When we attempt the study of any culture, we should recognise that what we discover about that culture is dependent upon a number of factors. The knowledge gained of the culture depends upon the methodology which we choose to use, it depends upon our informants, it depends upon the time when the information was gathered, and it depends upon ourselves. I mention here only major factors, but there are other factors which viewed subjectively could seem to be minor, but which in the final analysis show themselves to have a major impact upon our findings.
When we seek to study the keris, most particularly the keris in Java, we find that there are many threads which must be drawn together before we can begin to form an objective opinion of this artifact of Javanese culture. If our study is limited to a study of the belief systems which are applied to the keris in present day Java by a segment of the Javanese community, then our understanding of the keris, and its development throughout time will be an understanding that we have gained by acceptance of the beliefs of a group of people within the Javanese community.I do not criticise these beliefs. They are an accurate reflection of the way in which many people now living in Java now see this icon of their culture. As such, these beliefs must be given a place in the study of the keris and accorded recognition as a phenomenon of cultural development.
However, objective examination of the history of the keris will reveal that the belief system which holds that the keris is not, and never was, a weapon, is an outgrowth of twentieth century Javanese Islam.
If we are to gain an understanding of Javanese culture and the keris, then we must look at this culture not only through the window of the present, but we must strive to project our examination back into time and try to understand what the keris was in times past. As an example to demonstrate my position in this matter, I will use the Javanese language. Anybody with only a passing understanding of Javanese culture and society will know that the Javanese language is a multi level language. The basic level of this language is Ngoko, and the other major level is Krama, which is a ceremonial version of the basic level. Between these two levels is a third level, Madya. The way in which these levels of language are used is strictly prescribed, and is not a matter of choice for the user, but depends upon social hierarchical organisation. Further, some people maintain that within the closed world of the Surakarta Kraton a total of eleven levels of language are used. Now, looking at this situation , it would be easy to believe that this development of language has occurred over a very extended period of time. In fact, the most recent studies indicate that these levels of language have only developed since about 1600, and coincide with attempts by the new dynasty of Mataram to legitimise their position.
For somebody living in the twentieth century, it would be a natural assumption that this structure had been a feature of the Javanese language back into time, and had applied during the golden age of Majapahit, and during the the eras preceeding Majapahit. Only a student of Old Javanese would recognise that Old Javanese was not strictly structured as is Modern Javanese.
As it is with the Javanese language, so it also is with the Javanese keris.
During time, the nature of the keris has changed, and those who put forward the claim that it is not, and never was a weapon are presenting a very modern point of view.
There is ample evidence in the literature to support my assertion that the nature of the keris in the twentieth and twenty first centuries was not the nature of the keris in earlier times. For those who may be interested in discovering this for themselves, I suggest that they may care to start with a reading of :- "Java in The 14th. Century"--Pigeaud, note particularly the Nagarakertagama and the Nawanatya, and Groenveldt`s translation of the Ying-Yai-Sheng-Lan (1416), which can be found in "Historical notes on Indonesia and Malaya compiled from Chinese sources".
Knowledge can only be gained through study. The study of belief systems is necessary to gain a rounded understanding of any aspect of a culture, but belief cannot be substituted for fact.
|