Between Solo and Yogya

A. G. Maisey · 12th September 2007, 01:54 PM

Thanks Pak Ganja, but its not really a matter of being right, or wrong.

This was just a matter of slight confusion:- you were talking about one Damartaji publication, I was talking about another, and we both did not know of the other publication.

No big deal, we're back on track now.

Yes, I agree that there are great holes in our supposed knowledge of keris. Perhaps the principal reason for this is the propensity of keris fanciers to take myth, legend, and popular belief as fact. Virtually all our so-called "knowledge" comes from later than the beginning of the 19th. century, yet early in the 19th. century Raffles observed the keris in Jawa at that time fulfilled a similar function to the small sword in Europe fifty years previously. That is, almost exclusively as an item of dress.The day of the origin of the keris was already 500 years or more back in history when people began to record the "knowledge". Go back 5 months in time and try to get a truly accurate fix on something, that can be supported with evidence.The only way to understand the keris in Jawa is to understand Jawa at the time during which we wish to understand the keris. For instance, to understand the position of the keris in Jawa in the year 2007, we need to understand Javanese culture and society in the year 2007. Take the parrallel:- to understand the keris in Jawa in , say, 1407, we need to understand Jawa in the year 1407.Not an easy thing.

The simple fact of the matter is that the keris is a Javanese icon, and as such is subject to a system of belief that accepts certain legend and myth as fact. Nothing wrong with that, it gives a lot of people comfort.In fact, even though logically I know that certain things to do with the keris are the product of belief, emotionally I am quite prepared to accept those things as true. But logically I am obliged to doubt them. It all depends what thought mode I am in.

You mention tangguh, and we know that an understanding of tangguh is essential for us to be able to gain a (Javanese) understanding of the keris, however, nobody ever speaks of how, when, and why this system of classification that we know as "tangguh" arose.Go back to the roots of tangguh, and many people might find a distasteful truth that they cannot accept.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

12th September 2007, 01:54 PM	#29
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	Thanks Pak Ganja, but its not really a matter of being right, or wrong. This was just a matter of slight confusion:- you were talking about one Damartaji publication, I was talking about another, and we both did not know of the other publication. No big deal, we're back on track now. Yes, I agree that there are great holes in our supposed knowledge of keris. Perhaps the principal reason for this is the propensity of keris fanciers to take myth, legend, and popular belief as fact. Virtually all our so-called "knowledge" comes from later than the beginning of the 19th. century, yet early in the 19th. century Raffles observed the keris in Jawa at that time fulfilled a similar function to the small sword in Europe fifty years previously. That is, almost exclusively as an item of dress.The day of the origin of the keris was already 500 years or more back in history when people began to record the "knowledge". Go back 5 months in time and try to get a truly accurate fix on something, that can be supported with evidence.The only way to understand the keris in Jawa is to understand Jawa at the time during which we wish to understand the keris. For instance, to understand the position of the keris in Jawa in the year 2007, we need to understand Javanese culture and society in the year 2007. Take the parrallel:- to understand the keris in Jawa in , say, 1407, we need to understand Jawa in the year 1407.Not an easy thing. The simple fact of the matter is that the keris is a Javanese icon, and as such is subject to a system of belief that accepts certain legend and myth as fact. Nothing wrong with that, it gives a lot of people comfort.In fact, even though logically I know that certain things to do with the keris are the product of belief, emotionally I am quite prepared to accept those things as true. But logically I am obliged to doubt them. It all depends what thought mode I am in. You mention tangguh, and we know that an understanding of tangguh is essential for us to be able to gain a (Javanese) understanding of the keris, however, nobody ever speaks of how, when, and why this system of classification that we know as "tangguh" arose.Go back to the roots of tangguh, and many people might find a distasteful truth that they cannot accept.