The Keris of Majapahit

Jean · 2nd September 2015, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?
Regards

A. G. Maisey · 2nd September 2015, 02:53 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rasdan · 2nd September 2015, 03:54 PM

G'day Alan,

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

Jean · 2nd September 2015, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

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

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

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

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

Regards

A. G. Maisey · 3rd September 2015, 01:58 AM

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

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

We have a plethora of art works.

We have a good quantity of monumental works.

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

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

Quote:-

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

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

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

Jean · 8th September 2015, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

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

Hello Alan,
I was away for few days and I am surprised to find that nobody commented on this topic, which shows how difficult it is.
I agree with your statement but would comment as follows:
With so many Indonesian experts (may be stuck with their traditions) and brilliant Western scholars studying the Javanese & balinese cultures in detail for centuries, the mystery of the kris from Majapahit has not been resolved. Do you expect that there are any major remaining written sources or archeological pieces which would allow to progress on this subject?
For most Indonesian kris experts & collectors, the kris from Majapahit equals the kris from tangguh Majapahit, while for Westerners the kris from Majapahit may have looked like this one?

Regards

A. G. Maisey · 9th September 2015, 12:25 AM

Jean, this matter of keris history and development is not only difficult, I tend to believe that it is something that is not of much interest to most collectors.

You are correct in that a very large number of academics have studied Javanese & Balinese culture and society for a very long time, however, it appears to me that when these scholars do address the keris, it is addressed in terms that apply to present day attitudes, they seem never to attempt to investigate origins, development, history of the keris. So yes, we are left with a lot of unanswered questions.

I have firmly believed for a long time that the only way we can get close to some sort of understanding of the development of the Javanese/Balinese keris is to look very closely at the history and society of the developmental era. I believe that we can be fairly confident in fixing this developmental era to the period prior to the cessation of major migration to Bali from Jawa (+/- 1512), and after the foundation of the Kingdom of Majapahit (+/- 1293).

Within this period of time art works and monumental works were produced on a fairly prolific scale. Often we find depictions of weapons that contain sufficient identifiable characteristics to place them as keris, or what we now recognise as keris. However, this production of art was not consistent throughout the entire period.

Can we find any depictions, anywhere within this vast body of work, of weapons that look anything like the large, artistic keris that you have posted a picture of in post # 16? In fact, I cannot recall finding a weapon with a waved blade in the art works of this period.

Why?

So. now I would like to pose this question:-

was the keris of Majapahit a single form of keris, one that we would now identify as a Modern Keris?

Ma Huan gives us arguably our best summarised picture of Jawa circa 1400, it is found in the Ying Yai Sheng Lan:-

http://faculty.washington.edu/qing/h...lan%5B1%5D.pdf

I suggest a reading of the Java segment of this document, for those who are not already familiar with it. Java is "Chao-Wa"

rasdan · 9th September 2015, 06:29 AM

Just a speculation, there's no mention of wavy blades because Ma Huan only looked at a commoner's keris which is straight; reflecting the owner's status? Or the wavy ones are only for Kshatriyas not for other varnas?

Jean · 9th September 2015, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

So. now I would like to pose this question:-

was the keris of Majapahit a single form of keris, one that we would now identify as a Modern Keris?

Ma Huan gives us arguably our best summarised picture of Jawa circa 1400, it is found in the Ying Yai Sheng Lan:-

http://faculty.washington.edu/qing/h...lan%5B1%5D.pdf

I suggest a reading of the Java segment of this document, for those who are not already familiar with it. Java is "Chao-Wa"

Hello Alan,
Thank you for giving us access to this very interesting and often referred paper from Ma Huan.
However it seems that he only visited the Majapahit ports (Tuban, Gresik and Surabaya) but was not in contact with the Hindu Majapahit court, and the Kings whom he refers to were probably just the local Governors. The small knives which he describes (pu-la-t'ou or beladau?) worn even by the kids may not be krisses at all, like the Acehnese used to wear the rencong besides the kris? I agree with Rasdan that the big wavy krisses may just have been worn by high ranking people and not commoners, and were possibly introduced after Ma Huan's visit?
The description of the indigenous Hindu people by Ma Huan is particularly negative and not in accordance with the high Majapahit civilization!
Regards

2nd September 2015, 02:53 PM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,016	The idea of linking the Dongson dagger to the keris sajen has been around for a very long time. However, I tend to believe that there is no direct link between the two, most certainly no link that can be supported by either evidence or by logical argument. Indeed, Theo Alkema himself does not present the Dongson/Sajen link as a theory, but rather as a hypothesis or a suggestion. The Dongson culture existed in Northern Vietnam between about 1000BCE and about 40CE. During the last couple of hundred years of its existence it came under increasing Chinese domination by the Han and eventually was absorbed into the territories under Han control. The people of Dongson seem to have been sea farers who traded throughout SE Asia. Artifacts which could be of Dongson origin have been found in a number of places in the Indonesian Archipelago, notable are the bronze kettle drums. I am not aware of any Dongson daggers that have been found in the Indonesian Archipelago, let alone in Jawa itself. There is a demonstrable link between the Keris Buda and the Modern Keris. This link relies not only upon physical similarities, but most importantly upon social function. The lapse of time between the period in Dongson influence in SE Asia, and the first appearance in Javanese monumental works of keris-like objects is more or less 1000 years. Clearly far too long a period of time for there to be any link between the Dongson dagger and the keris of Majapahit, around 1500 years later. There is no similarity in form between a Dongson dagger and the keris sajen. Quite clearly, the Dongson dagger is in no way keris-like. True, it has a figure as a hilt, as do many other weapons, but this does not make it a keris. The above is a brief summary of some of the arguments that can be made against the Dongson Dagger as an ancestor of the Modern Keris, rather, sociological indications are that the Keris Sajen followed the Modern Keris. Theo Alkema and I do agree on one thing:- whether the Dongson Dagger is, or is not an ancestor of the Modern Keris can only be presented as a hypothesis, in other words nothing is presented that can be proven, whatever stance one takes in this matter, it can only be disproven. My opinion is that "Keris Majapahit" as a name for "Keris Sajen" is a misnomer. The keris sajen possibly may have existed during the Majapahit era, but it most certainly was not a prominent keris form of that time. My opinion is that the so-called "Keris Majapahit" was not the keris form that preceded the Modern Keris. I would hope that we may also place the "Keris Majapahit" on the shelf alongside the tangguh belief system as tools that we can use to help identify the physical form of the Keris of Majapahit.

2nd September 2015, 03:54 PM	#3
rasdan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Kuala Lumpur Posts: 369	G'day Alan, No worries about that. If we scrap tangguh, then we are probably left with historical records on how Mojo keris looks like. Unfortunately I haven't studied into that area yet.

3rd September 2015, 01:58 AM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,016	Theo's chapter 7 keris are certainly not particularly old keris. In fact, for at least 100 years these larger keris in the form of a keris sajen have been produced specifically for collectors, some of the really recent ones professionally aged, can be a real trap for young players. There are probably a few truly old ones around, but I very much doubt that even these can be attributed to the Majapahit era. Jean, you ask '---what is left?---' . We have a plethora of art works. We have a good quantity of monumental works. We have a multitude of literary sources that deal with history, culture and society. One thing is certain:- we can learn only a very limited amount from sources that deal specifically with keris. We must recognise the Javanese keris for what it is:- a cultural icon. Quote:- If you keep doing what you have always done, you will keep getting what you always got. I'm sure somebody famous gave us this quote, but I don't know who. However, it is particularly relevant to the study of the keris. We keep on reading keris books because we want to learn about the keris, but we invariably only get rehashes of the same information, much of it drawn from the same limited sources. If we want to learn about the keris we must look in a direction other than the books about keris.

9th September 2015, 12:25 AM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,016	Jean, this matter of keris history and development is not only difficult, I tend to believe that it is something that is not of much interest to most collectors. You are correct in that a very large number of academics have studied Javanese & Balinese culture and society for a very long time, however, it appears to me that when these scholars do address the keris, it is addressed in terms that apply to present day attitudes, they seem never to attempt to investigate origins, development, history of the keris. So yes, we are left with a lot of unanswered questions. I have firmly believed for a long time that the only way we can get close to some sort of understanding of the development of the Javanese/Balinese keris is to look very closely at the history and society of the developmental era. I believe that we can be fairly confident in fixing this developmental era to the period prior to the cessation of major migration to Bali from Jawa (+/- 1512), and after the foundation of the Kingdom of Majapahit (+/- 1293). Within this period of time art works and monumental works were produced on a fairly prolific scale. Often we find depictions of weapons that contain sufficient identifiable characteristics to place them as keris, or what we now recognise as keris. However, this production of art was not consistent throughout the entire period. Can we find any depictions, anywhere within this vast body of work, of weapons that look anything like the large, artistic keris that you have posted a picture of in post # 16? In fact, I cannot recall finding a weapon with a waved blade in the art works of this period. Why? So. now I would like to pose this question:- was the keris of Majapahit a single form of keris, one that we would now identify as a Modern Keris? Ma Huan gives us arguably our best summarised picture of Jawa circa 1400, it is found in the Ying Yai Sheng Lan:- http://faculty.washington.edu/qing/h...lan%5B1%5D.pdf I suggest a reading of the Java segment of this document, for those who are not already familiar with it. Java is "Chao-Wa"

9th September 2015, 06:29 AM	#8
rasdan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Kuala Lumpur Posts: 369	Just a speculation, there's no mention of wavy blades because Ma Huan only looked at a commoner's keris which is straight; reflecting the owner's status? Or the wavy ones are only for Kshatriyas not for other varnas?