[A. G. Maisey]

Interesting questions Gustav.

I would ask you to bear one thing in mind:- at this time I am not prepared to comment on anything that is outside the context of Hindu-Buddhist Javanese society and the keris within that system.

The other elements that can be found in a greneng are many and varied, if we consider the page of greneng forms that was taken from KJ, what we can see is that in every example where the ron dha appears the ron dha form is Surakarta. When did each of these greneng forms first appear? I don't know. When did the keris dhapurs that support these greneng forms first appear? I don't know. In the case of some dhapurs keris belief attaches the name of a ruler to the creation of the dhapur, so from this it might seem possible to estimate a date when a particular dhapur first came into being, and thus to be able to say that such & such a greneng appeared at that time. But as we know, even when we have the name of a ruler in Old Jawa, we do not necessarily know exactly who that ruler is, nor when he ruled, or even if he was a real ruler, or a ruler from literature.

Now, you have raised the question of the "greneng variation in megantara". Precisely what variation do you mean Gustav? From memory, dhapur megantara is not included in the Surakarta pakem. I'm pretty sure that it is in EK, and it is in KJ, but again working only with memory, neither of these sources get into much detail in respect of greneng composition. So, megantara is supposed to have exactly what elements included in the greneng? Well, going on the KJ drawing, there are two ron dha, one can probably be read as Jenggolo, but the other is Surakarta.

I think that the Surakarta Pakem does record a dhapur megantoro for tombak, but I'm relatively certain that it does not include a dhapur megantoro for keris (I'll check this as soon as I can). So --- why?

This is fertile ground for good ideas. But you can count me out.

There are a number of dates that can be justified for the termination of Hindu-Buddhist society in Jawa. Arguments can be constructed to support whatever date suits one best, but my personal choice is 1525. Its as good as any other date, and probably better than most.

Pre-1525 the keris was a prerogative of court nobles. It had a purpose and a meaning within court society. Court style was copied by merchants along the North Coast, and this imitation of court dress and behaviours extended to wear of the keris. We do not, to my knowledge, have any keris from Jawa that pre-date the collapse of the Kingdom of Mojopahit, thus all the early Javanese keris that we can examine come from a time when the keris had become something that was available to anybody who could pay the price. That price did not include lessons in Hindu-Buddhist belief systems for Muslim merchants. This was the time when the keris began a new stage of development.

If we consider the tuah of a keris dhapur, we will find that very often a dhapur is associated with a profession. Farmers, merchants, civil servants, and so on all have available to them specific dhapurs that carry a tuah suited to their profession.

However, the nature of Hindu-Buddhist court society was such that the caste entitled, and in fact probably compelled to carry the keris was the k'satriya caste. Considering the nature of Javanese court society prior to 1525, it seems to be highly unlikely that farmers and merchants would have appeared at court wearing a keris. So we are left with the proposition that the bulk of dhapurs that existed at the beginning of the 20th century were for the most part created during the time when Jawa was under Muslim influence.

It was once suggested to me by a person whom I am unwilling to name, that in fact much of both keris form and keris belief developed because of a reaction by the Javanese aristocracy against European domination. I am not yet ready to completely support this opinion, but it certainly does have much to recommend it.

Gustav, you have asked why I am inclined to believe that the ron dha as jenggot was something that was included in keris symbolism, and when. Taken in context what I wrote was this:-

"You ask if we can assume that "om" was inferred in those cases where the ron dha does not appear as a jenggot. Frankly, I am not prepared to assume this, as I believe the inclusion of the ron dha preceding the kembang kacang was a later development. My attitude to this would be that where the ron dha read as "om" appears it is intended, where it does not appear, it is not intended."

My response was to Bjorn's question:-

"Reading a mantra across the sorsoran certainly seems appropriate in the context of Majahapit times. And the mantra om ganesha siwa om seems logical when a jenggot is present.
However, in many cases there is no jenggot. Can we assume that it would then be implied?"

Let us never forget that the spiritual iconography of the keris exists even in a keris with no additional symbols at all. Even in the most plain form of keris the symbolism of Siwa and the Gunungan is present, but if we pray to Siwa we open our prayer with a prayer to Ganesha, thus Ganesha symbolism is logically the first additional enhancement, then the sogokan is included to permit an icon of Siwa to appear within a representation of the Gunungan.

It is not mandatory for the mantra 'om' to be used in every mantra, in every prayer, by all members of all the variations of the Hindu belief system. The nature of Hindu belief in Jawa was Shiviatic and Tantric, it was not Vedic. However, once the related symbolism of Siwa and Ganesha are in place it would be seen as appropriate to turn simple symbolism into a prayer. This is what I mean by "later". All the enhancements associated with the keris that can be read iconographically were products of development. Development takes time. The question remains of how much time. I believe that the symbolism that can clearly be read as Hindu-Buddhist symbolism was mostly completed by the time of the later migrations from East Jawa to Bali.

Why do I believe this? Because those Hindu-Buddhist symbols also appear in Balinese keris. It is not realistic to believe that enhancements developed under Islam were included in the Balinese keris.