[A. G. Maisey]

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.