Kalis: Origin of Minadanaon Kris

[baganing_balyan]

Originally Posted by Alam Shah

Ms Baganing,
Regarding the DNA testing, how many people had been tested? From which ethnic groups? Would you share more details?

With migration of people since the 1600 and later... I'm just curious what can the DNA test prove? Let's take myself as an example, I'm a malay by birth, speak malay and brought up as one... but if a DNA test is done... What would be the result? My ancestors includes, from my father side, pakistan/indian influence, from my mother's side, malay, chinese, dutch influence. What will be the outcome and what will it prove?

They will find out your haplotype and the haplogroup where you belong. I am not a geneticist, but I can analyze the genetic data in relation to geographical peopling.

It's very technical and confusing to explain Y-DNA and mtDNA tests. I leave that to the geneticists to explain.

Y-DNA will tell you about the ancestor of your father. mtDNA will tell you where the ancestor of your mother came from. Now since you are multi-cultural, it would be a long work before you'll get the full picture.

it's like building a family tree but instead of names, you use haplotypes and haplogroups.

when it comes to research, I am not interested of a person's haplotype but his haplogroup.

For Instance I am interested to find out how many haplogroups present in sulu and compare if the same haplogroups are present in borneo and sumatra. If they are the same, it means, the migration pattern and the peopling are the same.

for example, philippines has rxr1, a haplogroup not seen in sumatra and borneo. Upon checking rxr1, the haplogroup that can be traced back to the cameroons of africa, I can then assume that indeed the theory about the early migration of the negritos (dark-skinned proto-filipinos) is indeed correct. As a matter of fact, we have african-looking ethno-linguistic groups in the philippines.

After knowing that rxr1 is non-existent in borneo and sumatra, you can infer a lot of things:

1) by using a world map, you can see that cameroon, southern India (dravidians), and Philippines are geogrpahically parallel to each other and they all have rxr1. The early migration must have missed sumatra and borneo. This also proves that dark-skined dravidians or tamils did reach the philippines in ancient times.

2) since australian aborigines have rxr1, where did it come from. It can't be from India since it had to pass sumatra and borneo. There are two possibilities: it must be direct from cameroon or from the philippines-- Southern Mindanao (davao Region) in particular. I won't wonder. there are aetas, dark-skinned groups, in the region.

So many possibilities. So many historical conventions to prove and disprove using the genetic map before 1500.

[A. G. Maisey]

Ms. Baganing, may I most humbly suggest that you further your studies just a little in the Old Javanese language, and it usages.

It is true, the word "kris" does not occur in the Nag., however, the word "kinris" does occur, 54.2/4:-

tinumbak iniras kinris pjah tanpagap

"kinris" means "to stab with a keris"

the word "kinris" cannot exist in the absence of the word "kris", and the implement to which it refers.

There is no Old Javanese word "kuriga"; unfortunately you are thinking in English and attempting to understand Old Javanese.The word you are attempting to render is "curiga", for an English speaker, this would be pronounced "chewreegah", but to an English speaker the Javanese pronunciation would sound like "chewreegoh" .The word "kuriga", if it did exist, which it does not, would sound like "kooreegoh". The "c" and the "k" is most definitely not a matter of choice; these two letters represent quite different symbols in the original Javanese text.

I do understand your confusion in respect of "twek" and "tewek". This is hardly the place to educate you on your lack of understanding of the nature of the keris within the early and middle Javanese context, but you really do need to educate yourself.

In Old Jawa the keris was a symbol of the male, however, the word "twek" referred to a stabbing weapon, or more precisely when coupled with the name of a weapon it referred to that weapon as a stabbing implement. Tewek is also found associated with the word "lingis"---a crowbar.

Your interpretation of twek or tewek is incorrect.May I suggest that you spend a little time with Pigeaud and Zoetmulder?

Professor Zoetmulder seemed to hold the opinion that the word kris could be found in written works as far back as the tenth century.

I do find your ideas about middle eastern influence in the early Philippines to be interesting. You may have the germ of an idea here that when fully developed could provide us with new insights, however, when you stray into ideas and language associated with the early development of the keris, and the culture from which it came, you do impair your credibility.

I once again encourage you to continue your studies, but I equally encourage you to refrain from comment in respect of those things which you do not understand, or only partially understand. In time to come your errors could return to haunt you. Restrict your comments to those things of which you have a firm grasp.

[baganing_balyan]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Ms. Baganing, may I most humbly suggest that you further your studies just a little in the Old Javanese language, and it usages.

It is true, the word "kris" does not occur in the Nag., however, the word "kinris" does occur, 54.2/4:-

tinumbak iniras kinris pjah tanpagap

"kinris" means "to stab with a keris"

the word "kinris" cannot exist in the absence of the word "kris", and the implement to which it refers.

I suggest that you read the lines before and after "tinumbak iniras kinris pjah tanpagap" then translate them to English. Then understand the essence of the lines. "aris" is a malay word too for edge, so kinaris or kinris would also mean "put to edge or turn to edge." There is also a sanskrit word karis (to do). tamil also has kari or karis for sauce or soup. I am interested to know if the line you cut is actually about food.

There is no Old Javanese word "kuriga"; unfortunately you are thinking in English and attempting to understand Old Javanese.The word you are attempting to render is "curiga", for an English speaker, this would be pronounced "chewreegah", but to an English speaker the Javanese pronunciation would sound like "chewreegoh" .The word "kuriga", if it did exist, which it does not, would sound like "kooreegoh". The "c" and the "k" is most definitely not a matter of choice; these two letters represent quite different symbols in the original Javanese text.


I don't think the curiga with C that sounds like ch is correct.
That javanese word is obviously from the sanskrit khadga (sword) with an aspirated K. I have a hunch that the linguist who studied the old javanese could not pronounce the aspirated kh sound since it was/is a rare one, if he/she was european or american, so he/she used the ch sound which was/is linguistically common.

I do understand your confusion in respect of "twek" and "tewek". This is hardly the place to educate you on your lack of understanding of the nature of the keris within the early and middle Javanese context, but you really do need to educate yourself.

I stand by my analysis of twek-- in analyzing a word, to truly understand it, trace its origin and how it evolved into a new word. In this case, include sanskrit and malay languages in dealing with twek.

In Old Jawa the keris was a symbol of the male, however, the word "twek" referred to a stabbing weapon, or more precisely when coupled with the name of a weapon it referred to that weapon as a stabbing implement. Tewek is also found associated with the word "lingis"---a crowbar.

twek is not a sword. Its use is metaphorical for masculinity.

Your interpretation of twek or tewek is incorrect.May I suggest that you spend a little time with Pigeaud and Zoetmulder?

I am really interested of a native javanese studying her or his own language. French and German, if those were their linguistic nationalities, are just not equipped to mimic the sounds of sanskrit and old javanese.

Professor Zoetmulder seemed to hold the opinion that the word kris could be found in written works as far back as the tenth century.

I would love to read that tenth century text.

I do find your ideas about middle eastern influence in the early Philippines to be interesting. You may have the germ of an idea here that when fully developed could provide us with new insights, however, when you stray into ideas and language associated with the early development of the keris, and the culture from which it came, you do impair your credibility.

Thanks. I don't waste my time on something I don't know. when i say something, it's because i have a basis.

I once again encourage you to continue your studies, but I equally encourage you to refrain from comment in respect of those things which you do not understand, or only partially understand. In time to come your errors could return to haunt you. Restrict your comments to those things of which you have a firm grasp.

I will never refrain from rethinking and reconsidering the old works of the colonialists and orientalists.

ask an american or european if he can say an aspirated K with H. I bet either one will end up producing the ch sound. That my friend is the linguistic subtlety only native speakers can detect.

I am more confident of kuriga than curiga with ch sound because kuriga entered in the filipino languages as kuliga (poke or stick in).

[baganing_balyan]

besides, if kuriga was curiga with ch sound, churiga would have evolved into suriga since ch in malay is turned into s. unfortunately there is no suriga in malay languages.

[A. G. Maisey]

Ms. Baganing, for somebody whose initial posts seemed to promise so much, I find it a great shame that you have reached this point.

You are well and truly out of your depth.

Nagarakertagama , canto 54 , stanza 2 reads:-

1. Staying behind were the wild boars, the black antelopes, the deer, the chevrotains, were the most excellent of them, continuously in fear.

2. The Illustrious Prince's proceeding was , having for consequence a horse, to follow them, noisily running.

3. Mandarins, headmen, clerical officers equally , the honoured ones who had their places with the horses, took part in the hunt.

4. Exterminated were the animals, thrusted , lanced, cut, krissed, dying without a gasp.(---tinumbak iniras kinris pjah tanpagap)

The line I quoted is in a part of the Nag. to do with a hunt. The translation is Pigeaud's, not mine.

Your knowledge of Javanese is non-existent. You tell us that you do not think that the romanised sound represented by "c" in Javanese is pronounced in a way that would approximate "ch" in the English language. You obviously have never heard Javanese spoken, and cannot read it.

Please spare us any more of your linguistic analyses. Indonesian is my second language, and in my home I use English, Javanese and Indonesian every day. If you wish to pass comment upon a language, please do yourself a favour, and learn that language first.

As to tewek.

I apologise for not providing you with complete information on this word. Had I done so you might have not made yourself appear so ridiculous.

In Old Javanese there are two meanings for the word tewek.
The first is to do with weapons, and I will return to that in a moment.
The second is a word that has an association with time, cause and origin; this meaning does not concern us here, so I will return to the first meaning.

The word tewek, also given as twek, and with tuhuk as a synonym, refers to a pointed weapon. Actually, it is sometimes difficult to determine exactly what weapon it does refer to, but when it is used, it is found in the context where it could be substituted with either keris or pedang, however, on other occasions it is found coupled with pedang or keris, indicating a way in which the pedang or keris is being used.When it is used alone, but it is followed by a verb indicating use of a keris, then clearly it refers to a keris in that context also.

The word atewek can mean to use a keris, or to stab oneself with a keris, or to have or use a stabbing weapon.

A panewek is a stabbing tool.

Atewek-tewekan means to stab repeatedly.

Your understanding of the word tewek is absolutely and utterly incorrect. You are wrong.

When you fail to take note of the work of Pigeaud and Zoetmulder, you make yourself appear to be an unlettered oaf, which I am quite certain you are not, but it does surprise, no, not surprise, amaze me, that any serious anthropologist working in a South East Asian culture could fail to be aware of the stature of these two giants.

Ms. Baganing, please do restrict yourself to comment on those things you may know something about.

It is clear that you know less than nothing about the Javanese culture, the Javanese language, and the Javanese keris.

[baganing_balyan]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Ms. Baganing, for somebody whose initial posts seemed to promise so much, I find it a great shame that you have reached this point.

You are well and truly out of your depth.

Nagarakertagama , canto 54 , stanza 2 reads:-

1. Staying behind were the wild boars, the black antelopes, the deer, the chevrotains, were the most excellent of them, continuously in fear.

2. The Illustrious Prince's proceeding was , having for consequence a horse, to follow them, noisily running.

3. Mandarins, headmen, clerical officers equally , the honoured ones who had their places with the horses, took part in the hunt.

4. Exterminated were the animals, thrusted , lanced, cut, krissed, dying without a gasp.(---tinumbak iniras kinris pjah tanpagap)

The line I quoted is in a part of the Nag. to do with a hunt. The translation is Pigeaud's, not mine.

Count the number of words in "tinumbak iniras kinris pjah tanpagap" and in "Exterminated were the animals, thrusted , lanced, cut, krissed, dying without a gasp." Isn't the latter too much? I know Nagarakertagama is a kakawin (epic poetry)-- maybe that's the reason why the translator was pretty lax in his translation. As i said there is a malay word aris, meaning edge. Since it is a hunting expedition, kinris or kinaris would also mean put or push to the edge.

If you read the four lines you posted, why would those hunters use krises while hunting when they were on horses. Tumbak (spear) is mentioned. Malay archipelago has a tradition of spear-hunting. Kris-hunting? mmmmm I don't think so. keris was and is not a hunting weapon.


Your knowledge of Javanese is non-existent. You tell us that you do not think that the romanised sound represented by "c" in Javanese is pronounced in a way that would approximate "ch" in the English language. You obviously have never heard Javanese spoken, and cannot read it.

Since your knowledge of javanese is existent, can you properly translate the four lines you posted? As i said, curiga came from khadga. Granting there is no research lapse in phonology, it is possible that aspirated Kh could evolve to ch sound or they were used interchangeably. we see such occurrence in chi and ki.

Please spare us any more of your linguistic analyses. Indonesian is my second language, and in my home I use English, Javanese and Indonesian every day. If you wish to pass comment upon a language, please do yourself a favour, and learn that language first.

Since you know Bahasa Indonesia, is there a traditional word with ch sound? does ch become s in your second language? Is their churiga or even suriga? You check. I will listen.

As to tewek.

I apologise for not providing you with complete information on this word. Had I done so you might have not made yourself appear so ridiculous.

In Old Javanese there are two meanings for the word tewek.
The first is to do with weapons, and I will return to that in a moment.
The second is a word that has an association with time, cause and origin; this meaning does not concern us here, so I will return to the first meaning.

The word tewek, also given as twek, and with tuhuk as a synonym, refers to a pointed weapon. Actually, it is sometimes difficult to determine exactly what weapon it does refer to, but when it is used, it is found in the context where it could be substituted with either keris or pedang, however, on other occasions it is found coupled with pedang or keris, indicating a way in which the pedang or keris is being used.When it is used alone, but it is followed by a verb indicating use of a keris, then clearly it refers to a keris in that context also.

the javanese tewek is from sanskrit tuwek, meaning sword's point. Javanese is mostly Sanskrit and malay. Any weapon with sharp endpoint has a tuwek or twek. In current malay languages, there are words such as tuhuk, tuwuk, tuk, and the filipino tusok-- all are related to sharp point or stabbing. A tusok of a barbecue stick has no relation to kris. twek is part of the sword not a sword. it can also be a part of an arrow or spear.

The word atewek can mean to use a keris, or to stab oneself with a keris, or to have or use a stabbing weapon.

It can also be used with spear, sharpened pencil, and yes, barbecue stick.

A panewek is a stabbing tool.

so is the pantusok. A ballpen can be a pantusok (for stabbing).

Atewek-tewekan means to stab repeatedly.

Tusuk-tusukan is the same thing.

Your understanding of the word tewek is absolutely and utterly incorrect. You are wrong.

mmmmm check the sanskrit tuwek and the other malay words with the same meaning-- sharp point.

When you fail to take note of the work of Pigeaud and Zoetmulder, you make yourself appear to be an unlettered oaf, which I am quite certain you are not, but it does surprise, no, not surprise, amaze me, that any serious anthropologist working in a South East Asian culture could fail to be aware of the stature of these two giants.

Tell that to the postcolonial researchers.

Ms. Baganing, please do restrict yourself to comment on those things you may know something about.

It is clear that you know less than nothing about the Javanese culture, the Javanese language, and the Javanese keris.

You can attak me with ad hominems i will stick to the bigger picture of my research not to the tiny track where i see a crack. Now, that's a rhyme.

[Bill M]

Originally Posted by baganing_balyan

You can attak me with ad hominems i will stick to the bigger picture of my research not to the tiny track where i see a crack. Now, that's a rhyme.

First, let me say that Alan Maisey has an incredible knowledge of Java. There is no doubt in my mind that his opinion and ideas regarding Java are correct! He has a depth of understanding that comes from over 40 years of in-depth research and understanding of this culture and their history. If he says it is so, then it is so.

Anyone who took the time to get to know him would understand this.


But in regard to the overall thread, PLEASE! There is enough acrimony in the world. Could we discuss the validity, or invalidity of these concepts and ideas, without personal attacks?

If a person makes a dumb statement, that is merely a dumb, or incorrect, statement. It does not necessarily mean the person is dumb, or incorrect all the way through.

So, could we just attack or defend the statements before the principal of this school closes the classroom? There are some good ideas here.

[baganing_balyan]

Originally Posted by Bill Marsh

First, let me say that Alan Maisey has an incredible knowledge of Java. There is no doubt in my mind that his opinion and ideas regarding Java are correct! He has a depth of understanding that comes from over 40 years of in-depth research and understanding of this culture and their history. If he says it is so, then it is so.

Anyone who took the time to get to know him would understand this.


But in regard to the overall thread, PLEASE! There is enough acrimony in the world. Could we discuss the validity, or invalidity of these concepts and ideas, without personal attacks?

If a person makes a dumb statement, that is merely a dumb, or incorrect, statement. It does not necessarily mean the person is dumb, or incorrect all the way through.

So, could we just attack or defend the statements before the principal of this school closes the classroom? There are some good ideas here.

I hope mr. maisey won't think that i am discrediting him. I am just offering alternative ideas.

for instance spear-hunting on a horse is pretty obvious that kris cannot be used. That's a valid idea.

I just don't think people in java long ago ran with the antelopes, deers, and wild boars wielding krises or kerises.

It is also possible that they speared them first then used the krises or kerises-- only if the animals were slaughtered in temples as sacrifices since temple swords are used even today in India for that purpose-- I just don't think keris or kris is a hunting sword.

spearing, cutting, stabbing an animal is so not an Indo-budhhist thing-- it is so anti-karma and dharma. that kind of hunting would be overkill.

I hear and read a lot about spear-hunting in malay archipelago but not kris-hunting.

[David]

Originally Posted by Bill Marsh

So, could we just attack or defend the statements before the principal of this school closes the classroom? There are some good ideas here.

Looks like we were posting at the same time Bill. I'm just a little more long winded.
Actually, i would recommend to the "principal" that it is indeed time to close this particular classroom. I am afraid that this discussion is going no where good.

[David]

Originally Posted by baganing_balyan

You can attak me with ad hominems i will stick to the bigger picture of my research not to the tiny track where i see a crack. Now, that's a rhyme.

hmmm....here's a definition of ad hominem:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
Mr. Maisey both address the substance of your agrument (in great detail) and produces evidence. If you don't choose to agree with the argument that is one thing. But perhaps you should learn the meaning of ad hominem before you use it incorrectly again.
Sorry that you feel attacked by Mr. Maisey (and probably others including myself), but i believe you have brought this upon yourself. Personally i'm getting just a little bit frustrated with you myself. Constantly repeating your theories without providing any substance and refusing to address the numerous questions that have been asked of you will not gain you any points or friends around here. What is your agenda exactly? Obviously your theories are not being well received here. Do you intend to brow beat us into submission? I would think that any reasonable researcher would come to a forum like this looking for ideas to help in their research. Obviously you do not care for any of ours. You just want to preach your own. Their is literally hundreds of years of experience here. Mine is the very least of it. I admittedly no very little and am here to learn. Why are you here? Do realize that Mr. Maisey's experience alone with the keris spans more than 50 years....that he was also trained in the art of keris making by a well known and respected kraton empu who he apprenticed with for over 10 years. He has been emmersed in the culture of the keris and Jawa and Bali far longer than your existence on this Earth. What is your experience with the keris the or Moro kris or anything for that matter? Where and what have you studied? Who were your teachers? Why should i take your word for anything to do with the keris or Javanese language? Tell me and i will listen and consider. But you only continue to put forth a rambling and disjointed lecture with nothing more than the weakest of circumstantial evidence and ask us to buy into you theories without support or argument. Good luck with that!

[baganing_balyan]

Originally Posted by David

hmmm....here's a definition of ad hominem:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
Mr. Maisey both address the substance of your agrument (in great detail) and produces evidence. If you don't choose to agree with the argument that is one thing. But perhaps you should learn the meaning of ad hominem before you use it incorrectly again.
Sorry that you feel attacked by Mr. Maisey (and probably others including myself), but i believe you have brought this upon yourself. Personally i'm getting just a little bit frustrated with you myself. Constantly repeating your theories without providing any substance and refusing to address the numerous questions that have been asked of you will not gain you any points or friends around here. What is your agenda exactly? Obviously your theories are not being well received here. Do you intend to brow beat us into submission? I would think that any reasonable researcher would come to a forum like this looking for ideas to help in their research. Obviously you do not care for any of ours. You just want to preach your own. Their is literally hundreds of years of experience here. Mine is the very least of it. I admittedly no very little and am here to learn. Why are you here? Do realize that Mr. Maisey's experience alone with the keris spans more than 50 years....that he was also trained in the art of keris making by a well known and respected kraton empu who he apprenticed with for over 10 years. He has been emmersed in the culture of the keris and Jawa and Bali far longer than your existence on this Earth. What is your experience with the keris the or Moro kris or anything for that matter? Where and what have you studied? Who were your teachers? Why should i take your word for anything to do with the keris or Javanese language? Tell me and i will listen and consider. But you only continue to put forth a rambling and disjointed lecture with nothing more than the weakest of circumstantial evidence and ask us to buy into you theories without support or argument. Good luck with that!

ask a philosopher or philologist if this is not an argumentum ad hominem:

"You are well and truly out of your depth."

to make that a statement about an idea not a person, he could have used "your ideas" not the personal "You".

don't tell me we have to spend time on argumentum ad hominem. I don't utter anything I don't know, or ain't interested to know.