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.
|