para.1, so anything I say in this discussion must be understood as being only applicable within the identified context.

In post #18, para.2 I identified these "other elements" as being associated with development in an environment that was no longer Buddhist-Hindu, or if preferred, Hindu-Buddhist or Javanese Hindu, being a synthesis of Hindu, Buddhist and indigenous religious and spiritual beliefs.

Thus, when I read the sorsoran as "aum, Ganesha, Siwa, aum" I am of course reading that within the Javanese -Hindu context.

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.

(yes, I have spelt "om" as "aum", "aum" seems to be the preferred Roman textualisation of "om" within the Indonesian Hindu community)

In any religion, or any system that embraces religious beliefs, there can be many variations in what is held to be the correct way in which to do anything, including the observation of prayer.

When we present a hypothesis about anything at all, it is perhaps best only to base that hypothesis upon ideas that can be supported by evidence in one form or another, it is probably never a good idea to attach our own unsupported "good ideas" to anything.

This we can say with relative certainty:- many of the Vedas commence with om, and probably most Brahmins commence most mantras and prayers with om. However, in Javanese-Hindu belief we are dealing not with mainline Vedic beliefs, but with Shivaism and Tantrism, thus the question arises:- was it correct in 14th century Jawa to commence all mantras, all prayers with "om"?

I do not know, however, if we recognise that the iconography of the keris is in one interpretation Shivatic in nature, then everything that adorns the keris is an addition to that overarching symbol of Siwa. The keris itself when understood in the context of Shivaism is an icon of Siwa. But as we know, Javanese symbolism is multi symbolism, so the keris can also be understood as the Gunungan, and other things will flow from that interpretation.

To return to the iconography of Siwa, from "Interpretation ---":-

"--- The worship of Ganesha is regarded as a part of the worship of other deities; most Hindus commence their prayers with a prayer to Ganesha. Ganesha is one of the five major deities, and the worship of Ganesha has formed a part of the worship of Siwa since at least the 5th century.---"

Thus, the Shivatic iconography can only be read from left to right, in the same way that Javanese text can only be read from left to right.


The keris with no ron dha, no kembang kacang, no added characteristics at all is still a symbol of Siwa, and as such can initiate a prayer addressed to Siwa, just as a cross can initiate a prayer to Christ. However, with the addition of other symbols to the foundation symbol of the keris, the religious intent is intensified.

For example, the sogokan is also a symbol of Siwa, so when the sogokan is added to a keris, this extends a reading of the keris itself to be understood as Gunungan symbolism, but with Siwa included as the sogokan. Of course, a prayer to Siwa is opened by a prayer to Ganesha, and om completes, and sometimes opens that prayer.

But even when the keris is read as a Gunungan, this does not remove Siwa from the understanding, because the Gunungan is itself to be understood not only in reference to indigenous ancestor worship, but as symbolic also of the Gods and especially as Siwa.

I did try to get most of that which I have written above into "Interpretation ---", please accept my apologies if I have failed to do so.

Jean, yes, I can understand the point you are making. However, when I used the term "common knowledge", I was guilty of seeing this information that I presented not from the perspective of a collector of keris in the world outside Central Jawa, but from my own perspective which is to say, a view of the keris that has been formed very much by Central Javanese influence. I cannot think of one keris conscious person whom I have ever known or met in Central Jawa who was not totally aware of the concepts, although not perhaps of the details or interpretations, incorporated into that which I set forth.

In respect of EK and KJ, I really do not want to comment in detail on either of these publications, or on their authors, except to say that the content of these books, and the expertise of their authors was perhaps not held in quite the same esteem amongst many of the old school ahli keris whom I have known, as it is held by present day collectors in general.

It is just a matter of levels of knowledge, or perhaps more correctly, levels of belief. As you know, I am fond of drawing religious parallels with keris "knowledge", and I will do so again here. The Pope in Rome will have a higher, and perhaps variant understanding of some things than will his cardinals and bishops, the cardinals and bishops will be at a variant level of understanding to that of the ordinary clergy, and the congregation, the ordinary followers of the faith will have very little true understanding at all.

In fact, in the long past it was not considered necessary for the followers of the Faith to have any understanding at all, services were held in Latin, and a little bell was rung so that the congregation would know when to say "Amen". The followers were simply supposed to do what their betters told them to do, they were insufficiently spiritually advanced to understand even the lowest level of knowledge.

It is really no different with the keris. We are all given understanding in accordance with our need for understanding and our ability to understand.

Thank you Alan and all other participants in this fascinating thread. I would have liked to see some more relevant pics, but I must say I am very much satisfied with the information given. Your trouble to supply same is greatly appreciated.

Johan

[QUOTE=A. G. Maisey]

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.

QUOTE]

What are the "other elements" found in a Greneng?

Does a feature some call Ri Pandan (I mean here the first "hook" from above, when Greneng is extern) belong to the "other elements"?

Is the Greneng variation as found on Keris with Dhapur Megantoro, and also other Keris, a later (post Sultan Agung) development in your oppinion?

[QUOTE=A. G. Maisey]

(...) as I believe the inclusion of the ron dha preceding the kembang kacang was a later development.

QUOTE]

Alan, what leads to think you so?

How much later?

Interesting questions Gustav.

I would ask you to bear one thing in mind:- at this time I am not prepared to comment on anything that is outside the context of Hindu-Buddhist Javanese society and the keris within that system.

The other elements that can be found in a greneng are many and varied, if we consider the page of greneng forms that was taken from KJ, what we can see is that in every example where the ron dha appears the ron dha form is Surakarta. When did each of these greneng forms first appear? I don't know. When did the keris dhapurs that support these greneng forms first appear? I don't know. In the case of some dhapurs keris belief attaches the name of a ruler to the creation of the dhapur, so from this it might seem possible to estimate a date when a particular dhapur first came into being, and thus to be able to say that such & such a greneng appeared at that time. But as we know, even when we have the name of a ruler in Old Jawa, we do not necessarily know exactly who that ruler is, nor when he ruled, or even if he was a real ruler, or a ruler from literature.

Now, you have raised the question of the "greneng variation in megantara". Precisely what variation do you mean Gustav? From memory, dhapur megantara is not included in the Surakarta pakem. I'm pretty sure that it is in EK, and it is in KJ, but again working only with memory, neither of these sources get into much detail in respect of greneng composition. So, megantara is supposed to have exactly what elements included in the greneng? Well, going on the KJ drawing, there are two ron dha, one can probably be read as Jenggolo, but the other is Surakarta.

I think that the Surakarta Pakem does record a dhapur megantoro for tombak, but I'm relatively certain that it does not include a dhapur megantoro for keris (I'll check this as soon as I can). So --- why?

This is fertile ground for good ideas. But you can count me out.

There are a number of dates that can be justified for the termination of Hindu-Buddhist society in Jawa. Arguments can be constructed to support whatever date suits one best, but my personal choice is 1525. Its as good as any other date, and probably better than most.

Pre-1525 the keris was a prerogative of court nobles. It had a purpose and a meaning within court society. Court style was copied by merchants along the North Coast, and this imitation of court dress and behaviours extended to wear of the keris. We do not, to my knowledge, have any keris from Jawa that pre-date the collapse of the Kingdom of Mojopahit, thus all the early Javanese keris that we can examine come from a time when the keris had become something that was available to anybody who could pay the price. That price did not include lessons in Hindu-Buddhist belief systems for Muslim merchants. This was the time when the keris began a new stage of development.

If we consider the tuah of a keris dhapur, we will find that very often a dhapur is associated with a profession. Farmers, merchants, civil servants, and so on all have available to them specific dhapurs that carry a tuah suited to their profession.

However, the nature of Hindu-Buddhist court society was such that the caste entitled, and in fact probably compelled to carry the keris was the k'satriya caste. Considering the nature of Javanese court society prior to 1525, it seems to be highly unlikely that farmers and merchants would have appeared at court wearing a keris. So we are left with the proposition that the bulk of dhapurs that existed at the beginning of the 20th century were for the most part created during the time when Jawa was under Muslim influence.

It was once suggested to me by a person whom I am unwilling to name, that in fact much of both keris form and keris belief developed because of a reaction by the Javanese aristocracy against European domination. I am not yet ready to completely support this opinion, but it certainly does have much to recommend it.

Gustav, you have asked why I am inclined to believe that the ron dha as jenggot was something that was included in keris symbolism, and when. Taken in context what I wrote was this:-

"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."

My response was to Bjorn's question:-

"Reading a mantra across the sorsoran certainly seems appropriate in the context of Majahapit times. And the mantra om ganesha siwa om seems logical when a jenggot is present.
However, in many cases there is no jenggot. Can we assume that it would then be implied?"

Let us never forget that the spiritual iconography of the keris exists even in a keris with no additional symbols at all. Even in the most plain form of keris the symbolism of Siwa and the Gunungan is present, but if we pray to Siwa we open our prayer with a prayer to Ganesha, thus Ganesha symbolism is logically the first additional enhancement, then the sogokan is included to permit an icon of Siwa to appear within a representation of the Gunungan.

It is not mandatory for the mantra 'om' to be used in every mantra, in every prayer, by all members of all the variations of the Hindu belief system. The nature of Hindu belief in Jawa was Shiviatic and Tantric, it was not Vedic. However, once the related symbolism of Siwa and Ganesha are in place it would be seen as appropriate to turn simple symbolism into a prayer. This is what I mean by "later". All the enhancements associated with the keris that can be read iconographically were products of development. Development takes time. The question remains of how much time. I believe that the symbolism that can clearly be read as Hindu-Buddhist symbolism was mostly completed by the time of the later migrations from East Jawa to Bali.

Why do I believe this? Because those Hindu-Buddhist symbols also appear in Balinese keris. It is not realistic to believe that enhancements developed under Islam were included in the Balinese keris.

Alan, thank you for your response.

With Greneng of Megantoro I mean a variation of Greneng, as seen on this blade, which possibly is the best preserved M in existence.

Another, perhaps somewhat related Greneng variation is found on Dresden Inv. Nr. 2895.

Also on this blade with replaced Gonjo (so only the Greneng part on blade itself is of importance). Because of the style of Kinatah and Blumbangan I think it is quite older then Sultan Agung.

Of course these all could be younger forms of Greneng (younger then 1525, but barely made after, say, end of 17th cent.), I never (until now) have seen these variations on Keris Bali, also no Megantoro there.

Regarding Jenggot, I probably have misunderstood you. I suppose, 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).

stunning!!

Thank you for posting this photo Gustav, 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. This was one of the things that happened when the keris was adopted for wear by people who did not understand the cultural significance of the keris, nor its symbolism --- or perhaps they did understand, and intentionally moved away from this. Let us not forget that Demak was established by a prince of Majapahit.

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.

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 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 is a slight problem with the naming of Gustav's example as dhapur megantoro, but this is not really an issue, its just a name.

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.

In my post #18 I said this:-

" Johan, any remarks I may make in respect of ron dha, greneng and keris iconography in general are to be understood only within the context of the Pre-Islamic Javanese keris and/or the Balinese keris."

Gustav has drawn me away from my commitment to keep my comments restricted to the Hindu-Buddhist context, but I feel that this momentary divergence was justified because Gustav was kind enough to give us such a beautiful example of the corruption of symbolism under Islam. I'm not prepared to go any further down this Islamic track at the moment.

Alan,

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.

That variation we also see on a Keris from Munich Inv. Nr. Gr. 598, which is much less known, because Jensen probably wasn't aware of its existence. The age of blade is, as always debatable, but I have difficulties to see the hilt of it in an Islamic Kontext.

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.

Gustav, let me say at the outset that I respect your right to hold your own opinion in this or in any other matter, and I have no desire to change your opinion:- it is your own: treasure it.

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 so far as North Coast Jawa hilts are concerned there is no problem at all in reconciling these figural hilts with the expansion of Islam in Jawa. I'm not going to get into that either, but minimal research on the nature of Islamic expansion in Jawa can clarify this point. This is all in the public arena, its no secret, just a matter of putting in time to find the facts.

I mentioned earlier that I like to think of the end of Majapahit and hence the effective end of the Javanese Hindu-Buddhist socio-religious system as occurring in 1525. I like this date for a number of reasons, but there are other ways to think of the end of that Hindu-Buddhist era. This quote might be useful in putting things into context:-

" Gajahmada died in 1364, and Hayam Wuruk, who had been the ruler of Majapahit during the final 14 years that Gajahmada held the position of mahapatih, died in 1389. After the death of Hayam Wuruk, internal conflict and increasing pressure from the Islamic settlements on the North Coast of Java saw the steady decline and eventual collapse of the Kingdom of Majapahit.

The last ruler of Majapahit, Brawijaya V, converted to Islam in 1478, the remaining members of the Majapahit line established a new kraton at Daha near Kediri, which was conquered by Sultan Trenggana"

They didn't turn the lights out on Majapahit at midnight on 31 December 1525. The Golden Age of Majapahit had been losing its Golden Glow gradually for a very lengthy period. It finally imploded and Demak became dominant. I see the whole thing as a typical royal family squabble, this is a good story, but here is not the place for it.

It is important to understand this:- just because Majapahit was a Hindu-Buddhist kingdom, that does not mean that Islam did not exist within the kingdom and within the court. Islam was present in Majapahit and in positions of power, long before Demak became dominant.

To understand roses it is not sufficient to look at a rose and then generate theories and opinions in respect of the conditions needed to produce that rose. To understand roses we must first understand the soil and the growing conditions. The keris is a flower of Javanese culture.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

Later you reinforce that statement, regarding "other couple of elements":

"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:

Regarding Greneng on Keris 2 your remarks were:


On both Keris:

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

With your post #32 comes a new development in our statements. You take as help your own "Interpretation":

May I remind you of your statement:

and everything else you have said about this "variant greneng" before?

As next you state:

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

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:

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,

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.

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

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! :)

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

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.

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.