How to read a greneng

[A. G. Maisey]

Bjorn, here are some images that will be of use.

The drawings are from the hand of Empu Suparman Supowijoyo, and have been taken from a lecture that he gave in about 1980.

The page of images showing greneng forms attributed to various empus is from Haryono Haryoguritno's "Keris Jawa".

The various forms of greneng are from "Keris Jawa" also.

The two pages of text are from Raffles "History of Java".

In respect of the greneng forms attributed to Surakarta empus, it is not clear in the book, but in private conversation Haryonoguritno is reported as having said that in all honesty he was unable to distinguish the work of one empu from another. I have heard this from two people, who have no connection with each other. Thus, "attribute" is the correct way to look at these greneng.

As with much else --- some would say "all else" --- to do with the keris, the attribution of various forms of greneng and ron dha to various classifications (tangguh) is an item of belief. However, it is a crucial item of belief, because where a ron dha is found in a keris it is the key element in assignation of a tangguh.

But this can be confusing, because some extremely good quality keris, that have very obviously been made according to the parameters of one tangguh, can have a ron dha that points to a different tangguh.

For example, in the current era in Surakarta the two empus who began the keris revival were Empu Suparman Supowijoyo and Empu Pauzan Pusposukadgo (Pauzan rejected the title of "empu" for religious reasons, he used the designation "Pandai Seni Keris", however he was known as an empu by everybody). Empu Suparman invariably cut a Surakarta greneng, Pauzan usually made his keris in the Mataram form and usually cut a Mataram greneng, or occasionally a variant greneng in accord with his own interpretation.

Although the gentlemen of Jakarta who exercise very great control over the current World of the Keris in Jawa have decreed that we now have a tangguh that covers all keris made since Indonesian Independence, the great empus of the current era, Empu Suparman and Empu Pauzan did not recognise this. Empu Suparman made Surakarta keris, and although this concept of "Tangguh Kamerdekaan" did not come into being until after his passing, I can assure you the very idea of this would have horrified him, he was dedicated to Surakarta. Empu Pauzan made Mataram style keris in the Surakarta era, and as with Empu Suparman, was a Surakarta Karaton Empu.

When we move outside of Jawa we find that the greneng of keris from other areas is often just notches that have no meaning at all. Because of this, and for other reasons, many old-time traditionalists in Jawa would not recognise that these "keris" from other areas were in fact genuine keris, these other "keris" were merely keris-like objects that had been made by people who did not understand what a keris truly was, and the people who carried these keris were simply trying to copy their betters without understanding anything. They were in fact children who had not yet learnt anything.

Now, it is important to understand that this was a very Java-centric attitude, but it did reflect the mindset of some people:- the Keris was holy, these imitators treated it as profane. They had no understanding.

The key to the greneng is the ron dha.

Common belief is that the form of the ron dha is a representation of the Javanese letter dha, and the various forms of the ron dha reflect the form of the letter dha at a particular time in history.

The word "ron" means "leaf" and is Krama for "godhong". It refers to the lontar leaves upon which traditional writing was done and by extension to the letters written upon those leaves. The Javanese letter "dha" equates to "d".

Aesthetically a greneng should be cut so that it appears to be identical when viewed from each side, it should reflect the true form applicable to the classification, where a feature is repeated it should be identical to the other feature, for example, if a greneng has two ron dha, each of those ron dha should be absolutely identical.

[Jean]

Hello Alan,
Thank you for the very educative post!
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks Jean, but really, everything I have presented in post # 6 is common knowledge, and as is often the case, 'common knowledge' is the very lowest level of 'knowledge' that is intentionally constructed to obscure truth.

Actually, nothing in this world changes:- we all absolutely knew that there were weapons of Mass Destruction, didn't we? Yeah, right. The level of knowledge permitted to the masses is intended to make management of those masses easier.

Without getting too deeply into this, consider the terminology that is used to describe other of the various characteristics of the keris:- kembang kacang = bean shoot, sogokan = poker, blumbangan = pond. Yes, all these features resemble the names given them, but those names are euphemisms (in the strict Oxford sense).

The term "ron dha" is also a euphemism.

In Old Javanese the word 'ron' still means 'leaf', but the word 'dha', which in Modern Javanese is only taken as the name of a letter of the Hanacaraka alphabet, and a plural marker that can be considered as synonymous with 'sami' or 'padha', has a distinct separate meaning.

In Old Javanese the word 'dha' can be understood as 'good', or as a 'call', 'cry, 'exclamation', 'appeal', dependent upon context.

So if we consider "ron dha" in an Old Javanese sense it has an entirely different meaning to that which applies in Modern Javanese. But this Old Javanese meaning is still a euphemism --- although a euphemism that is much closer to reality than the common idea of 'letter dha'.

Then we have the relationship between Old Javanese letters, especially those used to write Kawi (the Old Javanese literary script), and Old Javanese numerals.

Never forget that Javanese symbolism is multi-symbolism, if we ever think that we understand something we will never find the truth, there is always something hidden.

Om Mani Padme Hum.

[Johan van Zyl]

I am very much intrigued by this thread. I've gone to my two krisses and inspected the grenengs minutely. My Javanese kris has two identical ron dhas, but the Bugis kris seems not to have even one.

I suppose the clarity/readability of the greneng message can get reduced by age & honest wear, just like a set of letters which have become worn.

[Bjorn]

Thank you for your informative reply, Alan. I'll have to spend some time on this to absorb it all.

I often wondered whether the ron dha in a greneng were supposed to be identical or not, because quite often they are not - even though on their individual merits they look to be aesthetically pleasing.

And I enjoyed learning how ron came to mean letter also.

[Bjorn]

Originally Posted by Johan van Zyl

I am very much intrigued by this thread. I've gone to my two krisses and inspected the grenengs minutely. My Javanese kris has two identical ron dhas, but the Bugis kris seems not to have even one.

I suppose the clarity/readability of the greneng message can get reduced by age & honest wear, just like a set of letters which have become worn.

Johan, also keep in mind what Alan wrote above: "When we move outside of Jawa we find that the greneng of keris from other areas is often just notches that have no meaning at all. Because of this, and for other reasons, many old-time traditionalists in Jawa would not recognise that these "keris" from other areas were in fact genuine keris, these other "keris" were merely keris-like objects that had been made by people who did not understand what a keris truly was, and the people who carried these keris were simply trying to copy their betters without understanding anything. They were in fact children who had not yet learnt anything."

The Bugis are an ethnic group from outside of Java and thus not made in accordance with the same rules and regulations. Actually, apart from Bali perhaps, I don't recall ever hearing that there are such rules and regulations in areas outside of Java.

[A. G. Maisey]

Bjorn, 'ron' doesn't actually mean 'letter', it infers 'letter', the word for 'letter' is 'aksara' in Old Javanese.

One of the characteristics of Javanese language, and I guess of all Javanese behaviour is that very often, most particularly with high status or polite language usage, is that what is said is indirect, which to a degree permits the recipient of a spoken or written message to understand that message in a way that is in accordance with his level of need, or of prior understanding.

This characteristic seems to have undergone development since the rise of the Second Kingdom of Mataram in the late 16th century, but it was probably always present in Javanese communication to some degree.

In respect of Bali and keris form, it is perhaps most useful not to think of Bali as a separate entity to Jawa, but as the "Far East" of Jawa. I personally think in terms of the Jawa-Bali nexus. The old East Javanese kingdoms had some rulers from Bali, and there had been a flow of people from Jawa into Bali for at least several hundred years before the final collapse of Mojopahit. There was some movement of people from Bali back to East Jawa also, but I rather suspect that the people who did move back to East Jawa were people who had Javanese roots, not the indigenous inhabitants of Bali.

Bali received the keris from East Jawa, and because of this, the form of the Balinese keris most closely echoes the form of the true keris of Mojopahit times. This is re-enforced by the fact that early Banten keris resemble in many ways the Balinese keris.

This is not because there was a direct exchange between these two widely separate places, but rather because after the collapse of Mojopahit there was migration, especially migration of craftsmen, from Mojopahit to West Jawa, as well as from Mojopahit to Bali.

Never forget that the people of the Archipelago did not ever regard water as a barrier, they thought of all water, both sea and rivers, as highways.

[Johan van Zyl]

Having read everything that was said above, I now come to a question I would like to ask. It is a question I would think somebody somewhere sometime in this forum would inevitably ask. Perhaps it has not been asked yet because it might be imprudent. Let me be impetuous and ask it in any case. I stand to learn by the answer.

It is this: Can we not take a single representative example of an existing, properly cut ancient Javanese greneng of which the interpretation is clear, or might have already been done, and demonstrate that reading here?

I realise the danger that if this is done, there might be individuals clamouring for their own kerisses' grenengs to be "read"! I myself won't be in that queue, however, because I believe that will be a ridiculous request.

But I ask the question concerning a single representative (Javanese) example, and I myself will be interested in this single demonstration greneng being interpreted.

(And for that matter, it relates very well with Bjorn's introductory post #1 above.)

[Jean]

[QUOTE=A. G. Maisey]Thanks Jean, but really, everything I have presented in post # 6 is common knowledge, and as is often the case, 'common knowledge' is the very lowest level of 'knowledge' that is intentionally constructed to obscure truth.

Hello Alan,
As a collector and classification maniac, I learned 2 important issues from your post:
. The drawings from Empu Suparman showing the differences in the shape of the gonjos and greneng for the various tangguh is an unique information that I never saw in any book.
. I did not realize that the ron dha (when presnt) was such a crucial tangguh indicator, from memory it is not mentioned in the EK and not clearly in the book KJ.

Thank you again!

[A. G. Maisey]

Johan, we can see that in the keris as it is now, and during the period following the rule of Sultan Agung, there are many variations in the way in which the greneng is expressed, so yes, when I say "other elements" I mean anything and everything that can be found in a greneng that is other than just the ron dha.

In post #18 I qualified my remarks in para.1, so anything I say in this discussion must be understood as being only applicable within the identified context.

In post #18, para.2 I identified these "other elements" as being associated with development in an environment that was no longer Buddhist-Hindu, or if preferred, Hindu-Buddhist or Javanese Hindu, being a synthesis of Hindu, Buddhist and indigenous religious and spiritual beliefs.

Thus, when I read the sorsoran as "aum, Ganesha, Siwa, aum" I am of course reading that within the Javanese -Hindu context.

You ask if we can assume that "om" was inferred in those cases where the ron dha does not appear as a jenggot. Frankly, I am not prepared to assume this, as I believe the inclusion of the ron dha preceding the kembang kacang was a later development. My attitude to this would be that where the ron dha read as "om" appears it is intended, where it does not appear, it is not intended.

(yes, I have spelt "om" as "aum", "aum" seems to be the preferred Roman textualisation of "om" within the Indonesian Hindu community)

In any religion, or any system that embraces religious beliefs, there can be many variations in what is held to be the correct way in which to do anything, including the observation of prayer.

When we present a hypothesis about anything at all, it is perhaps best only to base that hypothesis upon ideas that can be supported by evidence in one form or another, it is probably never a good idea to attach our own unsupported "good ideas" to anything.

This we can say with relative certainty:- many of the Vedas commence with om, and probably most Brahmins commence most mantras and prayers with om. However, in Javanese-Hindu belief we are dealing not with mainline Vedic beliefs, but with Shivaism and Tantrism, thus the question arises:- was it correct in 14th century Jawa to commence all mantras, all prayers with "om"?

I do not know, however, if we recognise that the iconography of the keris is in one interpretation Shivatic in nature, then everything that adorns the keris is an addition to that overarching symbol of Siwa. The keris itself when understood in the context of Shivaism is an icon of Siwa. But as we know, Javanese symbolism is multi symbolism, so the keris can also be understood as the Gunungan, and other things will flow from that interpretation.

To return to the iconography of Siwa, from "Interpretation ---":-

"--- The worship of Ganesha is regarded as a part of the worship of other deities; most Hindus commence their prayers with a prayer to Ganesha. Ganesha is one of the five major deities, and the worship of Ganesha has formed a part of the worship of Siwa since at least the 5th century.---"

Thus, the Shivatic iconography can only be read from left to right, in the same way that Javanese text can only be read from left to right.


The keris with no ron dha, no kembang kacang, no added characteristics at all is still a symbol of Siwa, and as such can initiate a prayer addressed to Siwa, just as a cross can initiate a prayer to Christ. However, with the addition of other symbols to the foundation symbol of the keris, the religious intent is intensified.

For example, the sogokan is also a symbol of Siwa, so when the sogokan is added to a keris, this extends a reading of the keris itself to be understood as Gunungan symbolism, but with Siwa included as the sogokan. Of course, a prayer to Siwa is opened by a prayer to Ganesha, and om completes, and sometimes opens that prayer.

But even when the keris is read as a Gunungan, this does not remove Siwa from the understanding, because the Gunungan is itself to be understood not only in reference to indigenous ancestor worship, but as symbolic also of the Gods and especially as Siwa.

I did try to get most of that which I have written above into "Interpretation ---", please accept my apologies if I have failed to do so.

[A. G. Maisey]

Jean, yes, I can understand the point you are making. However, when I used the term "common knowledge", I was guilty of seeing this information that I presented not from the perspective of a collector of keris in the world outside Central Jawa, but from my own perspective which is to say, a view of the keris that has been formed very much by Central Javanese influence. I cannot think of one keris conscious person whom I have ever known or met in Central Jawa who was not totally aware of the concepts, although not perhaps of the details or interpretations, incorporated into that which I set forth.

In respect of EK and KJ, I really do not want to comment in detail on either of these publications, or on their authors, except to say that the content of these books, and the expertise of their authors was perhaps not held in quite the same esteem amongst many of the old school ahli keris whom I have known, as it is held by present day collectors in general.

It is just a matter of levels of knowledge, or perhaps more correctly, levels of belief. As you know, I am fond of drawing religious parallels with keris "knowledge", and I will do so again here. The Pope in Rome will have a higher, and perhaps variant understanding of some things than will his cardinals and bishops, the cardinals and bishops will be at a variant level of understanding to that of the ordinary clergy, and the congregation, the ordinary followers of the faith will have very little true understanding at all.

In fact, in the long past it was not considered necessary for the followers of the Faith to have any understanding at all, services were held in Latin, and a little bell was rung so that the congregation would know when to say "Amen". The followers were simply supposed to do what their betters told them to do, they were insufficiently spiritually advanced to understand even the lowest level of knowledge.

It is really no different with the keris. We are all given understanding in accordance with our need for understanding and our ability to understand.

[Johan van Zyl]

Thank you Alan and all other participants in this fascinating thread. I would have liked to see some more relevant pics, but I must say I am very much satisfied with the information given. Your trouble to supply same is greatly appreciated.

Johan

[Gustav]

[QUOTE=A. G. Maisey]

Johan, we can see that in the keris as it is now, and during the period following the rule of Sultan Agung, there are many variations in the way in which the greneng is expressed, so yes, when I say "other elements" I mean anything and everything that can be found in a greneng that is other than just the ron dha.

QUOTE]

What are the "other elements" found in a Greneng?

Does a feature some call Ri Pandan (I mean here the first "hook" from above, when Greneng is extern) belong to the "other elements"?

Is the Greneng variation as found on Keris with Dhapur Megantoro, and also other Keris, a later (post Sultan Agung) development in your oppinion?

[QUOTE=A. G. Maisey]

(...) as I believe the inclusion of the ron dha preceding the kembang kacang was a later development.

QUOTE]

Alan, what leads to think you so?

How much later?

[A. G. Maisey]

Interesting questions Gustav.

I would ask you to bear one thing in mind:- at this time I am not prepared to comment on anything that is outside the context of Hindu-Buddhist Javanese society and the keris within that system.

The other elements that can be found in a greneng are many and varied, if we consider the page of greneng forms that was taken from KJ, what we can see is that in every example where the ron dha appears the ron dha form is Surakarta. When did each of these greneng forms first appear? I don't know. When did the keris dhapurs that support these greneng forms first appear? I don't know. In the case of some dhapurs keris belief attaches the name of a ruler to the creation of the dhapur, so from this it might seem possible to estimate a date when a particular dhapur first came into being, and thus to be able to say that such & such a greneng appeared at that time. But as we know, even when we have the name of a ruler in Old Jawa, we do not necessarily know exactly who that ruler is, nor when he ruled, or even if he was a real ruler, or a ruler from literature.

Now, you have raised the question of the "greneng variation in megantara". Precisely what variation do you mean Gustav? From memory, dhapur megantara is not included in the Surakarta pakem. I'm pretty sure that it is in EK, and it is in KJ, but again working only with memory, neither of these sources get into much detail in respect of greneng composition. So, megantara is supposed to have exactly what elements included in the greneng? Well, going on the KJ drawing, there are two ron dha, one can probably be read as Jenggolo, but the other is Surakarta.

I think that the Surakarta Pakem does record a dhapur megantoro for tombak, but I'm relatively certain that it does not include a dhapur megantoro for keris (I'll check this as soon as I can). So --- why?

This is fertile ground for good ideas. But you can count me out.

There are a number of dates that can be justified for the termination of Hindu-Buddhist society in Jawa. Arguments can be constructed to support whatever date suits one best, but my personal choice is 1525. Its as good as any other date, and probably better than most.

Pre-1525 the keris was a prerogative of court nobles. It had a purpose and a meaning within court society. Court style was copied by merchants along the North Coast, and this imitation of court dress and behaviours extended to wear of the keris. We do not, to my knowledge, have any keris from Jawa that pre-date the collapse of the Kingdom of Mojopahit, thus all the early Javanese keris that we can examine come from a time when the keris had become something that was available to anybody who could pay the price. That price did not include lessons in Hindu-Buddhist belief systems for Muslim merchants. This was the time when the keris began a new stage of development.

If we consider the tuah of a keris dhapur, we will find that very often a dhapur is associated with a profession. Farmers, merchants, civil servants, and so on all have available to them specific dhapurs that carry a tuah suited to their profession.

However, the nature of Hindu-Buddhist court society was such that the caste entitled, and in fact probably compelled to carry the keris was the k'satriya caste. Considering the nature of Javanese court society prior to 1525, it seems to be highly unlikely that farmers and merchants would have appeared at court wearing a keris. So we are left with the proposition that the bulk of dhapurs that existed at the beginning of the 20th century were for the most part created during the time when Jawa was under Muslim influence.

It was once suggested to me by a person whom I am unwilling to name, that in fact much of both keris form and keris belief developed because of a reaction by the Javanese aristocracy against European domination. I am not yet ready to completely support this opinion, but it certainly does have much to recommend it.

Gustav, you have asked why I am inclined to believe that the ron dha as jenggot was something that was included in keris symbolism, and when. Taken in context what I wrote was this:-

"You ask if we can assume that "om" was inferred in those cases where the ron dha does not appear as a jenggot. Frankly, I am not prepared to assume this, as I believe the inclusion of the ron dha preceding the kembang kacang was a later development. My attitude to this would be that where the ron dha read as "om" appears it is intended, where it does not appear, it is not intended."

My response was to Bjorn's question:-

"Reading a mantra across the sorsoran certainly seems appropriate in the context of Majahapit times. And the mantra om ganesha siwa om seems logical when a jenggot is present.
However, in many cases there is no jenggot. Can we assume that it would then be implied?"

Let us never forget that the spiritual iconography of the keris exists even in a keris with no additional symbols at all. Even in the most plain form of keris the symbolism of Siwa and the Gunungan is present, but if we pray to Siwa we open our prayer with a prayer to Ganesha, thus Ganesha symbolism is logically the first additional enhancement, then the sogokan is included to permit an icon of Siwa to appear within a representation of the Gunungan.

It is not mandatory for the mantra 'om' to be used in every mantra, in every prayer, by all members of all the variations of the Hindu belief system. The nature of Hindu belief in Jawa was Shiviatic and Tantric, it was not Vedic. However, once the related symbolism of Siwa and Ganesha are in place it would be seen as appropriate to turn simple symbolism into a prayer. This is what I mean by "later". All the enhancements associated with the keris that can be read iconographically were products of development. Development takes time. The question remains of how much time. I believe that the symbolism that can clearly be read as Hindu-Buddhist symbolism was mostly completed by the time of the later migrations from East Jawa to Bali.

Why do I believe this? Because those Hindu-Buddhist symbols also appear in Balinese keris. It is not realistic to believe that enhancements developed under Islam were included in the Balinese keris.