[A. G. Maisey]

Gustav, I feel that we have reached a point in this discussion where I need to attempt to clarify a few points, but before I do, I have a question:- is the photo below, the hilt that you believe is not stylistically a North Jawa hilt?

In respect of the Banten classification, yes, I agree completely with you that no classification can be given upon the basis of a single feature. Where the Banten classification is concerned, we have a bit of a problem, because in the old literature, Banten and the North Coast in general are not recognised as tangguh by the Surakarta pakem, and that guide is the foundation stone of all the tangguh classifications that we are currently privileged to have available.

During the 1980's, the people I associated with in Solo, who did understand tangguh, tended to dismiss all North Coast keris with characteristics that did not fit comfortably with Central Javanese forms as "diluar Jawa", and thus not worthy of consideration. I'm not sure why this should be, but because I need to address a wider community than the Solo community, I long ago took the decision to attempt to identify characteristics that are generally accepted as being present in Banten and other North Coast keris. In fact, the North Coast needs to be sub-divided, just as Central Jawa is sub-divided, with different keris styles being recognised as being associated with different places.

I am inclined to the view that insofar as Banten is concerned, the blumbangan is not a decisive identifying feature:- older Banten keris tend to follow the Majapahit style, later ones tend to follow Mataram, and sometimes Pajajaran, but here again we have a problem, because there are several styles of keris that can be given a classification of Pajajaran.

In any case, yes, I agree that Banten keris cannot be classified simply on blumbangan form.

Again, I have no argument with the idea that figural hilts are not limited to North Coast Jawa. I prefer the term "figural" rather than "demonic", or "raksasa" because it sometimes is not possible to determine exactly what the figural representation was intended to represent.

In respect of a particular hilt (sorry, I'm not yet certain which hilt you mean), you tell me that:-

"--- obviously also the hilt don't fit in your system.---"

Quite frankly Gustav, I don't know what you are talking about here, as I have never put forward anything on the classification of keris that used the hilt as a prime element of classification. In my view, hilts must be considered separately to the keris itself.

Now, about the greneng and ron dha.

You have referred to "your system", " your hypothesis", meaning a hypothesis and/or system that I have put forward, and you have claimed that certain variations in the way a ron dha is cut are incompatible with this hypothesis of mine to which you refer. Since I have not constructed any hypothesis or theory in this thread, I'm guessing that when you refer to the "system" & "hypothesis" that I put forward, you are referring to something I have published as a paper or article, so again, I'm guessing, but I think the only candidate for any sort of hypothesis in respect of the matters being discussed here is my "Interpretation" article.

In fact, I have not at any time, nor in any place constructed a hypothesis that deals with the greneng. In "Interpretation " I did put forward a hypothesis that deals with the ron dha. I open the section of "Interpretation" that deals with the ron dha with these remarks:-

"The ron dha is a part of the greneng, and in Javanese and Balinese keris, the individual elements of which a greneng is comprised can be subject to a degree of variation. However, the consistent element in a correctly cut greneng is the ron dha. In a few forms of keris, the ron dha can also be found on the opposite edge of the keris, in a symbol known as the jenggotan, which depends like a beard from the kembang kacang."

As we can see, right at the very beginning of this section that treats the ron dha I have separated the ron dha from the greneng, and have been very clear that the elements of which the greneng is comprised can vary.

I am inclined to see everything that you have put forward about this variant greneng form as re-enforcement of what I published in "Interpretation".

The elements of a greneng do vary.

No argument about this.

However, not all greneng carry the ron dha. As I said in post #21 of this thread:-

"--- where the ron dha read as "om" appears, it is intended, where it does not appear, it is not intended.---"

The Troppenmuseum keris (TM 809.99) that you have offered as an example of a variant greneng is a 19th century keris, and the form in which the greneng is cut is not uncommon in Balinese keris. The crucial factor with this keris is that it does carry ron dha, the fact that the way in which those ron dha are presented as part of a whole is only one of a multitude of ways in which the ron dha can be presented, and is not really relevant.

Just a side bar on this particular Balinese greneng form:- it is possible, perhaps probable, that in the context of Balinese belief, this three pointed element in the greneng could be read as a reference to the Tri-Murti; another possible interpretation would be that in one of its more elaborate forms it is a representation of the pejyor, which relates to the Gunungan, and of course the keris itself is a Gunungan representation.

Actually, I have not yet researched nor considered at length this variant element in the greneng, so don't shoot me if I put forward something different when I publish on the greneng. The above is just something that occurred to me while I was typing. It is not at all difficult to generate interpretations of the symbolism, either real or imagined that we can find in the keris. The difficult part comes in building a sufficiently strong structure to support the interpretation.

To sum up:-

the ron dha is one element of the greneng; where the ron dha appears in a keris that has been made as a socio-religious artefact within a society that has embraced elements of the Hindu faith, that ron dha can only be read as "aum" (or, if you prefer "om").

In those cases where the ron dha does not appear in a greneng, or has been replaced by a variant element, this can be because of intentional substitution, error, or possibly some other, as yet unthought-of reason.