[A. G. Maisey]

Kai Wee I agree that the relief carving from Candi Panataran, that Jussi has chosen to illustrate his point, is perhaps not the best for this purpose.

In spite of the fact that reproductions of this relief have been published many times in Indonesia to illustrate the historicity of the keris, in fact, it lacks some of the features that we would normally like to associate with the keris, including the archaic proto types of the keris.

This deficiency has never seemed to worry those Indonesian publishers though:- they simply altered the published images so that the missing gandik was magically included, and the blade became assymetric.

There are other representations of proto keris at Panataran, but I believe it is perhaps better to use one of the representations from Prambanan. This representation inarguably has the assymetric blade and gandik of the modern keris, and it dates from an earlier time than Panataran.

I have studied these carvings at first hand, under magnification, and over a period of years. I have obtained verification from Indonesian archeological officials as to the original state of the Prambanan carving shown here, and I have confirmed this verification by my own examination under magnification.

The image shown here from Prambanan is original, undamaged, and unaltered, and it shows a keris-like dagger which possesses many of the features of the modern keris. It also shows the way in which these daggers were used.


Jussi, correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I read your posts is that you are saying pretty much the same thing that I'm saying, that is:- we do not know exactly how the keris was used in the past, however, there is more than one possible way in which it could have been used.