The Keris of Majapahit

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Jean, there is variation in the indicators for tangguh, all these recent publications you mention have drawn on older publications such as "Panangguhing Dhuwung".

I don't use any of the published sources, either recent, or older, but rely on what I was taught by Mpu Suparman, during the 1970's he was the Penangguh for the Boworoso Tosan Aji in Surakarta, that is to say, his opinion in respect of tangguh carried greater weight than the opinions of others.

For Majapahit he named 14 indicators: tanting, besi, pamor, baja, pawakan, gonjo, gandhik, blumbangan, sogokan, ada-ada, kruwingan, eluk-lukan, wadidang, sekar kacang. His descriptions of the indicators he used are fairly detailed, for instance, for the sogokan:-

" well formed and handsome, A rounded bottom and no pamor in evidence. There are keris Mojopahit that have a rather long sogokan, but in these cases the Pajajaran pattern is being followed, normally the sogokan is short"

If your sources use the word "pawakan" to describe the character of the blade, this would be disallowed in Surakarta, in Surakarta the correct word to describe the feeling generated by a blade would be "wanda", with "pawakan" being used for the overall visual appearance. Mpu Suparman describes the wanda of Majapahit as "brave".

So we have lots of variation in not only the indicators for tangguh, but the way in which those indicators are understood.

In essence, the tangguh system of classification is an element of the keris belief system. My personal opinion is that it can be relied upon to a limited degree for fairly recent tangguhs, such as Surakarta and HB, maybe even as far back as Mataram Senopaten, but when we get into the really old tangguh classifications I regard it as pretty untrustworthy as an indicator of age. My teacher would have disagreed with me, but his world view was different to my own.

The tangguh system was developed as a reaction to colonial dominance of the Javanese kingdoms, and the restrictions that colonial power and traditional standards of the aristocracy imposed upon Javanese men of noble birth. It was never intended as a tool to establish the actual age of a keris.

So, for the purposes of this present discussion I feel that we should leave tangguh classifications off to one side.

Perhaps an approach that looks at the sources of information available to us might be more useful than a system devised to help store wealth.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

So, for the purposes of this present discussion I feel that we should leave tangguh classifications off to one side.

Perhaps an approach that looks at the sources of information available to us might be more useful than a system devised to help store wealth.

Yes, Alan, I fully agree that the tangguh classification should be disregarded for the purpose of our discussion but it needed to be mentioned.
And the best source of information known to me is your remarkable paper "An Interpretation of the Pre-Islamic Javanese Keris"...
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Jean, I agree that we needed to mention tangguh, I'm glad that we have mentioned it and that we can shelve it.

Thank you for your comment on "Interpretation", but what was published was a greatly compressed version, and it does not address the keris across the entire spectrum of early Javanese society.

Then there is the Keris Sajen.

For a very long time these were called "Keris Majapahit" in the Western Community. Sure, they've always been "sajen" in Jawa but in the past even noted Javanologists were telling the world that they had identified the ancestor of the Modern Keris.

Can we be quite certain that the Keris Sajen is not the style that preceded the Modern Keris?

[rasdan]

G'day Alan,

This is a very interesting topic. Your question is "what did the keris of the Majapahit era really look like?" ? This is what I understand from our previous discussions on this topic. What ever flaw I have is due to my own limitation in understanding the explanations that had been given.

I don't think we would ever know for sure. Many people would quote tangguh system characteristics for Mojo, but since that it is generally known that tangguh system does not really represent the actual manufacture era (like you mentioned before), what we currently know may not be accurate at all.

This raises a question that I had been thinking, how does that tangguh sytem being developed? I would imagine it is being done by Kraton people using keris in the keraton, made by kraton empu according to kraton specifications. If this is true then the accuracy of the system is only as accurate as the reference used in the kraton at that time. Meaning that recent keris will have a higher accuracy and older keris have lower accuracy or probably not accurate at all. (also like you had mentioned before).

So, I think in order to even attempt to answer the question by using tangguh system as a guide (since there is probably no other guide that I know of), we must first at least know how the system is developed and how accurate it is, then learn the system and then answer the question. Which I don't know and I am sure would take many years to study.

So, how does the keris of the Majapahit tangguh look like? I think I may have a vague idea on one of the possibilities of the shape (Not material or tanting) of Mojo keris according to tangguh system, for a luk 9 keris with ganja wilut - from our previous discussions. I attached the picture below and I hope I didn't get too far from what can be accepted.

I am sorry I had forgotten where I get this photo from to give credits. Also sorry if my writing is rather incoherent.

[A. G. Maisey]

Rasdan, I would prefer not to comment on this keris, I don't want to get bogged down in a tangguh discussion.

Please accept my apologies.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

For a very long time these were called "Keris Majapahit" in the Western Community. Sure, they've always been "sajen" in Jawa but in the past even noted Javanologists were telling the world that they had identified the ancestor of the Modern Keris.

Can we be quite certain that the Keris Sajen is not the style that preceded the Modern Keris?

Hello Alan,
The top reference book regarding the krisses sajen is "Iron Ancestors" by Theo Alkema & partners. it is very documented and the pictures & drawings are excellent.
He addresses the question of the origin of the kris sajen as follows:

. He believes that the kris sajen does not belong to the "mainstream" kris category (page 17) but was developped separately and inspired by the bronze Dongson daggers (page 34), and that the kris sajen is older than the kris Buda which he considers as the forerunner of the modern kris (page 210).
. He makes a distinction betwen the early krisses sajen (small pieces) and the larger ones with more elaborate features (carved hilt, dapur, pamor, luks, etc.) which he believes was developped during the Majapahit period (page 106).

However there is no back-up evidence of his theory and none of the pieces presented seem to have a proven provenance except one belonging to the family of Sultan Iskandar Muda (17th century).

What do you think?
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

The idea of linking the Dongson dagger to the keris sajen has been around for a very long time. However, I tend to believe that there is no direct link between the two, most certainly no link that can be supported by either evidence or by logical argument. Indeed, Theo Alkema himself does not present the Dongson/Sajen link as a theory, but rather as a hypothesis or a suggestion.

The Dongson culture existed in Northern Vietnam between about 1000BCE and about 40CE. During the last couple of hundred years of its existence it came under increasing Chinese domination by the Han and eventually was absorbed into the territories under Han control.

The people of Dongson seem to have been sea farers who traded throughout SE Asia. Artifacts which could be of Dongson origin have been found in a number of places in the Indonesian Archipelago, notable are the bronze kettle drums. I am not aware of any Dongson daggers that have been found in the Indonesian Archipelago, let alone in Jawa itself.

There is a demonstrable link between the Keris Buda and the Modern Keris. This link relies not only upon physical similarities, but most importantly upon social function.

The lapse of time between the period in Dongson influence in SE Asia, and the first appearance in Javanese monumental works of keris-like objects is more or less 1000 years. Clearly far too long a period of time for there to be any link between the Dongson dagger and the keris of Majapahit, around 1500 years later.

There is no similarity in form between a Dongson dagger and the keris sajen. Quite clearly, the Dongson dagger is in no way keris-like. True, it has a figure as a hilt, as do many other weapons, but this does not make it a keris.

The above is a brief summary of some of the arguments that can be made against the Dongson Dagger as an ancestor of the Modern Keris, rather, sociological indications are that the Keris Sajen followed the Modern Keris.

Theo Alkema and I do agree on one thing:- whether the Dongson Dagger is, or is not an ancestor of the Modern Keris can only be presented as a hypothesis, in other words nothing is presented that can be proven, whatever stance one takes in this matter, it can only be disproven.

My opinion is that "Keris Majapahit" as a name for "Keris Sajen" is a misnomer. The keris sajen possibly may have existed during the Majapahit era, but it most certainly was not a prominent keris form of that time.

My opinion is that the so-called "Keris Majapahit" was not the keris form that preceded the Modern Keris.

I would hope that we may also place the "Keris Majapahit" on the shelf alongside the tangguh belief system as tools that we can use to help identify the physical form of the Keris of Majapahit.

[rasdan]

G'day Alan,

No worries about that. If we scrap tangguh, then we are probably left with historical records on how Mojo keris looks like. Unfortunately I haven't studied into that area yet.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

My opinion is that "Keris Majapahit" as a name for "Keris Sajen" is a misnomer. The keris sajen possibly may have existed during the Majapahit era, but it most certainly was not a prominent keris form of that time.

My opinion is that the so-called "Keris Majapahit" was not the keris form that preceded the Modern Keris.

I would hope that we may also place the "Keris Majapahit" on the shelf alongside the tangguh belief system as tools that we can use to help identify the physical form of the Keris of Majapahit.

Hello Alan,
I agree with your opinion, and would just like to suggest that the elaborate sajen krisses attributed to the Majapahit period by Theo Alkema in Chapter 7 of his book look like normal modern krisses but with an integral hilt, may be a style or regional variation?
And now that we have placed on the shelf the "tangguh Majapahit" and the "Keris Majapahit", what is left? I hope that Gustav or others will come with new ideas!
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Theo's chapter 7 keris are certainly not particularly old keris. In fact, for at least 100 years these larger keris in the form of a keris sajen have been produced specifically for collectors, some of the really recent ones professionally aged, can be a real trap for young players. There are probably a few truly old ones around, but I very much doubt that even these can be attributed to the Majapahit era.

Jean, you ask '---what is left?---' .

We have a plethora of art works.

We have a good quantity of monumental works.

We have a multitude of literary sources that deal with history, culture and society.

One thing is certain:- we can learn only a very limited amount from sources that deal specifically with keris. We must recognise the Javanese keris for what it is:- a cultural icon.

Quote:-

If you keep doing what you have always done, you will keep getting what you always got.

I'm sure somebody famous gave us this quote, but I don't know who. However, it is particularly relevant to the study of the keris. We keep on reading keris books because we want to learn about the keris, but we invariably only get rehashes of the same information, much of it drawn from the same limited sources.

If we want to learn about the keris we must look in a direction other than the books about keris.