Thread: Majapahit Keris
View Single Post
Old 16th June 2019, 04:50 AM   #28
A. G. Maisey
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,676
Default

Yes Jean, I think you're probably right with what you think of, and perhaps most other collectors think of as a Modern Keris. But it is not so easy for me. Since you have drawn my attention to this deficiency of mine I've been turning this question over in my head, and I have come to the realisation that I think about this question of "Modern Keris" in a way that is possibly quite different to the way in which you, and perhaps most other collectors do.

My thinking gets back to the perennial question of defining exactly what a keris is. I think that perhaps the first time I saw the word "asymmetric" used to describe a keris was in Garrett Solyom's definition of a keris. It is obvious that what Garrett was looking at in Solo in the late 1960's and early 1970's were a whole heap of artistically fashioned daggers that were not symmetrical in form, so for Garrett, at that time, the use of "asymmetric" as a descriptor was perfectly reasonable, particularly so as Garrett was addressing these daggers from an academic base, not from a base that incorporated many years of collecting and keris study from outside of Jawa, nor from a historic base. He came up with a very good definition of what a keris was in the world of 1970. In fact, I myself have used similar definitions to Garrett's, I might even have quoted him on occasion, and I've been happy to go that route at that time.

But if I think about the way in which I now look at keris, I realise that for quite a long time I have been thinking of keris in a different way to the way in which Garrett thought of keris in the 1970's, and probably in a different way to the way in which most people think of a keris now.

In the Nagarakertagama we find this passage:-


"Exterminated were the animals, thrusted, lanced, cut, krissed, dying without a gasp”

The word "keris" does not appear in this passage, the word used is "kinris", which is from the word "kris" with the infix "in"> "kinris", which turns it into a verb.

So the passage is using a verb, based upon the word "kris", indicating that the animals were killed with krisses --- but were they? Iris is to cut, so in Old Javanese a keris was a "cutter", maybe the word is used to mean that the animals were killed with a variety of weapons that could cut. Maybe a keris (kris) in Old Javanese was generic and the individual weapons that fell under the umbrella of kris were in fact things like tuhuk and tewek that were defined by method use.

The actual Old Javanese used is:-

"--- Tinumbak, Inirás, kinris, pjah tanpagáp---"

So our romanised translation is subject to a bit of interpretation.

This Nagarakertagama passage has influenced my thinking about keris quite a lot, and I realise that in fact, when I think of "Old Keris" and "Modern Keris", I think of "Old Keris" as "Keris Buda", which in Javanese thought equates to "Keris from the Buda Era" = "Old Keris", and "Modern Keris" as keris that came after Keris Buda dropped out of general usage.

I do not really think about whether or not a keris must have a gandhik, or whether it must be asymmetric, I think about what it is not, rather than features that define what it is, so, if it is not a pedang, or a tombak, or a bendo or a golok, or something else similar, it is a keris, as long as it looks vaguely like a keris.

I probably want it to be able to be used as a keris is used, so in a way, the way in which I think about weapon definition probably reflects the way in which weapon names were expressed in Old Javanese, rather than the way in which 21st century and other recent collectors of these weapons think of weapon names.

But then again, if I say, "the way in which a keris was used", exactly how much do we know about the way in which a keris was used? Balinese keris were not used in the same way that we presently believe Javanese keris were used, and the way in which we believe Javanese keris were used has been heavily influenced by the way that keris are held in some dance performances.

There was a transitional period, and from this period we can find keris that have the square tang and metuk of the Keris Buda, as well as keris that have a tang that is flat on two sides, as well as keris that have the blade of a straight Modern Keris, but a symmetric gonjo.

In Bali, we find 16th & 17th century keris that that have the same features as these longer transitional blades that we see in bas-reliefs and statuary, some of these Balinese keris will have symmetric gonjos, some will have asymmetric gonjos, they all get referred to as keris, but when we get into sub classifications they get named as "keris pedang".

Possibly I should have been more careful in phrasing my reference to "Modern Keris" appearing at Candi Sukuh, but to have done so, and make sense, I believe it would have added at least several hundred words to the text, words that were not material to the objective of the article. I do not remember if I considered this at the time, or if was happy enough to let the reference run as "Modern Keris", but if I were to write "Interpretation" again, tomorrow, I would think about the advisability of referring to a transitional keris as Modern Keris. I don't really know at the moment which way my thoughts would run at the time.

So Jean, you see, it is pretty easy for you to understand exactly what a keris is, exactly what a Modern Keris is, and the difference between them.

For me it is vastly more difficult, and when I factor in the many more influences in development, it becomes even more difficult again.
A. G. Maisey is offline   Reply With Quote