Jalak Budo

[A. G. Maisey]

There are no representations of the keris, nor of any keris-like weapons nor blades , to be found in the relief carvings of Borobudur.

To be keris-like the blade must possess some recognisable features that can be associated specifically with the keris. No such representations exist at Borobudur, however representations of keris-like blades can be found at Prambanan.

The keris is a blossom of Javanese Hindu culture; its roots are not to be found within the cultural framework of the Javanese Early Classical period, under the Syailendras.

The term "jaman buda" seems to be accepted by lexicographers as referring to the pre-Islamic period in Jawa.

[Raden Usman Djogja]

Pak Alan,

if I am not mistaken, in ensiklopedi keris by bambang h, either in pg 25 or 26 there is a picture of part of Borobudur relief. it should be related to the topic of the ensiklopedi.

according to the shape of blade, in my opinion, there must be an evolution process.

warm salam,
Usman

[A. G. Maisey]

Pak Usman,

No, you are not mistaken, a portion of a Borobudur relief is shown on page 27 of the second edition of Ensiklopedi.However, the dagger that is identified as resembling a keris buda bears absolutely no resemblance at all to a keris buda. None at all. Yes, it is a short, double edged dagger, but it lacks the assymetry of the keris blade, the blade shown carries no features that could be considered as keris-like, moreover this dagger has a substantial pommel and guard.
The dagger from the Borobudur relief is still identifiable as a distinctly Indian style.However, although it does display the common heritage of the keris, that of a leaf shaped blade, it has not yet begun the development which would ultimately result in the keris buda and then the modern keris. This Borobudur representation cannot in any way be considered a keris, nor to be keris-like.
Yes, of course there was an evolutionary process, and daggers such as the one shown in the Borobudur relief were possibly a part of that process, but to point to this Borobudur dagger and claim that it resembles a keris buda is an absolute nonsense.

Pak Usman, do you know the progression of this farce?

Please allow me to enlighten you.

In the 1988 edition of Ensiklopedi, Bambang Harsrinuksmo published a photo of a relief to be found at Candi Prambanan which does indeed show the first monumental depictation of a keris-like dagger. He erroneously captioned this photo as being a relief from Borobudur.Thus the error was planted that grew into the belief that a keris buda was shown in the Borobudur reliefs.

In the second edition of Ensiklopedi, Pak Bambang tried to smooth this error over.

On page 26 of the second edition of Ensiklopedi the photo of the Prambanan relief was published again, this time correctly captioned, however, the published photograph when compared with the earlier published photograph, and with my own photographs of the same relief, gives the appearance of having been retouched to emphasise the pommel and guard of the Prambanan dagger, thus providing a stronger resemblance to the Borobudur dagger.


It would be better for the study of the keris if we could put behind us this nonsense of trying to link the keris to the Borobudur reliefs.

The keris has its roots in Javanese-Hindu culture, and its development to the point of its absorption into Javanese-Islamic culture can be shown to reflect the Javanese-Hindu world view.

There is no evidence available at the present time that can in any way link the keris to the Syailendras.

[ganjawulung]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Pak Usman, do you know the progression of this farce?

Please allow me to enlighten you.

In the 1988 edition of Ensiklopedi, Bambang Harsrinuksmo published a photo of a relief to be found at Candi Prambanan which does indeed show the first monumental depictation of a keris-like dagger. He erroneously captioned this photo as being a relief from Borobudur.Thus the error was planted that grew into the belief that a keris buda was shown in the Borobudur reliefs.

In the second edition of Ensiklopedi, Pak Bambang tried to smooth this error over.

On page 26 of the second edition of Ensiklopedi the photo of the Prambanan relief was published again, this time correctly captioned, however, the published photograph when compared with the earlier published photograph, and with my own photographs of the same relief, gives the appearance of having been retouched to emphasise the pommel and guard of the Prambanan dagger, thus providing a stronger resemblance to the Borobudur dagger.


It would be better for the study of the keris if we could put behind us this nonsense of trying to link the keris to the Borobudur reliefs.

The keris has its roots in Javanese-Hindu culture, and its development to the point of its absorption into Javanese-Islamic culture can be shown to reflect the Javanese-Hindu world view.

There is no evidence available at the present time that can in any way link the keris to the Syailendras.

Dear Usmen, Alan and all,
Alan's finding is very interesting. This argument shows us, that we still need to research furthermore on the origin of keris form. Archeologically, or whatever. Thank you, for the enlightment, Alan.

This will bring a good discussion too, if we bring this finding to -- for instance -- writer on keris world such as Mr Haryono Guritno. In his book, "Keris Jawa, Antara Mistik dan Nalar" (Java Keris, Between Mystique Belief and Logical Reasoning?) Mr Guritno wrote "on inscription" as follows (page 7):

... In some prasasti (old inscriptions) found in Java, as Prasasti Karang Tengah and Prasasti Poh (inscriptions on stones) which was made around 750 CE in the era of king dynasty of Sailendra (Buddhist), it had been mentioned of the word "kres" which bore the meaning of "keris" now. These prasasti which were found in Kedu (Magelang) Central Java, had said that a king from Sailendra dynasty had ordered an empu to make keris.

Also, according to Mr Guritno -- in Prambanan (Hindu) temple -- which was build around 910 CE (after Borobudur), there is a statue of Roro Jonggrang (Durga) which in one of her eight hands held a kind of "keris" that called as "kadga"...

It shows, that Mr Guritno still believes that keris had been known in the era of Syailendra (Buddha) too...

Ganjawulung

[A. G. Maisey]

Pak Ganja, let's get this straight:-

I have not at any time said that the keris could not be traced to a point of origin that coincides with the presence of the Syailendras in Jawa.

In fact, I have demonstrated in my "Origin" paper that the Early Classical Period of Jawa, which coincided with the presence of the Syailendras in Jawa, was the beginning point for the keris.

However, the keris does not owe its origin to the Buddhist culture fostered by the Syailendras, but rather to the Hindu culture evidenced by the erection of Prambanan.

The weapon held by the Durga statue at Prambanan is more a sword, or pedang, than a form which can be likened to a keris. Yes, in Old Javanese the word "kadga" can be taken as either "pedang", or "keris", but in this specific instance the weapon concerned is not able to be considered as a keris. If it could be so considered, is it not logical that I would have used this as evidence in my "Origin" argument?

I repeat:- there is no evidence linking the origin of the keris to the Syailendras, nor to Buddhist culture.

In respect of the word "kres".
In Zoetmulder the word "kres" is not to be found.
However the words "keris" and "kris" are to be found.
Mr. Haryono Guritno mentions the word "kris" in the Rukam inscription, and "kres" in the Poh inscription, in all liklihood these are different renditions of the same word.
However, although these words occur in Old Javanese there can be no certainty that the implement to which they refer would be recognised as a keris in today's world. Possibly it would, however equally possibly, it would not. Do not lose sight of the fact that other words occur in Old Javanese which could also refer to an implement which we would recognise as keris. The meaning of words can change over time, and what was known as a "kris" 1000 or so years ago, may not have been what we recognise as a keris today.

In any case, when we refer to any "keris" of this period, it is to a weapon bearing proportions of the keris buda form, the modern keris did not evolve until much later.

I am on record as supporting the initial appearance of a keris-like dagger in Central Jawa during the Early Classical Period, a period which coincides with the presence of the Syailendras in Jawa, however, the Syailendras were foriegners:- they came, they held power for a while, they brought Buddhism with them, and then they went.

The indigenous kings of early Jawa were Hindu. They were there before the Syailendras, and they remained after the Syailendras left.

There is no evidence at all that can link the Syailendras, nor Buddhist culture, to the keris.

I am not at variance to Mr. Haryono Guritno in that the roots of the Javanese keris go back a very long way, at least to around 900AD, certainly to the Early Classical Period, and perhaps even before that. Personally, I see no point of disagreement between Mr. Haryono Guritno and myself.

My disagreement is with those who would wish to attach origin of the keris to Javanese-Buddhist culture, rather than to Javanese-Hindu culture. Those who may wish to promote this position need to produce evidence to support it; at the present time all evidence points to Javanese-Hindu origin.

[Raden Usman Djogja]

Pak Alan,

Valuable information.

Following your logic exploration and explanation, why do keris community call prer-Islamic keris as keris "budo/jaman kabudan"? why dont they call "hindon/jaman kahindon"?

thanks for enlightening information

best regards,
Usman

[A. G. Maisey]

Pak Usman,

I have already pointed out that in common Javanese useage "jaman buda" refers to the pre-Islamic period.

A keris supposed to date from the pre-Islamic period is thus a "keris buda".

As Pak Ganja has already advised, " jaman buda" encapsulates the idea of long ago.

This terminology does not presume to be historically accurate, it is mere colloquial useage, moreover, it is not a useage that is unique to only the keris.

As long as some people continue to confuse colloquial useage with historically accurate fact an understanding of the keris will remain beyond us.

Of course, there is more than a single understanding of the keris, just as there is more than a single nature of the keris.

Keris understanding can accomodate the beliefs of the Javanese cultural sub-conscious, just as it can accomodate investigative analysis.

For those who subscribe to the school of popular belief, then of course the keris buda originated within the Buddhist culture of the Javanese Early Classical Period. The fact that there is no evidence of this matters not one whit. Who needs evidence when we have faith? Is not the name alone sufficient evidence? Why would it be called a keris buda if the Buddhists had not originated it? Obvious, is it not? Now we can all sleep well at night, knowing exactly where the keris came from. Why, we can even find a depiction of a keris on the Borobudur---well its almost a keris:- if you just close one eye, tilt your head slightly to the left, and eliminate a part of it by looking at it between the palms of your hands , you can plainly see that it is a keris. Yep---no doubt about that! The Buddhists were there first! Those damn Syailendras! In the place five minutes and they come up with something that was eventually to become the primary icon of Javanese culture.

Regretably I am a man of little faith. I do not believe most things I am told, I take pleasure in swimming against the current, and I can even see a conspiracy in the myth of the Easter Bunny.Most of all, I have a great deal of faith in what I can see and touch, and what I have seen and touched in the Borobudur reliefs does not in any way resemble any keris that I have ever seen.

This character defect does not prevent me from understanding that some people may wish to accept logically insupportable beliefs. The demands of society, peer group pressure, the wish to conform , all these things and more can create an environment where it is much more pleasant to go with the flow, than it is to take a stance that is at variance with popular, or community,beliefs.

However, as much as I may understand this attitude, I regret that I am unable to subscribe to it.

The earliest depiction of a keris-like dagger is to be found in the relief carvings of Candi Prambanan; this dagger is held by Laksmana and is a part of the Ramayana reliefs. It should be noted that even in his 2004 edition of Ensiklopedi, Bambang Harsrinuksmo still had not correctly identified this relief, as he seemed to be labouring under the misconception that Laksmana was a "raksasa" (Relief di Candi Prambanan juga memperhatikan raksasa memegang senjata tikam pendek---").

Candi Prambanan is a Hindu building.The Ramayana is a Hindu epic.Laksmana is a Hindu character.

Following the appearance of a keris-like dagger in the Prambanan reliefs, all further development of the keris in pre-Islamic Jawa is inextricably tied to societal structures where the dominant faith was Javanese-Hindu.Within these societies the Buddhist faith also had its place, as did Islam in the later days of Majapahit, but the overwhelming influence was that of the Hindu system of belief.

In light of these facts it is illogical to attempt to associate the keris with the Buddhist culture of the Javanese Early Classical Period, most especially so as there is currently no evidence to support such an association.

[ganjawulung]

Originally Posted by Raden Usman Djogja

Following your logic exploration and explanation, why do keris community call prer-Islamic keris as keris "budo/jaman kabudan"? why dont they call "hindon/jaman kahindon"?

Dear Usmen,

This time I’m not talking about keris, but on “javaneseness” that probably you may relate to javanese habitude on naming something. (Once I stayed in a French family in Rheims for a couple months. The Madame of the family – she’s Lyonnaise – smiled when I said to her one day “Je suis javanais…,” I meant, I’m Javanese. She said: Javanais? The term “javanais” according to her was a mockery for person that was stupid, illogical, archaic, stubborn.. or something like that)

My father and mother (they was working in Central Hospital in Solo, speaking dutch and a little bit Japanese) used to say “zaman londo” everytime they told stories of their past time, their life in the war-time of mid 30’s and end of 40’s. Or “zaman perang” to say on “war time”. And always said, “he’s londo” to mention European people. No matter what nationality the European, they used to say “he is londo”, including to an Italian doctor in the Solo hospital – I remember the first name, Roberto – as “londo Itali..”

“Londo” was actually related to Holland, or Belanda – the Eruropean nation which colonialized Java back for quite a long time. Even the javanese don’t bother, whether in the past there was “another londo” from England (British colonialization in a short time between 1811-1816 under Lord Minto in India and Lieutenant Governor Thomas Stamford Raffles, and only about one year of Lieutenant Governor John Fendall. No wonder if the javanese call them “londo Inggris” or “londo from England”). Or “londo Ustrali” to mention people from Australia…

And so many Javanense naming that related to foreign names, but they localized the spelling in whatever meaning they like. For instance, they say “krekop” for “church cemetery” or “kerk hoff” in dutch language. Then the area around the cemetery they call as krekop. Or “sekensoro” for place around Central Hospital in Solo around 1960-s (derived from dutch word “ziekenzorg”). And quite many “javanese-dutch” word that often has quite different meaning from the original meaning…

Keris budo? Besi Budo? Zaman Budo? Maybe the same “fate” as “zaman londo” I told you. No matter whether the real reality was “hindu era” nor “hindu keris”. We know, that the foreign Syailendra dynasty had once reigned Java for couple decades. (Suryavarman of the Syailendra dynasty even once reigned Malay and Cambodge. This Syailendra built the Angkor Wat in Cambodge too. No wonder if the “foreign colonialization era” of Syailendra in Java we called it as “zaman kabudan”, no matter that the Hindu dynasty of Sanjaya was existing too. Maybe the same fate as “zaman londo”). Thus, the most important is not what the javanese said what, but why did they say that…

Ganjawulung