How to read a greneng

[Gustav]

Alan, I feel there is a serious need to recapitulate the development of our discussion (which I value very much). At first - the part concerning Greneng.

In #26 I posted an picture of a pre-17th cent. Keris (1) with replaced Gonjo, with an uncommon variation of Greneng. In #29 I described that Greneng form as "consisting of two identical elements with a Ron Dha in the middle. That element is repeated on Jenggot". I would like to add "identical TRIPARTITE elements".

Your comments on it in #28 regarding it's Greneng in #28 were:

"here we have a very good example of what happened when the keris became profane under Islam."

"The enhancements that occupy the place of the ron dha nunut and jenggot on this blade are very clearly not related in any way to the ron dha of the early Modern Keris within Hindu-Buddhist society."

"I agree that this keris you have shown us is probably older than the first half of the 17th century. This is a North Coast blade, very possibly classifiable as Banten, and it demonstrates very nicely the point that I made in respect characteristics associated with the Hindu-Buddhist belief system, however, those features in this keris have been distorted."

................................................

In the same post I mentioned the Keris Dresden Inv. Nr. 2895 (2), with the same variation of Greneng.

Your comments on it and obviously on that Greneng variation are:

"Dresden 2895 can be seen in Jensen's Kris Disk, chapter 3, page 22. This kris has its original gonjo and is an excellent example of the early Modern Keris under Islam. Jensen measured it as 41.8cm, I measured it at 42.4cm. It has a single front sogokan and in respect of the greneng and ron dha, I noted that they were "very confused". In any case Dresden 2895 is a big keris, in the hand it is very similar to a Bali keris.

This confusion in the formation of the ron dha and greneng is not uncommon in keris from this period. We can only guess why this happened, it could have been intention on the part of either the person who ordered the keris, or of the maker, as a movement away from Hindu-Buddhist symbolism, or it could have simply been a lack of knowledge of the true form required. In any case this distortion of the ron dha is not uncommon and Gustav has given us a very good example of it.

These corruptions of form are most definitely not (sic?) younger forms of keris enhancement. They are clearly, obviously and logically demonstrable corruptions. They do not appear in the Bali keris, and that tells us exactly what they are."

.................................................. .............................


In #29 I posted a picture of a part with Greneng visible of Keris from Munich Inv. Nr. Gr. 598 (3)

Your comments in #30 on it and obviously also the previous Keris are:

"However, I do feel that by introducing aberrant features found upon keris that were made under Islamic influence we are wandering away from the barrier that I set myself at the beginning of this discussion. Quite simply I do not want to extend any of my comments into the era of Islamic influence.

The keris that you have introduced to discussion are keris that were made under Islamic influence. They are North Coast Jawa keris, probably classifiable as Banten, and that removes them from any discussion of the keris as a Javanese Hindu-Buddhist artefact. These keris that you have presented and that you wish to discuss have no place in a discussion of the keris within the Javanese Hindu-Buddhist era.

You tell me that these aberrant keris do not fit my hypothesis, but I have not yet published any hypothesis that deals with keris of this type and era. In fact, this perverted corruption of a religious icon does ideally fit into my unpublished work, but I am not at the present time willing or able to take discussion into this era."

In #29 I explained, why I am reluctant to see that variation of Greneng as an "confusion in the formation of the ron dha and greneng":

"regarding the Greneng variation I presented, I don't think it is as simple as "They are clearly, obviously and logically demonstrable corruptions. They do not appear in the Bali keris, and that tells us exactly what they are". This Greneng appears on a very small number of Keris, and they all are older then first half of 17th cent. After that this variation disappears. Speaking of myself, I haven't seen many Keris from Bali, which could be somewhat supportably datable as older then perhaps 18th cent. We have much less reasoned to say on subject older Keris in Bali then we have regarding older Keris in Java - and that isn't much.

This variation of Greneng clearly don't fit in your hypothesis, but I am not sure, if it is a reason enough to deem it as a corruption from Islamic period.

It consists of two identical elements with a Ron Dha in the middle. That element is repeated on Jenggot. Stylistically I don't see any confusion there."

.................................................. .....................

Finally, in #31 I posted a picture of a state Keris from South-Bali, Tropenmuseum Amsterdam, Col. Nr. 809-99 (4), which displays the variation of Greneng which is the subject of our discussion.

Now in #32 you suddenly write:

"The Troppenmuseum keris (TM 809.99) that you have offered as an example of a variant greneng is a 19th century keris, and the form in which the greneng is cut is not uncommon in Balinese keris.

Just a side bar on this particular Balinese greneng form:- it is possible, perhaps probable, that in the context of Balinese belief, this three pointed element in the greneng could be read as a reference to the Tri-Murti; another possible interpretation would be that in one of its more elaborate forms it is a representation of the pejyor, which relates to the Gunungan, and of course the keris itself is a Gunungan representation.

Actually, I have not yet researched nor considered at length this variant element in the greneng, so don't shoot me if I put forward something different when I publish on the greneng. The above is just something that occurred to me while I was typing. It is not at all difficult to generate interpretations of the symbolism, either real or imagined that we can find in the keris. The difficult part comes in building a sufficiently strong structure to support the interpretation."

We are still speaking about the same Greneng variation, which you deemed as a "These corruptions of form are most definitely not (sic?) younger forms of keris enhancement. They are clearly, obviously and logically demonstrable corruptions. They do not appear in the Bali keris, and that tells us exactly what they are."

Besides, I am not completely convinced Tropenmuseum Amsterdam, Col. Nr. 809-99 is a 19th cent. Keris, yet it is very possible. Today, while searching I found a picture of a Keris from Bali Inv.nr. 67.766, VKM Vienna (5), which obviously is an older one, very close to old Javanese, and Keris Skokloster Inv. Nr. 6960 (6).

The variations of the Greneng form on initial Keris 1, Keris 5 and Keris 6 are very close, nearly identical. These and Greneng on Keris 2, 3 and 4 are close enough to be understand as variations of the same form.

I hope, that is suficient to free this Greneng form from it's curse as "clearly, obviously and logically demonstrable corruptions" on "aberrant" Keris.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The sidetracks of our discussion were also the use of Jenggot on KK, on which you wrote in #28:

"Gustav, in respect of this statement:-

"--- if an early Keris had Kembang Kacang and Greneng, there almost automatically was also Jenggot on KK, mirroring the Greneng (the only exeptions I can think of would be Sempana type blades, but I have seen better preserved specimens with small Jenggot).---"

I do not accept that there was any "automatic" inclusion of the RD as jenggot in pre-1525 keris. There was absolutely no need to always, automatically include the RD to be read as "aum" in this position. Sometimes it was there, sometimes not. There may have been socio-cultural reasons for inclusion, there may not have been. At this time I am not prepared to hypothesise on the presence or absence of the RD as "aum" preceding the KK as Ganesha."

My answer on it in #29 was:

"Regarding my use of word "automatically" regarding the parallel use of Greneng and Jenggot, I am aware, it also doesn't fit in your hypothesis. I for myself wanted to express with it my oppinion, which is adeqately supported by Keris from early collections as material evidence, that there is no KK without Jenggot on old, well preserved Keris, except perhaps Sempana in some cases. If we speak about a corruption during the period following the rule of Sultan Agung you mention in #21, KK without Jenggot is one indeed."

Perhaps I made the mistake naming your theory (?) a hypothesis - my apologies for incorrect use of a language, which is the fourth one I (never properly) learned.

After that discussion on that subject ceased.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding your attribution of pre-17th cent. Keris from old Kunstkammer collections mostly as Banten and therefore as (corrupted) early Islamic Keris (as I understand, all of them), and the figural hilts on them as (Islamic) North Coast Jawa - I have nothing to add, as we are in an impasse regarding that subject. My thoughts, as you may suppose, is, that they are from different locations, of different age, and there are Pre-(Non)-Islamic Keris among them.

In http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=21327 I tried to explain to you the difference between 17th cent. (or earlier) and later Pasisir figural hilts, yet obviously failed. So I doubt, I could convince you now of something you cannot accept.

My apologies for the long post, yet it was necessary.

[A. G. Maisey]

Gustav
In respect of this:- " We are still speaking about the same Greneng variation, which you deemed as a "These corruptions of form are most definitely not (sic?) younger forms of keris enhancement. They are clearly, obviously and logically demonstrable corruptions. They do not appear in the Bali keris, and that tells us exactly what they are."
Yes, typo, the 'not' is out of place, residue of a deletion.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thank you so very much Gustav for your extensive quotes from previous posts to this thread. I have read through your entire post #33 several times, and I must confess that you have almost totally lost me. I was confused about where you were going before I read your post #33, after reading it I am even more confused.

It's my problem Gustav, no fault of yours. I never was particularly tolerant of this style of debate where things keep going in circles. Children and young adults do often seem to enjoy this type of exchange, I do not, and although I can understand the need for some people to engage in such exchanges it is really not something of which I like to be a part. I apologise for not withdrawing from this fruitless waste of words earlier. I admit, I do tend to be a bit long-winded when I write, this happens because I try to make things as clear as possible in order to prevent useless exchanges, but it appears that my efforts to reduce pointless text have resulted in a superfluity of such text.

I do appreciate your fixation on this tri partite element in the greneng, and your posted images are of interest. When I do further work on the greneng I will certainly pay attention to this variant.

However, after reading your most recent post I have come to a slightly different conclusion to your own. My opinion is that rather than a parade of isolated quotes, what we really need are some pointed questions and answers.

If I can get an understanding of what you are trying to do by continually re-enforcing my own ideas it would help me to make relevant contributions to this discussion. If I have written something in a previous post to this thread that you do not understand, or that you would like me to clarify, please ask me a direct question and I'll do my best to give a concise, relevant response.

Here below are some questions that you may or may not choose to answer. If you do choose to answer, please provide an answer that is to the point, not an extended quote, and make it a straight answer, not a sliding sideways answer that avoids the thrust of the question. If you cannot answer, or choose not to answer, I'm quite OK with that too, but please advise that you have chosen not to respond.

It would be really nice if you could make your answers concise and pointed. Where possible 'yes', 'no', 'no response', 'don't know' would all be very much appreciated.

My "system" : what is my "system"?

My "hypothesis" : what is my "hypothesis"?

Is the hilt shown as image #3 in your post #33 stylistically North Coast Javanese or not? If it is not stylistically North Coast Javanese, then what area would you associate this style with?

Have I stated that I have never published any hypothesis that relates to the greneng? Yes, I have used the word "greneng", yes, I have discussed the greneng, but have I published any hypothesis that addresses the form of the greneng?

Have I made it clear that the ron dha is to be regarded as only one element of the greneng?

Have I made it clear that the elements of which the greneng is composed do vary?

Are the tri-partite elements that you identify in the greneng, elements of greneng composition that vary from greneng composition which is regarded as the normative model?

Have I limited my hypothesis in respect of elements of the greneng to only the ron dha?

In your opinion, are the 6 keris that you have shown as examples in post #33 all from the period after 1500?

Do you consider the greneng elements indicated in image #4, post #33 to be the same as the greneng elements indicated in the other 5 images included in post #33?

What are you attempting to demonstrate by repeatedly posting examples of greneng variation ?

I said earlier that I am confused by the direction you have taken, hopefully your responses, if you choose to respond, will help to relieve that confusion.