[A. G. Maisey]

Green, I have seen this discussion about the authenticity of keris from various localities take place many times, and not only on a national level, but between different areas within Indonesia, and within Jawa itself.

Even in Central Jawa, between two branches of the same royal line we find disagreement over some aspects of keris culture. Surakarta adopted the Majapahit pattern and ethos, Jogjakarta adopted the Mataram culture and ethos, and disagreement flows from this.

Each keris bearing culture has its own value system, each claims the keris as an integral part of that culture. There can be no argument about this. The keris is an important part of Malay and other keris bearing cultures.

No argument.

However, the religious and cultural symbolism associated with the keris in Javanese society is not repeated, indeed cannot be repeated in the other societies that hold the keris as a part of their culture.

The export of the keris from Jawa, both as royal gift, and as an item of trade began at a time when Malaya had already begun to adopt Islam, and the keris that went from Jawa to Malaya, and to other countries within SE Asia had already begun to develop the characteristics and values of the Modern Keris.

In the society of Jawa that existed outside the courts, the keris in Jawa had already become a different object with a different secular value system attached to it, than the keris that had existed within the Hindu-Javanese courts during the previous classical eras. Thus, the keris that was dispersed from Jawa, into much of SE Asia, already had a different secular value system attached to it than did the keris that began as a Javanese cultural icon, and very probably a knife used in religious sacrifice, during the Early Classical Period in Central Jawa.

The courts were of course aware of the deep cultural iconography of the keris, but by the late 14th century the keris in Jawa had already been adopted by people outside the courts, notably by the Muslim traders who occupied enclaves on the North Coast of Jawa and who were principally responsible for dispersion of the keris throughout SE Asia. Indeed, they not only spread the keris, but other Javanese weaponry as well, to places such as Cambodia, Malacca and even Sri Lanka.

These North Coast traders copied the style and dress of the Javanese courts, but they lacked the knowledge and understanding that was possessed by those who were a part of court society.

So, the keris was exported, but the deep Javanese understanding of the keris, with its spiritual implications, was not exported, the exporters were businessmen, not court scribes. They perhaps were able to transmit some comprehension of the importance of the keris within Javanese society, and this clearly took root in the places that the keris was transported to, and over time developed into the value systems and belief systems that became a part of keris culture in those other places.

However, when it came into these other places, the keris came with non-court values and understandings attached to it, rather, it came with values that had been born out of the spread of Islam in Jawa, and it came into societies that were already Islamic societies, or soon would be. In those places that received the keris from Jawa, the belief systems attached to it reflect values that differ from the indigenous beliefs and values of the Javanese common people, and of the Javanese courts.

This difference in cultural and in societal values of the keris in Jawa, compared with the keris in other societies is the reason that keris from places other than Jawa and Bali are not regarded by traditional Javanese keris authorities as "genuine" keris:- in Javanese perception they simply have the wrong values attached to them.

So --- no dispute at all in respect of the value of the keris as a cultural icon in Malaya, or in those other societies outside the Jawa/Bali nexus, where the keris is found. However, the belief systems attached to the keris in these other places do differ from the belief systems attached to the keris in Jawa, and do lack some of the elements that make the keris what it is in Jawa.

In respect of luk numbers. Of course the multiplicity of luk in keris found in places outside Jawa is not something that the people in those places consider to be incorrect. Within their understanding it is obvious that there is nothing at all wrong with having as many luk in a keris as they wish. I cannot disagree with this, because those people in the other places do not know nor do they understand, the Javanese belief and value systems. The keris in those other places is not what it is in Jawa.