hilt material ?

guwaya · 7th January 2010, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gustav

A rather bad picture (sorry!) of an early balu mekabun or veiled Durga hilt (in Europe before 1590), made from rhino-horn. This is the Deutschordens-Keris in Wien, I don't have the Krisdisk, but there must be a much more better depiction of it.

There is a chinese source (also Hasrinuksmo/Lumintu 1988: 19)mentioning short swords with rhino-horn hilts, send as a gift from Maharadja of Kahuripan to China (11 century?).

Gustav:

I also would appreciate if you could say a bit more about the original citation and the genuine source of the information.

Thank you in advance,
guwaya

Gustav · 7th January 2010, 08:34 AM

Alan, Guwaya,

my source was the dissertation of Achim Weihrauch (2001). Here the full text, page 56 (I apologise for my English, for I have translated this from German):

(one should regard the source from the 11 century, where between others "short swords" are mentioned, with rhino-horn handles, as gifts from a Javanese potentiat to the imperial court of China; regard Hasrinuksmo/Lumintu 1988: 19) 98 (for footnote)

98 (footnote) A chinese source mentions short swords with rhino-horn handles, which Maharadja of Kahuripan (a kingdom at the Brantas-river, 11 century) have send as gift to China.

guwaya · 7th January 2010, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gustav

Alan, Guwaya,

my source was the dissertation of Achim Weihrauch (2001). Here the full text, page 56 (I apologise for my English, for I have translated this from German):

(one should regard the source from the 11 century, where between others "short swords" are mentioned, with rhino-horn handles, as gifts from a Javanese potentiat to the imperial court of China; regard Hasrinuksmo/Lumintu 1988: 19) 98 (for footnote)

98 (footnote) A chinese source mentions short swords with rhino-horn handles, which Maharadja of Kahuripan (a kingdom at the Brantas-river, 11 century) have send as gift to China.

Thank you for that Gustav. As I don't carry my books with me two additional questions:

1. Do you mean the MA-thesis or the dissertation from Achim Weihrauch?
2. Is the chinese source named anywhere (literature list)?

guwaya

A. G. Maisey · 7th January 2010, 09:38 AM

Thank you Gustav.

Regrettably this information that you have quoted is inaccurate.

Let us examine this quotation:-

(one should regard the source from the 11 century, where between others "short swords" are mentioned, with rhino-horn handles, as gifts from a Javanese potentiat to the imperial court of China; regard Hasrinuksmo/Lumintu 1988: 19) 98 (for footnote)

98 (footnote) A chinese source mentions short swords with rhino-horn handles, which Maharadja of Kahuripan (a kingdom at the Brantas-river, 11 century) have send as gift to China.

Achim Weihrauch has quoted Harsrinuksmo, who in turn has quoted an unnamed Chinese source.

The source that Achim Weihrauch quotes is:- Ensiklopedi Budaya Nasional , by Bambang Harsrinuksmo, assisted by S. Lumintu, first edition 1988.

The relevant section in Ensiklopedi Budaya was written by S. Lumintu and this reads:-

Ada pula yang menduga , budaya senjata keris sudah berkembang sejak tahun 1000 Masehi. Hal itu terbukti dari laporan musafir Cina pada tahun 922M.Jadi lebih kurang pada jaman kerarajaan Kahuripan berkembang di tepian sungai Brantas. Di laporkan ada seorang Maharaja Jawa menghadiahkan pada Kaisar Tiongkok short swords with hilts of rhinoceros horn or gold (pedang pendek dengan hulu terbuat dari cula badak atau mas).Bisa jadi pedang pendek yang dimaksud dalam laporan itu adalah prototip keris seperti tergambar pada relief candi Borobudur dan Prambanan.

Free translation:-

There are also those who presume that the culture of the keris blossomed since the year 1000AD.That matter is proven from the report of a Chinese traveller in the year 922AD.Thus, more or less at the time of the blossoming of the Kingdom of Kahuripan on the banks of the river Brantas. It was reported that there was a Javanese ruler who presented to the Emperor of China short swords with hilts of rhinoceros horn or gold (pedang pendek dengan hulu terbuat dari cula badak atau mas).It can be that the short swords meant in that report were the prototype keris like those shown in the reliefs of Candi Borobudur and Candi Prambanan.

S. Lumintu has referred to the report of a Chinese traveler dated to 922AD. This report is to be found in Historical Notes on Indonesia & Malaya, Compiled from Chinese Sources, W.P. Groenveldt, Published by C.V. Bhratara, 1960, Djakarta. The original Chinese report provided by Groenveldt is contained in Book 489 of the History of the Sung Dynasty.

The complete paragraph that contains this quote bears reading:-

In the 12th month of the year 992, their king Maradja sent an embassy consisting of a first, a second and an assistant envoy, to go to court and bring tribute. The first envoy said : "now that China has a rightful master again , our country comes to perform the duty of bringing tribute." The presents sent by the king were ivory, pearls, silk embroidered with flowers and gold, silk of different colours, sandalwood, cotton goods in various colours, tortoise shell, betel trays, short swords with hilts of rhinoceros horn or gold, rattan mats plaited with figures, white parrots and a small pavilion made of sandalwood, adorned with all kinds of precious materials.

In his commentary on this report Groenveldt states:-

About the situation of the seat of government nothing else is said, than that it was about the middle of the island, a little to the west. This agrees with tradition, according to which the capital at that time was situated in the present day district Banyumas.

If we examine of the above, we find that Achim Weihrauch has attributed to Harsrinuksmo something that Harsrinuksmo, or more correctly, Lumintu, never wrote, namely that the tribute to China was sent from the Maharadja of Kahuripan. All Lumintu did was to associate the tribute with a time frame that was "more or less" compatible with the rise of Kahuripan.

However, Lumintu himself was in error, because Kahuripan did not exist in 992. Kahuripan is generally accepted as having been established by Airlangga in 1019.

In 992 Mataram under Dharmavamsa was dominant in Jawa. Dharmavamsa was a rich and powerful ruler, and would have been able to send tribute to China. Even if Kahuripan had existed a little earlier than the generally accepted date, it would not yet have had the power or position to approach China.

There is more inaccuracy in this Achim Weihrauch footnote.
Kahuripan was an East Javanese kingdom that stretched from Madiun to Pasuruan, but the exact location of its seat of government (Karaton) is unknown. A number of locations have been proposed, but to my knowledge, none are on the banks of the river Brantas, however, the Brantas does flow through the territory that was claimed by Kahuripan.

There is a further problem with attribution to Kahuripan of the tribute to China :-

Kahuripan was an East Javanese kingdom, and the original Chinese text places the ruler who sent this tribute, squarely in the center of Jawa, which is where Mataram was located.

There can be no doubt that this tribute to the Emperor of China came from Dharmavamsa of Mataram, not from some unnamed ruler in Kahuripan.

Here we have a very good example of how inadequacies in texts accepted as reliable sources can mislead and obscure.

Achim Weihrauch trusted Harsrinuksmo/Lumintu as a reliable source, and failed to recognize or to check the source that they used.

I find this failure totally inexplicable.
Groenveldt's "Chinese Sources" is extremely well known to students of S.E. Asian history,and most especially to students of Indonesian history, to the point where many people with an interest in this history can instantly recognize passages from it, or references that have come from it. That Achim Weihrauch failed to recognize the inaccuracy in S.Lumintu's text is simply beyond my understanding.

Then Achim Weihrauch muddled his translation from Indonesian. Again, something I do not understand. Achim Weihrauch has written what is by all reports one of the most important works ever produced on the keris. To be able to do this, surely he is literate in Indonesian, and possibly also Javanese. How is it possible for translation errors to occur?

S.Lumintu failed to give an accurate recounting of the text to be found in Groenveldt, and then associated the tribute with the existence of Kahuripan, which misled Achim Weihrauch into believing the tribute came from Kahuripan, something that was quite impossible, as Kahuripan did not exist when the tribute was sent.

Thus, we have a a compounding of errors caused by inadequate research and plain old fashioned lack of care, coupled with a poor understanding of Javanese history.

So ---- does it matter?

Like --- who cares?

Its still tribute from Jawa to China and the date is more or less correct.

Well, I for one think that it does matter.

This compounding of errors is exactly the way that keris research and keris literature becomes corrupted. A future researcher could rely on Achim Weihrauch's work, just as Achim Weihrauch relied on Harsrinuksmo/Lumintu and could draw completely incorrect conclusions based upon the errors in geographic location and time.

Gustav · 7th January 2010, 12:38 PM

Thank you, Alan, for clearing this.

Guvaya,

To 1) this comes from the dissertation (2001). The thesis (I hope, I am not wrong) is from 1996.

To 2) Weihrauch doesn't indicate the chinese source in this place, but this one mentioned by Alan is surely the wright one (named in the bibliography at the end of the dissertation).

guwaya · 7th January 2010, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Let us examine this quotation:-

Alan G. Maisey

A wonderfull essay and practical demonstration how literature reading and research should be done - I am impressed and heavily can add something as everything is said.

So I will just point out two i.e. three of you statements:

"Achim Weihrauch trusted Harsrinuksmo/Lumintu as a reliable source, and failed to recognize or to check the source that they used."

This hurts, it hurts as it is an dissertation and in a work for which you receive the Dr. titel this is generally not allowed to happen. No good reference also for the doctor father(s).

"To be able to do this, surely he is literate in Indonesian, and possibly also Javanese."

I don't want to go to much into the detail but here you are hanging the ladder to high. I can imagine what you might think and feel now, but it is as it is and I am also not happy with it but we and the kerisologi have to live with it. The most impotant point in litarature recearch you depicted today in your essay in a very clear manner and therefore I would like to close with citating your final words as they show exactly the danger of non-critical reading and this is not only attributed to scientific written books but even more to the what I call 'picture books' (you just have to change the term "researcher" with "collector"):

"This compounding of errors is exactly the way that keris research and keris literature becomes corrupted. A future researcher could rely on Achim Weihrauch's work, just as Achim Weihrauch relied on Harsrinuksmo/Lumintu and could draw completely incorrect conclusions based upon the errors in geographic location and time."

David · 7th January 2010, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

There are also those who presume that the culture of the keris blossomed since the year 1000AD.That matter is proven from the report of a Chinese traveller in the year 922AD.Thus, more or less at the time of the blossoming of the Kingdom of Kahuripan on the banks of the river Brantas. It was reported that there was a Javanese ruler who presented to the Emperor of China short swords with hilts of rhinoceros horn or gold (pedang pendek dengan hulu terbuat dari cula badak atau mas).It can be that the short swords meant in that report were the prototype keris like those shown in the reliefs of Candi Borobudur and Candi Prambanan.

Thanks Alan for this critical examination of written material that i would otherwise have no access to. Just to further this examination, is there any evidence other than this one passage that Harsrinuksmo uses to support his "proof" that these short swords were indeed keris at this early date and not some other form of short sword or pedang? This seems speculative at best to make such an assumption based solely on this passage. You called this a "free translation". Does Harsrinuksmo actually use words that literally translate to "proven". If so this seems irresponsible to me.

A. G. Maisey · 7th January 2010, 09:50 PM

Guwaya

I can understand why you believe I ask for too much from somebody when I expect a serious keris researcher to be able to read and understand Indonesian at least, and perhaps also Javanese.

One does not need to be a chicken to know what an egg looks like.

However, the keris is a cultural icon, and if we wish to understand the keris within the context of its originating culture we need to be able to approach the keris with a mind-set that at the very least can understand the Javanese world view and the way a Javanese person sees and understands those things around him. I do not believe that anybody who is not born Javanese can become Javanese, and speaking for myself, I would not want to become Javanese, but I do believe that it is possible for a person from outside Javanese society to learn the way in which a Javanese person thinks, and the way in which that Javanese person sees the world.

I do not believe it is possible to achieve this level of understanding in the absence of an understanding of language.

This attitude of mine appears to be shared by many, if not most anthropologists who engage in serious field studies. Time and time again I will read of an anthropologist who has embarked on some project or other, and the first thing they do is to move in with some local family and learn the language.

Now, in the keris we have perhaps the ultimate cultural icon.

My position is this:-

any understanding of the keris that is able to be gained in the absence of an understanding of the relevant language(s) can only ever be a technical understanding, it can never be an understanding on a societal or cultural level.

For a researcher who lacks the language skills, a native speaker as translator and guide might perhaps be of assistance.

I believe that somebody told me that Achim Weihrauch is currently living in Bali. If this is so, it may be possible that at some time in the future he may feel the need to revise some of his writing.

David

I greatly regret being unable to read Achim Weihrauch's entire paper. It has been repeatedly mentioned as the most thorough examination of the keris produced to date, and I know that he received assistance from at least one highly respected German authority on the keris. However, all I have knowledge of from his paper are the few words that Gustav has provided, and the error in that would be obvious to many people, people who have no interest in or knowledge of keris, at all.
Currently, I feel a little disappointed.

Now you have raised the question of whether the short swords mentioned in the Chinese text were truly prototype keris, or whether they might have been some other type of short sword.

In spite of what S.Lumintu has written, amongst the many weapons depicted in the reliefs of Candi Borobudur there are no weapons depicted there that could, by even the most extreme stretch of the imagination, be considered as keris-like in the slightest degree.

However there are a very few representations of weapons which could be regarded as prototype keris to be found in the reliefs of Candi Prambanan.

Candi Borobudur is a Buddhist building, Candi Prambanan is a Hindu building.

The representations of possible prototype keris are found in reliefs on a building of Hindu origin.

Thus, the keris can be associated with Hindu culture in Jawa, but it is exceedingly difficult to associate it with Buddhist culture in Jawa.

Dharmavamsa was a Hindu ruler.

Dharmavamsa re-established relations with China, and in the early 11th century he moved the center of Javanese power to East Jawa from Central Jawa, he died in 1007. Dharmavamsa's son-in-law was Airlangga who established the kingdom of Kahuripan.

Yes, I know, this is a long way round to answer what seems to be a simple question, but bear with me.

I believe that it is possible that the "short swords" sent to China were prototype keris, however, this is a possibility only, based upon the fact that Dharmavamsa was a Hindu ruler, and the prototype keris was a Hindu weapon.

On the other hand, in the Prambanan reliefs there are many types of swords and short swords and daggers shown, amongst these many bladed weapons there are only a very, very few possibly prototype keris.If we can assume that the frequency of occurrence of weapon types in the Prambanan reliefs is representative of the frequency of occurrence of weapon types in Javanese society at that time, then, using a statistical assumption, it is unreasonable to assume that the "short swords" sent to China were in fact, prototype keris.

This statistical assumption is probably a reasonable one because it is generally accepted that the relief carvings of Borobudur and Prambanan do use representations of material objects to be found in Javanese society at the time of those carvings.

Here's the short answer:- no supportive evidence that the "short swords" were keris or prototype keris, and only a very small possibility that they were.

However, here is something further to consider:-

in later times we know that Javanese rulers, and not only Javanese rulers, but other quite ordinary Javanese people would gift a keris to somebody as a gesture of goodwill. Javanese rulers frequently gifted keris to other rulers and notables. When contact with Europe was established Javanese rulers gifted keris to the visiting Europeans and to European rulers.
We do not know how far back this custom started, but if it was current at the time of Dharmavamsa, then just maybe those were prototype keris that went to China.

Your other question relative to use of the word "proven". When I say "free translation", I mean that I have put the Indonesian into English, pretty much as a native speaker of English would phrase the same ideas; here is a word by word translation of the relevant section:-

Hal itu terbukti dari laporan musafir Cina = matter that proven from report traveller China;

terbukti = proven, but could also be translated and understood as "evidenced".

Yep, lots of speculation in there. Dangerous speculation that a lot of people who do not have adequate knowledge could easily accept as gospel truths --- and just maybe they are truly like unto gospel truths.

A. G. Maisey · 7th January 2010, 11:52 PM

I have received private correspondence that makes the point that a number of historians accept that the court of Mataram was moved to East Jawa by Sanjaya King Mpu Sindok in or around the year 930, thus Dharmavamsa was not located in Central Jawa when he sent tribute to China, but rather in East Jawa.

I am aware of this point of view, and there is evidence to support it, however there is also evidence to support the location of the court of Mataram as Central Jawa much later than the year 930.

In old Javanese history there are very few ultimate and inarguable facts. To me, the weight of evidence seems to point to Dharmavamsa being in Central Jawa when he sent tribute to China, however, to those who wish to believe otherwise I will accept that he may have been in East Jawa.

However, wherever Dharmavamsa was located, there is doubt that in 992 he was the ruler of Mataram, and it was he who sent tribute to China.

guwaya · 8th January 2010, 01:45 AM

"I can understand why you believe I ask for too much from somebody when I expect a serious keris researcher to be able to read and understand Indonesian at least, and perhaps also Javanese."

A. G. Maisey

I think I have to clear a misunderstanding here. I think your answer references to my sentence that you are hanging the ladder to high.

I choosed this words because I didn't want to compromise a person which is standing behind Achim Weihrauch and without his help Achim Weihrauch never would have been able to do his work, the person I think you are talking about in your answer to David.

In fact I agree completely with you that

"the keris is a cultural icon, and if we wish to understand the keris within the context of its originating culture we need to be able to approach the keris with a mind-set that at the very least can understand the Javanese world view and the way a Javanese person sees and understands those things around him."

In this context I also think that it is not

"possible to achieve this level of understanding in the absence of an understanding of language."

and you view that

"This attitude of mine appears to be shared by many, if not most anthropologists who engage in serious field studies. Time and time again I will read of an anthropologist who has embarked on some project or other, and the first thing they do is to move in with some local family and learn the language"

is absolutely true, more - it is a must in the cultural anthropology! Even if taking a native speaker as a translater this will be a problem and will not be enough for understanding the cultural background.

You are yourself expirienced in the javanese culture and so you might know how difficult it is to receive worthfull informations. Especially the javanase but you can transmit it to other indonesian ethnics try to be polite to foreigners and one of the behaviour of javanese people is that they if you come with a question they start thinking 'what kind of answer you might await' and if they think they know what you are awaiting they will give you an answer in this direction and this answer is of no worth for the serious researcher - not really. What I am talking about is related to a direct questionary system requestinig cultural aspects and background, a questionary system sociologist like to practise.

Under this point a research about a cultural system via a material cultural object is a good tool to receive generel or special cultural information which you otherwise might not have received or already with an interpretation beared in the head of the person you are asking to. If you ask via a material cultural object you will receive answers where the informant does not think that much first, he will talk, you let him talk and possibly will indirectly receive a lot of general informations abbout the cultural system. But herefore it is absolutely important that you can speak and understand the languge and as already postulated above, even a native translater would not be enough. It is hard to get true answers upon directly sensitve questions in Java or probably in Asia general.

"I believe that somebody told me that Achim Weihrauch is currently living in Bali. If this is so, it may be possible that at some time in the future he may feel the need to revise some of his writing."

This information is wrong - since his final work Achim Weihrauch has never been to Indonesia again. And if I take your statement

"any understanding of the keris that is able to be gained in the absence of an understanding of the relevant language(s) can only ever be a technical understanding, it can never be an understanding on a societal or cultural level"

then I must say that Achim Weihrauch is a great person in the practical, technical understanding of the keris. Not everybody is born to go into a native culture and live with the people. Therefore in former times there had been a so could 'fieldresearch pratica' at several universities - the aim was that students of cultural anthropology were "thrown into the field" to see if they are able to practise what they are learning at the writing desk.

Unfortunately in the present world studies like cultural anthropology are not featured well any more - not by the state. And the private companies as sponsors? - it will go to far here - everybody can imagine that they have interests.

I hope I could clear the misinterpretation of my words here and I also hope I was cautious enough not to compromise the at the beginning of this answer mentioned person to much.

7th January 2010, 09:50 PM	#8
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	Guwaya I can understand why you believe I ask for too much from somebody when I expect a serious keris researcher to be able to read and understand Indonesian at least, and perhaps also Javanese. One does not need to be a chicken to know what an egg looks like. However, the keris is a cultural icon, and if we wish to understand the keris within the context of its originating culture we need to be able to approach the keris with a mind-set that at the very least can understand the Javanese world view and the way a Javanese person sees and understands those things around him. I do not believe that anybody who is not born Javanese can become Javanese, and speaking for myself, I would not want to become Javanese, but I do believe that it is possible for a person from outside Javanese society to learn the way in which a Javanese person thinks, and the way in which that Javanese person sees the world. I do not believe it is possible to achieve this level of understanding in the absence of an understanding of language. This attitude of mine appears to be shared by many, if not most anthropologists who engage in serious field studies. Time and time again I will read of an anthropologist who has embarked on some project or other, and the first thing they do is to move in with some local family and learn the language. Now, in the keris we have perhaps the ultimate cultural icon. My position is this:- any understanding of the keris that is able to be gained in the absence of an understanding of the relevant language(s) can only ever be a technical understanding, it can never be an understanding on a societal or cultural level. For a researcher who lacks the language skills, a native speaker as translator and guide might perhaps be of assistance. I believe that somebody told me that Achim Weihrauch is currently living in Bali. If this is so, it may be possible that at some time in the future he may feel the need to revise some of his writing. David I greatly regret being unable to read Achim Weihrauch's entire paper. It has been repeatedly mentioned as the most thorough examination of the keris produced to date, and I know that he received assistance from at least one highly respected German authority on the keris. However, all I have knowledge of from his paper are the few words that Gustav has provided, and the error in that would be obvious to many people, people who have no interest in or knowledge of keris, at all. Currently, I feel a little disappointed. Now you have raised the question of whether the short swords mentioned in the Chinese text were truly prototype keris, or whether they might have been some other type of short sword. In spite of what S.Lumintu has written, amongst the many weapons depicted in the reliefs of Candi Borobudur there are no weapons depicted there that could, by even the most extreme stretch of the imagination, be considered as keris-like in the slightest degree. However there are a very few representations of weapons which could be regarded as prototype keris to be found in the reliefs of Candi Prambanan. Candi Borobudur is a Buddhist building, Candi Prambanan is a Hindu building. The representations of possible prototype keris are found in reliefs on a building of Hindu origin. Thus, the keris can be associated with Hindu culture in Jawa, but it is exceedingly difficult to associate it with Buddhist culture in Jawa. Dharmavamsa was a Hindu ruler. Dharmavamsa re-established relations with China, and in the early 11th century he moved the center of Javanese power to East Jawa from Central Jawa, he died in 1007. Dharmavamsa's son-in-law was Airlangga who established the kingdom of Kahuripan. Yes, I know, this is a long way round to answer what seems to be a simple question, but bear with me. I believe that it is possible that the "short swords" sent to China were prototype keris, however, this is a possibility only, based upon the fact that Dharmavamsa was a Hindu ruler, and the prototype keris was a Hindu weapon. On the other hand, in the Prambanan reliefs there are many types of swords and short swords and daggers shown, amongst these many bladed weapons there are only a very, very few possibly prototype keris.If we can assume that the frequency of occurrence of weapon types in the Prambanan reliefs is representative of the frequency of occurrence of weapon types in Javanese society at that time, then, using a statistical assumption, it is unreasonable to assume that the "short swords" sent to China were in fact, prototype keris. This statistical assumption is probably a reasonable one because it is generally accepted that the relief carvings of Borobudur and Prambanan do use representations of material objects to be found in Javanese society at the time of those carvings. Here's the short answer:- no supportive evidence that the "short swords" were keris or prototype keris, and only a very small possibility that they were. However, here is something further to consider:- in later times we know that Javanese rulers, and not only Javanese rulers, but other quite ordinary Javanese people would gift a keris to somebody as a gesture of goodwill. Javanese rulers frequently gifted keris to other rulers and notables. When contact with Europe was established Javanese rulers gifted keris to the visiting Europeans and to European rulers. We do not know how far back this custom started, but if it was current at the time of Dharmavamsa, then just maybe those were prototype keris that went to China. Your other question relative to use of the word "proven". When I say "free translation", I mean that I have put the Indonesian into English, pretty much as a native speaker of English would phrase the same ideas; here is a word by word translation of the relevant section:- Hal itu terbukti dari laporan musafir Cina = matter that proven from report traveller China; terbukti = proven, but could also be translated and understood as "evidenced". Yep, lots of speculation in there. Dangerous speculation that a lot of people who do not have adequate knowledge could easily accept as gospel truths --- and just maybe they are truly like unto gospel truths. Last edited by A. G. Maisey; 7th January 2010 at 10:03 PM.

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

7th January 2010, 08:34 AM	#2
Gustav Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,273	Alan, Guwaya, my source was the dissertation of Achim Weihrauch (2001). Here the full text, page 56 (I apologise for my English, for I have translated this from German): (one should regard the source from the 11 century, where between others "short swords" are mentioned, with rhino-horn handles, as gifts from a Javanese potentiat to the imperial court of China; regard Hasrinuksmo/Lumintu 1988: 19) 98 (for footnote) 98 (footnote) A chinese source mentions short swords with rhino-horn handles, which Maharadja of Kahuripan (a kingdom at the Brantas-river, 11 century) have send as gift to China.

7th January 2010, 09:38 AM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	Thank you Gustav. Regrettably this information that you have quoted is inaccurate. Let us examine this quotation:- (one should regard the source from the 11 century, where between others "short swords" are mentioned, with rhino-horn handles, as gifts from a Javanese potentiat to the imperial court of China; regard Hasrinuksmo/Lumintu 1988: 19) 98 (for footnote) 98 (footnote) A chinese source mentions short swords with rhino-horn handles, which Maharadja of Kahuripan (a kingdom at the Brantas-river, 11 century) have send as gift to China. Achim Weihrauch has quoted Harsrinuksmo, who in turn has quoted an unnamed Chinese source. The source that Achim Weihrauch quotes is:- Ensiklopedi Budaya Nasional , by Bambang Harsrinuksmo, assisted by S. Lumintu, first edition 1988. The relevant section in Ensiklopedi Budaya was written by S. Lumintu and this reads:- Ada pula yang menduga , budaya senjata keris sudah berkembang sejak tahun 1000 Masehi. Hal itu terbukti dari laporan musafir Cina pada tahun 922M.Jadi lebih kurang pada jaman kerarajaan Kahuripan berkembang di tepian sungai Brantas. Di laporkan ada seorang Maharaja Jawa menghadiahkan pada Kaisar Tiongkok short swords with hilts of rhinoceros horn or gold (pedang pendek dengan hulu terbuat dari cula badak atau mas).Bisa jadi pedang pendek yang dimaksud dalam laporan itu adalah prototip keris seperti tergambar pada relief candi Borobudur dan Prambanan. Free translation:- There are also those who presume that the culture of the keris blossomed since the year 1000AD.That matter is proven from the report of a Chinese traveller in the year 922AD.Thus, more or less at the time of the blossoming of the Kingdom of Kahuripan on the banks of the river Brantas. It was reported that there was a Javanese ruler who presented to the Emperor of China short swords with hilts of rhinoceros horn or gold (pedang pendek dengan hulu terbuat dari cula badak atau mas).It can be that the short swords meant in that report were the prototype keris like those shown in the reliefs of Candi Borobudur and Candi Prambanan. S. Lumintu has referred to the report of a Chinese traveler dated to 922AD. This report is to be found in Historical Notes on Indonesia & Malaya, Compiled from Chinese Sources, W.P. Groenveldt, Published by C.V. Bhratara, 1960, Djakarta. The original Chinese report provided by Groenveldt is contained in Book 489 of the History of the Sung Dynasty. The complete paragraph that contains this quote bears reading:- In the 12th month of the year 992, their king Maradja sent an embassy consisting of a first, a second and an assistant envoy, to go to court and bring tribute. The first envoy said : "now that China has a rightful master again , our country comes to perform the duty of bringing tribute." The presents sent by the king were ivory, pearls, silk embroidered with flowers and gold, silk of different colours, sandalwood, cotton goods in various colours, tortoise shell, betel trays, short swords with hilts of rhinoceros horn or gold, rattan mats plaited with figures, white parrots and a small pavilion made of sandalwood, adorned with all kinds of precious materials. In his commentary on this report Groenveldt states:- About the situation of the seat of government nothing else is said, than that it was about the middle of the island, a little to the west. This agrees with tradition, according to which the capital at that time was situated in the present day district Banyumas. If we examine of the above, we find that Achim Weihrauch has attributed to Harsrinuksmo something that Harsrinuksmo, or more correctly, Lumintu, never wrote, namely that the tribute to China was sent from the Maharadja of Kahuripan. All Lumintu did was to associate the tribute with a time frame that was "more or less" compatible with the rise of Kahuripan. However, Lumintu himself was in error, because Kahuripan did not exist in 992. Kahuripan is generally accepted as having been established by Airlangga in 1019. In 992 Mataram under Dharmavamsa was dominant in Jawa. Dharmavamsa was a rich and powerful ruler, and would have been able to send tribute to China. Even if Kahuripan had existed a little earlier than the generally accepted date, it would not yet have had the power or position to approach China. There is more inaccuracy in this Achim Weihrauch footnote. Kahuripan was an East Javanese kingdom that stretched from Madiun to Pasuruan, but the exact location of its seat of government (Karaton) is unknown. A number of locations have been proposed, but to my knowledge, none are on the banks of the river Brantas, however, the Brantas does flow through the territory that was claimed by Kahuripan. There is a further problem with attribution to Kahuripan of the tribute to China :- Kahuripan was an East Javanese kingdom, and the original Chinese text places the ruler who sent this tribute, squarely in the center of Jawa, which is where Mataram was located. There can be no doubt that this tribute to the Emperor of China came from Dharmavamsa of Mataram, not from some unnamed ruler in Kahuripan. Here we have a very good example of how inadequacies in texts accepted as reliable sources can mislead and obscure. Achim Weihrauch trusted Harsrinuksmo/Lumintu as a reliable source, and failed to recognize or to check the source that they used. I find this failure totally inexplicable. Groenveldt's "Chinese Sources" is extremely well known to students of S.E. Asian history,and most especially to students of Indonesian history, to the point where many people with an interest in this history can instantly recognize passages from it, or references that have come from it. That Achim Weihrauch failed to recognize the inaccuracy in S.Lumintu's text is simply beyond my understanding. Then Achim Weihrauch muddled his translation from Indonesian. Again, something I do not understand. Achim Weihrauch has written what is by all reports one of the most important works ever produced on the keris. To be able to do this, surely he is literate in Indonesian, and possibly also Javanese. How is it possible for translation errors to occur? S.Lumintu failed to give an accurate recounting of the text to be found in Groenveldt, and then associated the tribute with the existence of Kahuripan, which misled Achim Weihrauch into believing the tribute came from Kahuripan, something that was quite impossible, as Kahuripan did not exist when the tribute was sent. Thus, we have a a compounding of errors caused by inadequate research and plain old fashioned lack of care, coupled with a poor understanding of Javanese history. So ---- does it matter? Like --- who cares? Its still tribute from Jawa to China and the date is more or less correct. Well, I for one think that it does matter. This compounding of errors is exactly the way that keris research and keris literature becomes corrupted. A future researcher could rely on Achim Weihrauch's work, just as Achim Weihrauch relied on Harsrinuksmo/Lumintu and could draw completely incorrect conclusions based upon the errors in geographic location and time.

7th January 2010, 12:38 PM	#5
Gustav Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,273	Thank you, Alan, for clearing this. Guvaya, To 1) this comes from the dissertation (2001). The thesis (I hope, I am not wrong) is from 1996. To 2) Weihrauch doesn't indicate the chinese source in this place, but this one mentioned by Alan is surely the wright one (named in the bibliography at the end of the dissertation).

7th January 2010, 11:52 PM	#9
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	I have received private correspondence that makes the point that a number of historians accept that the court of Mataram was moved to East Jawa by Sanjaya King Mpu Sindok in or around the year 930, thus Dharmavamsa was not located in Central Jawa when he sent tribute to China, but rather in East Jawa. I am aware of this point of view, and there is evidence to support it, however there is also evidence to support the location of the court of Mataram as Central Jawa much later than the year 930. In old Javanese history there are very few ultimate and inarguable facts. To me, the weight of evidence seems to point to Dharmavamsa being in Central Jawa when he sent tribute to China, however, to those who wish to believe otherwise I will accept that he may have been in East Jawa. However, wherever Dharmavamsa was located, there is doubt that in 992 he was the ruler of Mataram, and it was he who sent tribute to China.

8th January 2010, 01:45 AM	#10
guwaya Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 45	"I can understand why you believe I ask for too much from somebody when I expect a serious keris researcher to be able to read and understand Indonesian at least, and perhaps also Javanese." A. G. Maisey I think I have to clear a misunderstanding here. I think your answer references to my sentence that you are hanging the ladder to high. I choosed this words because I didn't want to compromise a person which is standing behind Achim Weihrauch and without his help Achim Weihrauch never would have been able to do his work, the person I think you are talking about in your answer to David. In fact I agree completely with you that "the keris is a cultural icon, and if we wish to understand the keris within the context of its originating culture we need to be able to approach the keris with a mind-set that at the very least can understand the Javanese world view and the way a Javanese person sees and understands those things around him." In this context I also think that it is not "possible to achieve this level of understanding in the absence of an understanding of language." and you view that "This attitude of mine appears to be shared by many, if not most anthropologists who engage in serious field studies. Time and time again I will read of an anthropologist who has embarked on some project or other, and the first thing they do is to move in with some local family and learn the language" is absolutely true, more - it is a must in the cultural anthropology! Even if taking a native speaker as a translater this will be a problem and will not be enough for understanding the cultural background. You are yourself expirienced in the javanese culture and so you might know how difficult it is to receive worthfull informations. Especially the javanase but you can transmit it to other indonesian ethnics try to be polite to foreigners and one of the behaviour of javanese people is that they if you come with a question they start thinking 'what kind of answer you might await' and if they think they know what you are awaiting they will give you an answer in this direction and this answer is of no worth for the serious researcher - not really. What I am talking about is related to a direct questionary system requestinig cultural aspects and background, a questionary system sociologist like to practise. Under this point a research about a cultural system via a material cultural object is a good tool to receive generel or special cultural information which you otherwise might not have received or already with an interpretation beared in the head of the person you are asking to. If you ask via a material cultural object you will receive answers where the informant does not think that much first, he will talk, you let him talk and possibly will indirectly receive a lot of general informations abbout the cultural system. But herefore it is absolutely important that you can speak and understand the languge and as already postulated above, even a native translater would not be enough. It is hard to get true answers upon directly sensitve questions in Java or probably in Asia general. "I believe that somebody told me that Achim Weihrauch is currently living in Bali. If this is so, it may be possible that at some time in the future he may feel the need to revise some of his writing." This information is wrong - since his final work Achim Weihrauch has never been to Indonesia again. And if I take your statement "any understanding of the keris that is able to be gained in the absence of an understanding of the relevant language(s) can only ever be a technical understanding, it can never be an understanding on a societal or cultural level" then I must say that Achim Weihrauch is a great person in the practical, technical understanding of the keris. Not everybody is born to go into a native culture and live with the people. Therefore in former times there had been a so could 'fieldresearch pratica' at several universities - the aim was that students of cultural anthropology were "thrown into the field" to see if they are able to practise what they are learning at the writing desk. Unfortunately in the present world studies like cultural anthropology are not featured well any more - not by the state. And the private companies as sponsors? - it will go to far here - everybody can imagine that they have interests. I hope I could clear the misinterpretation of my words here and I also hope I was cautious enough not to compromise the at the beginning of this answer mentioned person to much.