Gustav's Discovery

[Johan van Zyl]

This goes to show how new collectors can become swept up in the enthusiasm of the old collectors: when the old collectors become engrossed in their fascinating discussions over "every pimple", we newbies get enthused and want to participate in like fashion. I, as a retired lecturer, who frequently made use of practical examples in classroom discussion, was however quick to bring in an actual keris so that what can be said about the greneng is directed to a point. (Recall our posts concerning the Penn Museum keris?)

I don't think the ENTIRE subject has become confused; what might need to be done is that the confusion where it surfaces should be addressed. We now & then tend to leave discussions hanging in the air.

I glean from what has been said about the greneng in the pic, that there ARE indeed three elements of which two are ron dhas and one cannot be interpreted. Especially appreciated is the bold statement by Alan that "the greneng is not the typical Javanese greneng we are accustomed to, and the element that takes the place of the kanyut is not nameable under present convention."

[Jean]

Personally I see a (worn) ripandan above the rondha located on the wadidang (blade side) and another ripandan or protrusion below the rondha located on the ganja but it is not really important.
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Johan, when we undertake to study the keris we have a choice:- we can limit our study to the information that can be found in books, and if we live in a western country, for most people that means an even further limitation of limiting our study to books printed in a modern European language.

Alternatively we can immerse ourselves in SE Asian languages, including their archaic versions, and to do that effectively we need to learn how the people who are born into these languages as native speakers of the languages think. Just knowing the words is not sufficient, to understand the way a word is understood by a native speaker we need to adopt the native speaker's world view and terms of reference. We need to understand the content of the word, not just its sound and meaning.

If we opt to study the Javanese keris, this means that we need to learn Bahasa Indonesia, basic Javanese in at least 3 levels, and to be able to read and understand romanised Old Javanese. Nice additions would be Balinese, Madurese and Sundanese, but these are probably not essential as there is a degree of mutual intelligibility between these languages and Modern Javanese.

Now, one of the peculiarities of Modern Javanese is that it is a very socially focussed language, in matters concerning human interaction it becomes very finely tuned, for example, depending upon what part of the body bears a pimple, that pimple will in all likelihood have its own explicit name.

This overburden of definition is something that permeates the Javanese soul, and when we look at the lexicon that is attached to the keris we can clearly see this very fine focus on categorisation and detail.

Perhaps this would not be a problem, if the Javanese people as a whole thought in a similar way to Europeans, but they do not.

The Javanese language is what is known as a "non-standardised language" by linguists. Moreover, it is a language that is at its finest when it is spoken, as body language, inflection and tone can carry meanings that words alone cannot.

It is as if every Javanese person has the belief that every word he or she utters is his or her personal possession, and that word means precisely what the owner of the word wants it to mean, no more, and no less. Humpty Dumpty.

The enchanting nature of the language is coupled with a rather confusing national characteristic whereby total agreement and cooperation on all levels and in all matters is perceived, but the actions which follow very often do not relate in any way to the previous perception.

When we come to the keris, what we find is that all over Jawa there are keris study groups. The purported function of these groups is the study and better understanding of the keris. The real function is social, and as with most social groups in any society, that group becomes a vehicle for the advancement of the alphas within it.

There is propensity for these groups to either adopt a lexicon and philosophy of their own, or to adopt one from some obscure long forgotten text. Why? Because they like to be different, to differentiate themselves from others.

Sometimes these lexicons of keris terms get published, and the result is that if we pick 20 keris books published in Indonesian, or especially in Javanese, and over a span of time what we find is an amazing variation in terminology. Even very highly regarded publications are not exempt from this. For example, the foundation stone of dhapur at the present time is the Surakarta Pakem, that was issued under the aegis of the Surakarta Kraton in the 1920's. It can be quite enlightening to go through that Pakem and compare the characteristics of the listed dhapurs with what is currently accepted.

When we get to the names of the various elements of keris characteristics, the ricikan, we again find no small degree of inconsistency.

Is this important?

Well, since virtually all the names of the various features are either descriptors or euphemisms that have absolutely nothing at all to do with keris, in my opinion it really doesn't matter what words are used, except insofar as it is necessary to communicate with somebody who is within our own keris group.

What is important in the study of the keris is not the names of the various little characteristics, these names carry no information, they give no hint of any meaning, and they vary from place to place and person to person. They are close to useless.

What is important is to gain an understanding of the keris in all its dimensions.

Nothing else is worth the effort.

Now, to return to our choices in keris study.

You maintain that when confusion surfaces it should be addressed.

A very admirable sentiment Johan.

Do we include the cultural owners of the keris, that is to say, the Javanese, Balinese and so on in our attempts to address confusion? Because that is where the seat of the confusion lays, and it is deeply entrenched in the nature of the society.

Or do we acknowledge that to understand the keris we need to first understand the world view of the cultural owners?

Perhaps if all we want to be is a collector of curiosities from places we do not understand it might be best to simply adopt our own lexicon, and our own points of reference.

If we did this there would be very little confusion, and when that detestable beast did raise its ugly head we could very promptly address it.

But then we face another problem:- the nature of the keris has been deliberately confused in Jawa itself, ever since the time when it was adopted by people other than its originators.

[Johan van Zyl]

Well, I must say this: that these sentiments of yours should be regarded as required reading by all new and not so old keris "students". Keris 101, if I may call it that. I thank you warmly for your efforts to instill this insight into our members. I especially admire your patience. I regret that I did not have such patience as a lecturer. Some of my students wanted me to lower my standards so that they need not study so hard. Some would request a remark to get them an extra mark to help them come into the running for a re-examination. I tell them: "You already know so little; you want me to help you know even less?" Lecturing sometimes became a laugh a minute though: In Afrikaans we have the word for "cow udder", which, when you misspel the word by one vowel, it becomes "chicken egg". I warned my students that I would negatively mark them if they should write chicken egg where they mean cow udder! Yes, keep the standard high, I agree, and this also goes for our keris knowledge.

Still, I love it when a ricikan like in the pic above is discussed and members tell what they see and understand.

(I can't think what a "kanyut" could be - but I shudder at the possibilities!)

[Johan van Zyl]

Looks like this thread has drawn to a close. I also need to withdraw then, but there is one aspect still hanging in the air, which I request Alan to solve for me, if you would be so kind. Concerning the keris pictured in post #41, you wrote: "The keris you are now inquiring about is probably classifiable as Pajajaran, this places it as west Jawa, into Sunda. The greneng is not the typical Javanese greneng we are accustomed to, and the element that takes the place of the kanyut is not nameable under present convention."

How do I understand "classifiable as Pajajaran" in this case? AFAIK, Pajajaran is a tangguh, which is a 12th century category: the estimated age in which a keris was made. You cannot mean the specific keris in question is that old, so I am thinking there is another explanation of your choice of words, perhaps the fortified capital city of the Sunda kingdom? Please advise, and I thank you in advance for your patience.

Johan.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by Johan van Zyl

Looks like this thread has drawn to a close. I also need to withdraw then, but there is one aspect still hanging in the air, which I request Alan to solve for me, if you would be so kind. Concerning the keris pictured in post #41, you wrote: "The keris you are now inquiring about is probably classifiable as Pajajaran, this places it as west Jawa, into Sunda. The greneng is not the typical Javanese greneng we are accustomed to, and the element that takes the place of the kanyut is not nameable under present convention."

How do I understand "classifiable as Pajajaran" in this case? AFAIK, Pajajaran is a tangguh, which is a 12th century category: the estimated age in which a keris was made. You cannot mean the specific keris in question is that old, so I am thinking there is another explanation of your choice of words, perhaps the fortified capital city of the Sunda kingdom? Please advise, and I thank you in advance for your patience.

Johan.

Johan, I advise you to carefully read the numerous threads about the tangguh classification and its limitations, and the kanyut is simply the tip of the ganja (see post# 9 from Alan).
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Johan, regrettably the diagrams in my previous posts are not very clear, they're OK if you know what you are looking for, but if you do not, they can be confusing.

The kanyut is the second last named part before the extreme end of the greneng, it is the part that looks like the decline of a hill, the last part is the buntut mimi, which viewed from above becomes the buntut urang.

There has been extensive discussion on tangguh over years in this forum. Different people think about it in different ways. The best way for a collector who is outside the heart of the keris world in Central Jawa to think about it is that the names are simply classifications. Names associated with old eras will refer to old keris, names associated with recent eras will refer to more recent keris, but it is best not to think of the name of the classification as always inferring an age for the keris. With younger keris, say, after mid-17th century, there can be a grain of accuracy in a link between name and era, but in older keris not a lot of people will accept that the tangguh name really links to the age of the keris, but it is likely that the name will link to a geographic location.

EDIT

This might be useful Johan:-

http://www.kerisattosanaji.com/keristangguh.html

[drdavid]

This is just a thought, and allowing that nothing is cast in stone when 'reading' a keris, is it possible that the feature identified in Gustav's examples is a representation of Siwa's trisula and hence a continuation of the Shivatic notation.
cheers
DrD