Hello Marco,

Hopefully it will be available early this Fall.
It will cover all Keris areas and is 400+ pages in colour with several keris from museums and other European collections.
Last time I talked with Karsten I was told that it will be published as a CD because of the size etc.

Michael

Yes Shahrial,
But I'm still beginner in collecting hilts. Hilts with motives, I have mostly Cirebonese (twenty or more), Madurese and mostly "nunggak semi" hilts (Solonese and Yogyakartanese) without motives.

Kerises? Not too many. In my "mad period" about six years ago, I had been searching and searching kerises throughout Java island. From village to village, sometimes cross the river by foot just to get one keris in Central Java. Or sometimes, I traveled alone for days from Jakarta to East Java, just to gather one or two kerises... At that time, I had about 600 kerises. Oh, but now is "only" about 100 kerises and tombaks (spears) or so. Some were fake kerises, or bad kerises. I've sold some too, to buy better kerises..

Are these handles from the same root? I don't know for sure, whether this other handle (Cirebonese sword handle) is derived from Makara figure. A kind of abstraction as most of Cirebonese hilts in the Islamic era..

Ganjawulung

Abstraction of Jawa Demam?
 

Is this the abstraction of the Jawa Demam?
Do let me know, please...

I suspect that your sword handle also is a makara.
Your keris hilt, with female forms, usually is considered to represent Durga, a shakti of Shiva.

Michael

Hi Michael,

I know, you will share your knowledge on handles (hilts). It is interesting for me, because the Ensiklopedi Keris didn't mention a word on makara (Correct me if I'm wrong).

Anything you know about Durga hilt?

Michael, I have heard this form of jejeran repeatedly claimed as a representation of Durga.

Can you tell me where this belief first arose?


In respect of Durga, I think it may be more correct to refer to her as one of the forms Devi.

Devi, the daughter of Himavat (the Himalayas), is the wife of Shiva.

Devi has many names,which refer to her many forms, attributes and actions, and as the wife of Shiva she is Shiva's Shakti, or female energy.

In her terrible form she is known as Durga, but it is incorrect to refer to Durga as Shiva's Shakti: Devi is Shiva's shakti.


In Jawa and Bali, Dewi Sri is the goddess of rice, essentially the mother of life, as she has power over rice. Her name is a compound of Devi (Shiva's wife, Maha-Devi, the Great Goddess), and Lakshmi who also has the name Sri, and is a wife of Vishnu and the goddess of fortune.Thus, Dewi Sri represents life and death, and good fortune.

I have only ever heard this form of jejeran referred to in Jawa as "wadon"---woman, however, it is my firm belief that it is a representation of Dewi Sri , not Durga. I can see no basis in Javanese traditional belief for Durga to be represented in a jejeran, on the other hand there is ample justification for Dewi Sri to appear as a jejeran.


Coming back to my original question:- where did this Durga belief first arise?

Alan,

This is a very complex question to answer because of, as you know, Hinduism is not one religion and even Shivaism includes a lot of different beliefs.
But I will give it a try based on my present understanding (which may radically change in the future the more I study it) and in English, which is not my native tongue.

A. What is Shiva?

Shiva is something abstract and could be understood in many ways:

1. Shiva is formless and could only be explained with what he is not.
2. Shiva could be slightly understood when he manifests himself in this world (as shakti).
He creates, maintains and destroys this world but he is also the one who hides the true world (illusion/veil, maya) and saves with his mercy.
Shiva has both male (passive) and female (active - shakti) aspects explained as:

a) The "intellectual version"
Shiva is in a vertical line divided into a male and female body. This means that shakti is not a separate devi but an aspect of Shiva's two sides.
Sometimes this is also represented by the active female shakti who is dancing on the passive, sleeping, male Shiva. Shiva has no form (nirguna) but shakti has form (saguna). When Shiva manifest himself in the world he uses shakti, the female form, that has several names like Uma, Parvati, Durga, Kali, Ganga etc. depending on what it's supposed to do. But they are all Shiva and not separate goddesses.

b) The "folk version".

Shiva is a god who is married to the goddess Devi. In the stories Devi has several incarnations as Uma, Parvati etc. Sometimes f.i. Parvati creates a manifestation as Durga etc. Probably the different names originates from local variations and former goddesses?

B. Why Durga?

Durga is a form of the Shakti/Maha-Devi [depending on version a) or b) above].
I have found three reasons to believe it's probable that it's specifically Durga and not the overall Maha-Devi on the hilts:

a) Durga is specifically mentioned in old sources connected with keris, f.i. the Keris Ki Lobar with Durga Dingkul of Gajah Mada (Wiener p. 110) as well as Kerner's different works - f.i. Der keris Ki Sudamala or Keris-griffe aus Museum und privatsammlungen. Probably M Kerner is the one to best answer your question on why Durga?

b) There are several sculptures of Durga found on Java, connected to the Shiva-cult, and she is connected with victory and death.

c) The face is never realistic portrayed on these hilts, as f.i. the Raksasa hilts, but hidden or veiled. According to a myth no man will survive seeing the face of Durga. This is not the case with Devi-Sri according to my understanding?

Michael

Alan,

I forgot to mention that there is a connection in some stories between Durga and maybe "your" Devi-Sri?
One version is that Durga is Shiva's shakti supported by the shaktis of the other devas. This means that Durga is the combined shakti of all the deva gods even if Shiva is supposed to be the lead shakti. This happened f.i. in one version of the story on how Durga slained the buffalo asura Mahisha (who couldn't be killed by the hand of a man due to a boon granted to him by Brahma).
In this version Durga could be seen as the combined mother goddess (maybe like the Balinese Devi-Sri who I am not that familiar with?).
That's the problem with Hindu myths; so many story versions, levels of understanding and sometimes contradictions.

Michael

Hi Gangja
Aso in my opinion the sword handle comes from Makara figure.
Your other keris hit could be Durga ...but also some other veiled woman.
In Lombok adn Bali (see Djelenga book) there are also other hilt like this but made in local style.
Here below i put a jawa hit. IMO is another Durga in cirebon style.

Thanks for your response, Michael.

You are of course correct when you mention the wide variation in Hindu belief systems.This is true of perhaps all major belief systems, and without guidance can be quite difficult to come to terms with. Possibly you have already sought the assistance of a teacher, or at least a mentor? If not yet, now may be a good time.

I questioned where the belief that this particular form of jejeran represented Durga originated.

You have responded that:-


a) Durga is specifically mentioned in old sources connected with keris, f.i. the Keris Ki Lobar with Durga Dingkul of Gajah Mada (Wiener p. 110) as well as Kerner's different works - f.i. Der keris Ki Sudamala or Keris-griffe aus Museum und privatsammlungen. Probably M Kerner is the one to best answer your question on why Durga?

b) There are several sculptures of Durga found on Java, connected to the Shiva-cult, and she is connected with victory and death.

c) The face is never realistic portrayed on these hilts, as f.i. the Raksasa hilts, but hidden or veiled. According to a myth no man will survive seeing the face of Durga. This is not the case with Devi-Sri according to my understanding?


In respect of your belief that Durga is mentioned in connection with the keris in old literary works.

I regret to advise that this belief is incorrect.

The name of the keris "Durga Dingkul" is comprised of two Old Javanese words:-

durga---this is a word indicating difficulty, it comes from the Sanscrit where it can be translated as "inaccessible", or "difficult to pass"; in Old Javanese it carries a number of meanings, and is used in several compound words, however, possibly the most suitable application when used as a keris name may be the meaning "difficult to overcome".

and

dingkul--- dingkul is a variant of ringkul, and has the meaning of to collapse, or to lay down.



I will not offer a translation of the name "durga dingkul", but I feel that it could be understood as meaning that "any attempt to overcome this keris will cause collapse".

One thing is absolutely certain:- the "durga" in the name of the keris Durga Dingkul, does not refer to Dewi Durga.

Why is it absolutely certain?

The keris is a male symbol, just as much as the lingga is a male symbol. Durga is a female entity.

To understand the "durga" in Durga Dingkul as Dewi Durga is absolutely ludicrous.It must be understood as an ordinary word.


Martin Kerner is nice old man. Prior to his illness, and his subsequent diversion to the study of Stonehenge, I exchanged correspondence with him, and I have signed copies of his publications. However, as Martin himself put it:- "my hypotheses are founded in a very limited range of informative sources and as such aim to provoke constructive criticism and debate".
Martin's philosophy was one of producing a controversial idea and attempting to generate investigation and discussion of that idea. He did do some ground breaking work, especially in his measurements of archaic keris, however his conclusions drawn from this study were, as usual, extremely controversial and unable to be supported either culturally or logically.
It is probably best to think of Martin's work as a catalyst, rather than as providing answers.

Yes, images of Durga will be found in Jawa, and in Bali, but it is drawing a very long bow indeed to say:- "see here is an image of Durga; Durga is associated with victory and death; this jejeran in the abstracted form of a woman must be a representation of Durga".

The images of Durga date from hundreds of years prior to the oldest of this handle form that is known. The handle form is from the Islamic period in Jawa, a period when the abstract representation of living forms was usual.No human faces will be found on jejeran from the Islamic period of Jawa.

Dewi Durga was a goddess of the distant past, but Dewi Sri was and is a living part of traditional Javanese belief.It is simply illogical to believe, in the absence of any solid evidence to the contrary, that these handles represent a Hindu goddess from the distant past, when there is Dewi Sri right there at our elbow, every day.

Then we have the tradition of the "Loro Blonyo", the symbol of married harmony.The Loro Blonyo is a pair of figures representing Dewi Sri, and her consort, Sadono.Dewi Sri is the mother of the house, Sadono is the father, together they symbolise the unity of marriage and harmony of the house. They are inseparable.

The blade of the keris is male, unified with a female figure you have a representation of harmony, and the symbolic female figure for such a representation is Dewi Sri.Taking this symbolism a little further, you have the female wrongko, together with the female handle both wrapped around the male blade, giving perfect protection, and providing perfect harmony to the symbol of masculinity, which in Old Javanese thought is the essence of the world.Philosophically it is a representation the female element providing protection to the male element, with the male element providing protection of the female element in extremity, the two harmonising as one to ensure the continuation of the world.

When we start to study the keris, rather than simply collect it, catalogue it, and display it to amaze fellow collectors, we need to move behind the seemingly obvious and involve ourselves in a number of very diverse fields. Only by doing this can we ever have any hope of understanding the nature of the keris.

Alan,

Who am I to discuss the meaning of old javanese words with you?
As you know I don't have a clue and that's why I referred to Professor Wiener and her scientific research on Bali on this specific topic and text.
Maybe she and her local informants are wrong in their conclusions on the meaning of Durga in this context as I am sure that there are, as usual, several alternatives?
It would be very interesting if you could e-mail her your interpretation and then share with us the results of your discussions on this forum?

The name of the keris wasn't Durga Dingkul but Ki Lobar.
So having a female aspect on a male keris corresponds to the harmony you exemplify in your post.

I find M Kerner's work on the keris hilts very interesting and inspiring. Of course no views are static and new knowledge always show up.

I am sorry that my example of how Durga is explained in the Vamana Purana (my follow up mail) wasn't developed more clearly.
What I meant is that the "Durga concept" could be explained as having all the shaktis from all the devas.
You could either read it litterary, "folk version", or on a higher level. My view is that unless you take the view of the "intellectual version" one story usually contradict another story in Hinduism and everything is a big blurr.
In your answer you referred to Shiva's wife as Devi, instead of f.i. Parvati, which is the same kind of view to not get stuck in this dilemma.
If Durga is the combined shakti of all the devas this means that for a Shiva believer she is mostly Shiva. But if you consider Vishnu to be the leading god then she is of course mostly Vishnu.
So, according to my present understanding, the combined female principle has several names. One of them is Durga, another is Mahalakshmi (with a lingam[!] on her head and of course more related to Vishnu). If you are a Krishna beliver you could see Durga as Krishnakrora etc.
As M Kerner states in his works earlier referred, if I understand him correct based on my limited German language abilities, the concept of Durga = Dewi Sri on Bali (p. 90).
I find this probable also because one of the wellknown benevolent forms of Durga is Annapurna (she who fills with food) who is portrayed as a fair woman with a rice bowl in one hand and a spoon in the other.

So in a way we are also talking tomatoes here ;)

Michael

Let us not lose sight of what we are discussing here.

The object under discussion is a form of jejeran that originates in Jawa in the period since the coming of Islam.

Jawa is not Bali, and the Hindu faith as practiced in Bali is not mainline Hindu, but is known specifically as Bali-Hindu.

The Hindu faith as it was practiced in Jawa was probably essentially mainline during the early classical period, but after the shift of the center of power to East Jawa diverse elements were increasingly absorbed into religious practices, so by the time of Islamic domination, the Hindu faith in Jawa had become Jawa-Hindu.

Islam had replaced the Javanese-Hindu belief system by the middle of the 16th century, however, elements of Hindu culture remained , especially in Kraton society, and the indigenous beliefs of the Javanese remained, as they had throughout the Hindu period.

I can find no reference in any recognised work dealing with Javanese culture, of any cult of Durga in Jawa, since the coming of Islam.

I know of no monumental representation in Jawa of Durga vieled. In fact, in the 108 names by which Durga may be known, none bear reference to a veil.

On the other hand, in Jawa the dominant female folk diety is Dewi Sri, and since the coming of Islam it has been the practice not to represent human features on a jejeran.

If a female figure is used as the form for a jejeran, in Jawa, and during the Islamic period, it is illogical to claim this figure as a representation of a Hindu goddess, and attempt to explain the missing facial features by claiming that the goddess is wearing a veil. If examples in Javanese monumental works could be pointed to as prior examples of the vieled goddess, it may be possible to stretch the imagination a little and allow that just maybe the jejeran figure is related to this representation of the goddess. If similar representations of a veiled goddess could be found as a continuing motif in Balinese keris handles, it might be possible to allow that the Javanese representation is a continuation of a pre-Islamic traditional form. If a cult worshiping a veiled form of Durga could be identified during the Islamic era in Jawa, it might be possible to accept that this female form of jejeran is in some way connected to this cult.

Michael has suggested that the answer may be found in the works of Martin Kerner. Regretably I do not read German, and there are no references to this matter in Martin's English language works. If anybody reading this is able provide Martin's argument and evidence, I would be very interested to see it.

In the meantime, if we need to actually name this figure, I suggest that it should be named as Dewi Sri, rather than as Durga.


This discussion seems to have veered off to the east a little and crossed over in Bali.

In Bali, Dewi Sri is able to be linked through Bhatari Uma, Siwa's wife, to Durga. Bhatari Uma is the earth mother, and as such is responsible for the young rice, but Dewi Sri is responsible for the ripe rice and the harvest, thus, Dewi Sri is a manifestation of Bhatari Uma, but in practice, it is Dewi Sri who is most recognised. Now, Bhatari Uma has a number of other manifestations, including, for example, Giriputri, Prthiwi, and Durga. It is incorrect to say that Dewi Sri is a form of Durga, or that Durga is a form of Dewi Sri, but each is a manifestation of Bhatari Uma.

So, Dewi Sri does not equate to Durga in Bali:- Dewi Sri is one manifestation of Bhatari Uma, Durga is a different manifestation of Bhatari Uma.


Now let us look at one of the problems of anthropological reseach:- the reasearcher captures stories in the present that relate to events in the past, but these stories have travelled from mouth to mouth, or from written source to written source over a period of hundreds of years, and in the course of transmission they have changed. They have been embroidered, the original meanings of words have been lost, and they they been altered for social, political, or other reasons. What Margaret Weiner produced in Visible and Invisible Realms is a snapshot of the present day beliefs of the people who were her informants, in respect of events which have become a part of folk history. They provide an invaluable source of present day belief, but they do not necessarily represent the actuality of five hundred years ago.

Margaret Weiner's informants knew the name of the keris concerned, which was commonly known as Durga Dingkul. However, none of Margaret Weiner's informants would have known the meaning of Durga Dingkul in the language that was used at the time it was named. Of course they all knew the goddess Durga, so current understanding was applied to an ancient name.Once the current interpretation has been applied, then the stories are invented to explain the name. I am not suggesting that the informants did all this, no, not at all. The production of the current belief has been a slow process over hundreds of years, as language has altered and the legend has developed.

Anthropologists are well aware of this problem, and for this reason they present beliefs relating to the past as current beliefs, not necessarily beliefs that have remained unaltered and immovable throughout time. If we wish to discover what ancient words meant, we need to attempt to understand those words as they would have been understood by the people who used them, not as they would be understood by their descendants.

If we are concerned with the study and understanding of the keris, rather than simply its collection, it is important for us to remember that present day cultural perspectives cannot be the same as the cultural perspectives from an earlier time.As we move further away from the point of origin of any belief or idea there is an increased possibility of cumulative distortion of cultural perspective.Time and the preceeding generations are what have produced the cultural perspective taken at any point in history.


Regarding the name of Durga Dingkul.
When Durga Dingkul was gifted to Sri Kresna Kapakisan by Gajah Mada it bore the name Ki Lobar, however, in Bali it became commonly known as Durga Dingkul. In fact, just exactly what keris or kerises were involved in this whole scenario seems to be rather confused, as Ki Lobar, Durga Dingkul, and Sri Kresna Kapakisan's original keris , Ki Ganja Dungkul are at the present time, in Klungkung, collapsed into one entity known as Durga Dungkul.



Michael, I am sorry that I am unable to agree with your conclusion that :- "--- having a female aspect on a male keris corresponds to the harmony you exemplify in your post."

This presupposes the correctness of the interpretation of the "durga" as the goddess Durga, and fails to draw a distinction between affixing a female name to a male symbol, and the combination of a male symbol with female symbols. The affixation of a female name to a male entity is not conducive of harmony, but is quite the opposite.

No Michael, I'm sorry, but as far as I can see there is definitely no evidence linking the goddess Durga with any keris, let alone a whole body of Durga cult symbolism with the keris in general.


Regarding the possibility of carrying on discussion with Margaret Weiner. Some years ago I did contact her on two occasions, or at least I emailed her and followed this up with a letter. I recieved no response. Upon reflection I can understand this:- I am not a part of the academic community, and Margaret Weiner is a noted authority in her field. Why should a person who is a respected authority in academia spend time with somebody who from her perspective has nothing to offer? Michael, I am not of academia, but I have had, and continue to have involvement with people who are a part of the academic community, these people supply a part of my income stream. If I have learnt anything from this involvement it is that academia is a very cut-throat world. You can only advance by climbing over the injured, bleeding, and dead bodies of your competitors.Somebody in Margaret Weiner's position needs contact with people who can advance her career and her reputation, one way or another. She does not need to spend time in unproductive correspondence with somebody who from her perspective is a nonentity.

Alan,

This gets more and more interesting but I don't know how I can continue to participate in this discussion?

I quoted Wiener and you tell me that she, as well as her local informants, got it wrong.
I quoted M Kerner, who I suspect is the source of the Durga hilt theory, and you tell me that he also got it wrong.
I quoted that Annapurna is one of the manifestations of Durga, what is found in the reference works on Hinduism, and you tell me, implicit, that it is wrong and and that it's all Uma and no Durga inbetween.
I have some more ideas to add but unfortunately they are all based, or dependant, on books and not on my own field research.

So let's summarize:

In my first answer to Ganja I wrote:
"Your keris hilt, with female forms, usually is considered to represent Durga, a shakti of Shiva."

and on your question:
"where did this Durga belief first arise?"
I would answer M Kerner (as far as I know).

I have really enjoyed reading your comments, as I always do. But unfortunately if the major ideas that are written about this subject, as far as I have seen and read, are wrong then I don't have anything more to contribute to this discussion.

Thanks for "unveiling" this to me. ;)

Michael

Hi Alan,

I guess Michael had answered your question on "where did this Durga belief first arise?".

Alan, you had stated your opinion, as such and I found it most interesting.

I'm wondering is there any written articles about your opinion.
It would serve well to enlighten the academic community and the majority of collectors. Too long have the present keris community got it wrong, then. :(

You're making me sound like an arrogant fool Michael---which maybe I am---but not because of what I have written here.

Weiner got it right.

But only in the present tense. Please read what I wrote once again.

Martin I will not discuss, and you know the reason why.

Durga as Anapurna may be so for some people, it may not be so for others. Apart from my own experience, I can refer you to Ramseyer in respect of the manifestations of Uma in the context of Bali. Anapurna is not part of the equation in Bali-Hindu belief, to my knowledge.

The discussion has been about a jejeran from Islamic Jawa.The side trip into Bali is a diversion.

If the belief is that this jejeran is a representation of Durga, and this idea originated in the work of Martin Kerner, then let us see Martin's evidence or argument, or alternatively present an argument of your own.

I have not told you that anybody got anything wrong.

What I have said is that the specific question has not yet been settled.

This question relates to a jejeran from Islamic Jawa, it does not relate to the manifold interpretations of Hindu belief systems, nor can it be answered by unsubstantiated opinions.

I have provided an argument to support my opinion.

If you disagree with my opinion, please destroy my argument, and please stay within the context of the time and place of origin of the object under discussion.

I may be wrong, but this is yet to be demonstrated.

I understand that you have a lot on your plate at the moment, so there is no hurry for the evidence or argument to demonstrate that I need to change my opinion.

Alan,

I appreciate that you share your knowledge within this field.
But my knowledge on this topic originates from books only (other peoples knowledge and research) which limits me to participate in this discussion if you want me to show you proof of what's behind my sources.
I hope this clarifies my earlier explanation so you don't take it as an insult, which wasn't my intention at all.

Michael

No offence taken Michael.

This is simply gentle discussion.

My personal field experience has very little bearing on what I have said in this discussion.

Weiner:- any investigation of the nature of Weiner's can only report on current belief, it cannot report on what may have been the original story or circumstances. The authors of such reports, including Weiner, recognise this. They present their findings as a report of current belief, not as fact, not as history.

Dewi Sri/Bhatari Uma:- Balinese culture; its in the books, not my discovery nor my opinion.

Jejeran as a representation of Dewi Sri:- my opinion , supported by logical argument; sloppily constructed, admittedly, and if necessary I can tighten it and lengthen it, but the elements are already there, and they will not change. In opposition to my supported opinion we currently have an unsupported opinion. If this is Martin Kerner's opinion, I would hope that he provided evidence or argument to support it.

Let's just focus on the core issue, the jejeran.

I suggest that we give this a rest until you are clear of other obligations, then you can come back to the table with the evidence or argument to make me change my mind. I assure you, I am quite ready to change my mind on this issue, or any other issue, if adequate argument or evidence is produced.

Good healthy discussion. :) I guess, we'll call it jejeran 'wadon' for short. ;)

Yes, this has been a wonderful discussion and as more information is gathered i encourage it to continue. My understanding of this hilt form has grown exponientially from this thread :)
Once again i would like to stress that disagreement is a heathy thing and can only lead to new discoveries and understandings. No one should be hesitant to put forth their ideas and theories on this forum. I only insist that the conversation remain civil, as this one certainly has. :)

(More) Durga Hilt
 

Dear All,

This is more pictures, on what some of you called it "the durga hilt". I got this newer collection of such hilt yesterday, but in a rather different model of "durga" (or dewi Sri, according to Alan).

The hand position is the same, but the proportion of length of its hand is different. The wood also different. The later one (the black one) is made of light ebony (?) wood. Very light, much lighter than ebony. But very black...

Ganjawulung