[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you Gustav.

Regrettably this information that you have quoted is inaccurate.

Let us examine this quotation:-

(one should regard the source from the 11 century, where between others "short swords" are mentioned, with rhino-horn handles, as gifts from a Javanese potentiat to the imperial court of China; regard Hasrinuksmo/Lumintu 1988: 19) 98 (for footnote)

98 (footnote) A chinese source mentions short swords with rhino-horn handles, which Maharadja of Kahuripan (a kingdom at the Brantas-river, 11 century) have send as gift to China.

Achim Weihrauch has quoted Harsrinuksmo, who in turn has quoted an unnamed Chinese source.

The source that Achim Weihrauch quotes is:- Ensiklopedi Budaya Nasional , by Bambang Harsrinuksmo, assisted by S. Lumintu, first edition 1988.

The relevant section in Ensiklopedi Budaya was written by S. Lumintu and this reads:-


Ada pula yang menduga , budaya senjata keris sudah berkembang sejak tahun 1000 Masehi. Hal itu terbukti dari laporan musafir Cina pada tahun 922M.Jadi lebih kurang pada jaman kerarajaan Kahuripan berkembang di tepian sungai Brantas. Di laporkan ada seorang Maharaja Jawa menghadiahkan pada Kaisar Tiongkok short swords with hilts of rhinoceros horn or gold (pedang pendek dengan hulu terbuat dari cula badak atau mas).Bisa jadi pedang pendek yang dimaksud dalam laporan itu adalah prototip keris seperti tergambar pada relief candi Borobudur dan Prambanan.

Free translation:-

There are also those who presume that the culture of the keris blossomed since the year 1000AD.That matter is proven from the report of a Chinese traveller in the year 922AD.Thus, more or less at the time of the blossoming of the Kingdom of Kahuripan on the banks of the river Brantas. It was reported that there was a Javanese ruler who presented to the Emperor of China short swords with hilts of rhinoceros horn or gold (pedang pendek dengan hulu terbuat dari cula badak atau mas).It can be that the short swords meant in that report were the prototype keris like those shown in the reliefs of Candi Borobudur and Candi Prambanan.


S. Lumintu has referred to the report of a Chinese traveler dated to 922AD. This report is to be found in Historical Notes on Indonesia & Malaya, Compiled from Chinese Sources, W.P. Groenveldt, Published by C.V. Bhratara, 1960, Djakarta. The original Chinese report provided by Groenveldt is contained in Book 489 of the History of the Sung Dynasty.

The complete paragraph that contains this quote bears reading:-

In the 12th month of the year 992, their king Maradja sent an embassy consisting of a first, a second and an assistant envoy, to go to court and bring tribute. The first envoy said : "now that China has a rightful master again , our country comes to perform the duty of bringing tribute." The presents sent by the king were ivory, pearls, silk embroidered with flowers and gold, silk of different colours, sandalwood, cotton goods in various colours, tortoise shell, betel trays, short swords with hilts of rhinoceros horn or gold, rattan mats plaited with figures, white parrots and a small pavilion made of sandalwood, adorned with all kinds of precious materials.

In his commentary on this report Groenveldt states:-

About the situation of the seat of government nothing else is said, than that it was about the middle of the island, a little to the west. This agrees with tradition, according to which the capital at that time was situated in the present day district Banyumas.


If we examine of the above, we find that Achim Weihrauch has attributed to Harsrinuksmo something that Harsrinuksmo, or more correctly, Lumintu, never wrote, namely that the tribute to China was sent from the Maharadja of Kahuripan. All Lumintu did was to associate the tribute with a time frame that was "more or less" compatible with the rise of Kahuripan.

However, Lumintu himself was in error, because Kahuripan did not exist in 992. Kahuripan is generally accepted as having been established by Airlangga in 1019.

In 992 Mataram under Dharmavamsa was dominant in Jawa. Dharmavamsa was a rich and powerful ruler, and would have been able to send tribute to China. Even if Kahuripan had existed a little earlier than the generally accepted date, it would not yet have had the power or position to approach China.

There is more inaccuracy in this Achim Weihrauch footnote.
Kahuripan was an East Javanese kingdom that stretched from Madiun to Pasuruan, but the exact location of its seat of government (Karaton) is unknown. A number of locations have been proposed, but to my knowledge, none are on the banks of the river Brantas, however, the Brantas does flow through the territory that was claimed by Kahuripan.

There is a further problem with attribution to Kahuripan of the tribute to China :-

Kahuripan was an East Javanese kingdom, and the original Chinese text places the ruler who sent this tribute, squarely in the center of Jawa, which is where Mataram was located.

There can be no doubt that this tribute to the Emperor of China came from Dharmavamsa of Mataram, not from some unnamed ruler in Kahuripan.


Here we have a very good example of how inadequacies in texts accepted as reliable sources can mislead and obscure.

Achim Weihrauch trusted Harsrinuksmo/Lumintu as a reliable source, and failed to recognize or to check the source that they used.

I find this failure totally inexplicable.
Groenveldt's "Chinese Sources" is extremely well known to students of S.E. Asian history,and most especially to students of Indonesian history, to the point where many people with an interest in this history can instantly recognize passages from it, or references that have come from it. That Achim Weihrauch failed to recognize the inaccuracy in S.Lumintu's text is simply beyond my understanding.

Then Achim Weihrauch muddled his translation from Indonesian. Again, something I do not understand. Achim Weihrauch has written what is by all reports one of the most important works ever produced on the keris. To be able to do this, surely he is literate in Indonesian, and possibly also Javanese. How is it possible for translation errors to occur?

S.Lumintu failed to give an accurate recounting of the text to be found in Groenveldt, and then associated the tribute with the existence of Kahuripan, which misled Achim Weihrauch into believing the tribute came from Kahuripan, something that was quite impossible, as Kahuripan did not exist when the tribute was sent.

Thus, we have a a compounding of errors caused by inadequate research and plain old fashioned lack of care, coupled with a poor understanding of Javanese history.

So ---- does it matter?

Like --- who cares?

Its still tribute from Jawa to China and the date is more or less correct.

Well, I for one think that it does matter.

This compounding of errors is exactly the way that keris research and keris literature becomes corrupted. A future researcher could rely on Achim Weihrauch's work, just as Achim Weihrauch relied on Harsrinuksmo/Lumintu and could draw completely incorrect conclusions based upon the errors in geographic location and time.