Errors in Keris Literature

ganjawulung · 2nd August 2007, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ganjawulung

...Ken Arok, was killed then, by the son of Ken Dedes (from Tunggul Ametung), Anusapati. King Anusapati was killed by the son of Ken Dedes (from Ken Arok), Tohjaya...

Correction (this is really an error):
... King Anusapati was killed by the son of Ken Umang (instead of Ken Dedes). Umang was the concubine-wife of Ken Arok...

Ganjawulung

A. G. Maisey · 3rd August 2007, 12:34 AM

This is all very interesting, but we are not doing what this thread set out to do.

As I understand it, we set out to identify something with which we currently disagree, that was written by one of these early authors.

To do this I submit that we should provide the quote from the author's work so that there can be no misunderstanding of exactly what was written, and then put forward our reasons for disagreement.

From what has been posted to date to this thread, I think that perhaps a broad ranging general position has been taken that some early authors were incorrect in believing that the implement which they referred to as a "keris Majapahit" was the earliest form of keris.This is not a specific disagreement with the work of a specific author, but rather a disagreement with what was a generally held belief some years ago.

However, so that we can get on with what we set out to do, let's get this Majapahit business out of the way first. Or at least try to.

When we attempt to come to an understanding of early keris, we are involving ourselves in a very complex and difficult field.

Some years ago I wrote an article on keris origins. In writing this I drew on weapon forms in reliefs at Candi Prambanan . In these reliefs we can find representations of weapons which have a blade form that at the present time we would refer to as a "Keris Buda". Prambanan dates from around 856AD.

However, although we can identify in the Prambanan reliefs a blade form that bears recognisable characteristics of the Modern Keris, we cannot with any certainty claim that the so-called "Keris Majapahit" form did not exist at the same time, or prior to the 9th century AD.

It may not have existed, but equally, it may have existed. We simply do not know.

To take issue with the name "Keris Majapahit" is quite pointless. This is just a name, the same as the name "Keris Buda" is just a name. When we call a keris a "Keris Buda", we are not saying it was the keris used by Buddhists, any more than when we call a keris a "Keris Majapahit" we are saying it was the keris used in the Majapahit era. These are simply classifications, similar to the tangguh classifications, some of which really do relate to a kingdom or era, others of which do not.The tangguh system is a system of classification, and the terms "Keris Majapahit", and "Keris Buda" do form an adjunct to this system.

What we think of as a "keris" in the year 2007, that is, the Modern Keris, appeared after the Javanese Early Classical Period, and was in existence when Candi Panataran ( 1197-1354) was built.

It existed during the Majapahit era, and may have existed prior to Majapahit.

The implements with keris-like blades that we can find on Candi Prambanan were very probably one of the contributing influences to the origin of the Modern Keris, but I think it is obvious that these implements were not the only contributing factor to the birth of the Modern Keris.

The old literary sources are not a lot of use in supporting an argument that the Modern Keris was in existence earlier that the 14th Century.

Certainly, the Pararaton tells the Mpu Gandring legend, but the Pararaton was written in the 16th Century, and related a legend that referred to events which took place 300 years earlier.

Then there is the Nagarakertagama by Rakawi Prapanca of Majapahit, and it dates from the 14th Century.

These old literary sources do use words in their texts that have been translated as "keris", but regrettably we do not know that the original words in the original texts referred to implements that we would classify as a Modern Keris.

Based upon the existing evidence, all we can say with reasonable certainty is this:- the Modern Keris appeared some time after the close of the Early Classical Period, and some time before the completion of Candi Panataran. That is, the Modern Keris made its appearance between about 1000AD, and about 1300AD.

However, we do not have any evidence at all to demonstrate that the implement known as a "Keris Majapahit" did not exist at a time prior to the appearance of the Modern Keris.

Incidentally, in spite of claims to the contrary, there is no representation of a blade form bearing keris-like characteristics in the reliefs of Candi Borobudur. Borobudur was a Buddhist structure; Prambanan was a Hindu complex. The implements which appear on Prambanan, and which bear keris-like characteristics are purely Hindu in origin.

Pak Ganja, the picture of the relief from Panataran with a monkey warrior about to stab an enemy with a large, straight keris-like dagger is a falsification.The blade in this image has been retouched to make it appear assymetrical. If you visit Panataran you will find that this blade is symetrical. Below is an image of what this carving really looks like; it is not all that clear, because of the weathering, but I think you will probably be able to see that the blade base is in fact symmetrical.

Alam Shah, no, on the contrary, I do not consider this thread meaningless. It has a definite potential value, however, if that value is to be realised then let us proceed as you suggested:- point by point and in an analytical fashion. If we are to analyse, then we must first have something that has been positively identified, to analyse. To achieve this end I suggest that a statement with which we cannot agree, and made by one of these writers, be identified, and we proceed to put our own case against the correctness of this statement. Let us address this matter with a little discipline. I repeat:- it does have potential value.

A. G. Maisey · 3rd August 2007, 12:54 AM

Yeah, lousy pic. Not at all clear. Try this one. If its no good you'll have to go to Panataran yourself and have a look at it.

ganjawulung · 3rd August 2007, 02:42 AM

Thanks, Alan, for giving your valuable time to make this discussion developping. I will try to follow the rules you proposed, even though I have limited ability in expressing all what I think, in English.

The main disagrement for me, is the "stand point" view about comparing kerises. As if the small size keris that is called as "keris majapahit" in this book, is the "stand point" of comparison. This quotation below, is the "earliest" sentence that mentioned "keris majapahit" in this book. Let's start discuss with this...

(AH Hill first article, under title "The Keris and Other Malay Weapons". Please see page 4)

2. Types of blade
Keris blades vary considerably in shape and size. Original keris majapahit blades are only six or seven inches long and must have been almost useless for fighting. Yet one would have thought that it they were used only as charms there must have a still earlier keris of proper utilitarian value for their efficacy to be recognized. No such prototype weapon has ever been found. Indeed, as will be shown later, all the evidence there is goes to show that the keris was a new type of weapon in the thirteenth century. The rapier-like keris panjang of Sumatera and the sword-like keris sundang of Celebes, adaptations of the normal keris for special purposes, are sometimes over two feet long from handle to tip. If extreme like these are excluded the length of the normal keris blade may be taken as twelve to sixteen inches...

(Comment -- For mostly Indonesians, the word "keris majapahit" with the connotation of this very small size keris, will be confusing. Keris majapahit -- in the mind of Indonesian -- is keris that came or supposed to be made, or that has style of they believed to be keris from Majapahit kingdom era. The word "keris majapahit" to mention that small keris, is "unknown" in Indonesia. That kind of small keris, in Indonesia known as "keris sajen" or "keris for offering"...)

Ganjawulung

PenangsangII · 3rd August 2007, 04:14 AM

Sampurasun all kerislovers, and salam hormat!

Thank you Alan for the pictures of the sculptures. If you dont mind telling me the probablity that the sculptures were actually made by artisans imported from India, instead of the locals.

Even after WWII, many countries imported experts from abroad in making kingdom supported sculptures. A good example in Malaysia is the "Tugu Negara", built in memorium of the soldiers sacrifices in combatting the communist terrorists. However, since the artist was imported from the U.S., the sculptures of the Malaysian soldiers look more caucasians than southeastern statures.

In a way, I was thinking, maybe the keris like objects depicted in Borobudur and Prambanan temples were actually the Indian artists' definition of keris daggers existed during that periods, and actually were incorrect representation of how keris blades looked like.

Alan, I really like to hear you comment on this. Thank you in advance.

Penangsang

A. G. Maisey · 3rd August 2007, 05:20 AM

Don't be so modest Pak Ganja.

Your English is very good indeed. You express yourself clearly on most occasions, and you write fluently. Our problem here is not with your English expression, it is with identifying something written in years past that we do not now accept, and looking at why we do not accept it.

What Hill wrote was based on general belief at the time he wrote it. The early writers in English, on the keris, debated various theories of origin back and forth. Some of the exchanges became pretty heated.I'm not sure exactly how the name "Keris Majapahit" arose. A point of origin for use of the term could probably be identified, but this would involve a lot of time in going back through all the mentions of this form. It might even go all the way back to that Dutch academic who found one in one of the stupas at Borobudur.In any case, it doesn't matter much at this remove who started calling these little keris, "Keris Majapahit" . They are known as that now by many, if not most collectors outside of Indonesia.

Yes, I agree that confusion could arise about the term "Keris Majapahit", but if we simply use "Keris tangguh Majapahit", when that is what we mean, there will be no confusion.It is simply a matter of saying what we mean, instead of taking shortcuts.

Your use of the phrase "stand point" confuses me. I do not know exactly what you mean here. Rather than have me guess, could you please put this thought in another way?

In essence, what Hill said was this :-

keris Majapahit are small and useless as a weapon

if Keris Majapahit are charms then it is logical that they followed rather than preceeded the keris proper

no proto-type keris of the keris proper has been found

the available evidence indicates that the keris proper was a new weapon in the 13th century

the length of a normal keris is about 12" to 16"

In the context of knowledge at the time Hill was writing, I don't think I can disagree with any of this.

We now know about the Keris Buda, we now have identified certain relief carvings, so we can point to fore-runners of the keris proper. This information was not available to Hill.

To me, its a simple thing:- these early writers saw things in light of the information they had available; we have additional information available and we see things differently. A hundred years down the track there could be more additional information available, and a different point of view to our own may prevail.

It is a simple thing:- we've moved on from Gardner, Woolley, Hill. It is no different to a medical doctor moving on from blood letting.Somebody who studies medicine does not turn to 50 or 100 year old books to further his knowledege. A serious student of the keris should study current sources if he wishes to stay abreast of current knowledge.

I would ask you to bear one thing in mind:- I started to study keris in about 1955, Hill published his paper in 1956; Gardiner published in 1936, Woolley published on origin in 1938.
I grew up on this stuff. Way back then, everybody more or less accepted as gospel that the original keris was the Keris Majapahit.
We have now expanded our knowledge, and I don't think many people believe this any longer, however, if the Keris Majapahit did exist prior to the 13th century, then it may have been a contributing factor to the form of the Modern Keris.

Our major problem is this:- we do not know if the Keris Majapahit existed pre 13th century or not.

A. G. Maisey · 3rd August 2007, 05:24 AM

According to the recognised authorities on Javanese sculpture, all the work on Borobudur, and Prambanan, was completed by local craftsmen, and interpreted the stories shown in a local form, using local objects, buildings and landscape. Craftsmen were not imported from India to carry out this work.

ganjawulung · 3rd August 2007, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Your use of the phrase "stand point" confuses me. I do not know exactly what you mean here. Rather than have me guess, could you please put this thought in another way?.

Thanks a lot Alan. I've learned quite a lot from your short explanation you just gave me. About time frame. What I want to say was, probably the method of comparing things. Comparing "keris sajen" (I'm sorry, I don't use the "Keris Majapahit" term -- both in capital first letter -- for a very small keris that we know as "keris sajen" or "seking"). Comparing "keris sajen" (non-weapon) from Indonesia with kind of real kerises (weapon) from outside Indonesia? Am I wrong, if I am thinking: it is like comparing toy-guns with real guns? Comparing small kerises which usually for ceremony purpose and not for weapon, with real weapon. Or, say it in sports term: "put in combat between street boxer with professionel boxer"... Was it fair? (See also, comparison pictures of GC Woolley in page 114)

Majapahit -- in the mind of any Indonesian -- is a period of good kerises, good empus. Why, using as such a peiorating term of big empire in the past for expressing name of not a real kind of keris?

Ganjawulung

ganjawulung · 3rd August 2007, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PenangsangII

Thank you Alan for the pictures of the sculptures. If you dont mind telling me the probablity that the sculptures were actually made by artisans imported from India, instead of the locals.

Even after WWII, many countries imported experts from abroad in making kingdom supported sculptures. A good example in Malaysia is the "Tugu Negara", built in memorium of the soldiers sacrifices in combatting the communist terrorists. However, since the artist was imported from the U.S., the sculptures of the Malaysian soldiers look more caucasians than southeastern statures.

In a way, I was thinking, maybe the keris like objects depicted in Borobudur and Prambanan temples were actually the Indian artists' definition of keris daggers existed during that periods, and actually were incorrect representation of how keris blades looked like.

Alan, I really like to hear you comment on this. Thank you in advance.

Penangsang

Would you mind if I add some info for you? If you go to Cambodge, don't forget to visit Angkor Watt -- the most famous temple there. Who built Angkor? He was Jayawarman II (Syailendra dynasty) from Java. The pressure of new power at that time, Sriwijaya, had made the great dynasty from Java scattered abroad. The Syailendra dynasty then dominated Malay penninsula (See "L'Art de l'Asie du Sud-Est" or The Art of South-east Asia by Philip Rawson 1995), and lanced attack until Tonkin. And in Cambodge Jayawarman II brought the Indonesian culture (790 CE), and built temple about 30 km from Angkor. Jayawarman reigned until 850 CE, succeded by his son Jayawarman III until 877...

Borobudur near Jogjakarta, was built by this great dynasty of Syailendra in the same century of Angkor...

Ganjawulung

3rd August 2007, 12:34 AM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	This is all very interesting, but we are not doing what this thread set out to do. As I understand it, we set out to identify something with which we currently disagree, that was written by one of these early authors. To do this I submit that we should provide the quote from the author's work so that there can be no misunderstanding of exactly what was written, and then put forward our reasons for disagreement. From what has been posted to date to this thread, I think that perhaps a broad ranging general position has been taken that some early authors were incorrect in believing that the implement which they referred to as a "keris Majapahit" was the earliest form of keris.This is not a specific disagreement with the work of a specific author, but rather a disagreement with what was a generally held belief some years ago. However, so that we can get on with what we set out to do, let's get this Majapahit business out of the way first. Or at least try to. When we attempt to come to an understanding of early keris, we are involving ourselves in a very complex and difficult field. Some years ago I wrote an article on keris origins. In writing this I drew on weapon forms in reliefs at Candi Prambanan . In these reliefs we can find representations of weapons which have a blade form that at the present time we would refer to as a "Keris Buda". Prambanan dates from around 856AD. However, although we can identify in the Prambanan reliefs a blade form that bears recognisable characteristics of the Modern Keris, we cannot with any certainty claim that the so-called "Keris Majapahit" form did not exist at the same time, or prior to the 9th century AD. It may not have existed, but equally, it may have existed. We simply do not know. To take issue with the name "Keris Majapahit" is quite pointless. This is just a name, the same as the name "Keris Buda" is just a name. When we call a keris a "Keris Buda", we are not saying it was the keris used by Buddhists, any more than when we call a keris a "Keris Majapahit" we are saying it was the keris used in the Majapahit era. These are simply classifications, similar to the tangguh classifications, some of which really do relate to a kingdom or era, others of which do not.The tangguh system is a system of classification, and the terms "Keris Majapahit", and "Keris Buda" do form an adjunct to this system. What we think of as a "keris" in the year 2007, that is, the Modern Keris, appeared after the Javanese Early Classical Period, and was in existence when Candi Panataran ( 1197-1354) was built. It existed during the Majapahit era, and may have existed prior to Majapahit. The implements with keris-like blades that we can find on Candi Prambanan were very probably one of the contributing influences to the origin of the Modern Keris, but I think it is obvious that these implements were not the only contributing factor to the birth of the Modern Keris. The old literary sources are not a lot of use in supporting an argument that the Modern Keris was in existence earlier that the 14th Century. Certainly, the Pararaton tells the Mpu Gandring legend, but the Pararaton was written in the 16th Century, and related a legend that referred to events which took place 300 years earlier. Then there is the Nagarakertagama by Rakawi Prapanca of Majapahit, and it dates from the 14th Century. These old literary sources do use words in their texts that have been translated as "keris", but regrettably we do not know that the original words in the original texts referred to implements that we would classify as a Modern Keris. Based upon the existing evidence, all we can say with reasonable certainty is this:- the Modern Keris appeared some time after the close of the Early Classical Period, and some time before the completion of Candi Panataran. That is, the Modern Keris made its appearance between about 1000AD, and about 1300AD. However, we do not have any evidence at all to demonstrate that the implement known as a "Keris Majapahit" did not exist at a time prior to the appearance of the Modern Keris. Incidentally, in spite of claims to the contrary, there is no representation of a blade form bearing keris-like characteristics in the reliefs of Candi Borobudur. Borobudur was a Buddhist structure; Prambanan was a Hindu complex. The implements which appear on Prambanan, and which bear keris-like characteristics are purely Hindu in origin. Pak Ganja, the picture of the relief from Panataran with a monkey warrior about to stab an enemy with a large, straight keris-like dagger is a falsification.The blade in this image has been retouched to make it appear assymetrical. If you visit Panataran you will find that this blade is symetrical. Below is an image of what this carving really looks like; it is not all that clear, because of the weathering, but I think you will probably be able to see that the blade base is in fact symmetrical. Alam Shah, no, on the contrary, I do not consider this thread meaningless. It has a definite potential value, however, if that value is to be realised then let us proceed as you suggested:- point by point and in an analytical fashion. If we are to analyse, then we must first have something that has been positively identified, to analyse. To achieve this end I suggest that a statement with which we cannot agree, and made by one of these writers, be identified, and we proceed to put our own case against the correctness of this statement. Let us address this matter with a little discipline. I repeat:- it does have potential value. Attached Images Last edited by A. G. Maisey; 3rd August 2007 at 12:55 AM.

3rd August 2007, 12:54 AM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	Yeah, lousy pic. Not at all clear. Try this one. If its no good you'll have to go to Panataran yourself and have a look at it. Attached Images

3rd August 2007, 04:14 AM	#5
PenangsangII Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 401	Sculptures in temples Sampurasun all kerislovers, and salam hormat! Thank you Alan for the pictures of the sculptures. If you dont mind telling me the probablity that the sculptures were actually made by artisans imported from India, instead of the locals. Even after WWII, many countries imported experts from abroad in making kingdom supported sculptures. A good example in Malaysia is the "Tugu Negara", built in memorium of the soldiers sacrifices in combatting the communist terrorists. However, since the artist was imported from the U.S., the sculptures of the Malaysian soldiers look more caucasians than southeastern statures. In a way, I was thinking, maybe the keris like objects depicted in Borobudur and Prambanan temples were actually the Indian artists' definition of keris daggers existed during that periods, and actually were incorrect representation of how keris blades looked like. Alan, I really like to hear you comment on this. Thank you in advance. Penangsang

3rd August 2007, 02:42 AM	#4
ganjawulung Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: J a k a r t a Posts: 991	Thanks, Alan, for giving your valuable time to make this discussion developping. I will try to follow the rules you proposed, even though I have limited ability in expressing all what I think, in English. The main disagrement for me, is the "stand point" view about comparing kerises. As if the small size keris that is called as "keris majapahit" in this book, is the "stand point" of comparison. This quotation below, is the "earliest" sentence that mentioned "keris majapahit" in this book. Let's start discuss with this... (AH Hill first article, under title "The Keris and Other Malay Weapons". Please see page 4) 2. Types of blade Keris blades vary considerably in shape and size. Original keris majapahit blades are only six or seven inches long and must have been almost useless for fighting. Yet one would have thought that it they were used only as charms there must have a still earlier keris of proper utilitarian value for their efficacy to be recognized. No such prototype weapon has ever been found. Indeed, as will be shown later, all the evidence there is goes to show that the keris was a new type of weapon in the thirteenth century. The rapier-like keris panjang of Sumatera and the sword-like keris sundang of Celebes, adaptations of the normal keris for special purposes, are sometimes over two feet long from handle to tip. If extreme like these are excluded the length of the normal keris blade may be taken as twelve to sixteen inches... (Comment -- For mostly Indonesians, the word "keris majapahit" with the connotation of this very small size keris, will be confusing. Keris majapahit -- in the mind of Indonesian -- is keris that came or supposed to be made, or that has style of they believed to be keris from Majapahit kingdom era. The word "keris majapahit" to mention that small keris, is "unknown" in Indonesia. That kind of small keris, in Indonesia known as "keris sajen" or "keris for offering"...) Ganjawulung

3rd August 2007, 05:20 AM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	Don't be so modest Pak Ganja. Your English is very good indeed. You express yourself clearly on most occasions, and you write fluently. Our problem here is not with your English expression, it is with identifying something written in years past that we do not now accept, and looking at why we do not accept it. What Hill wrote was based on general belief at the time he wrote it. The early writers in English, on the keris, debated various theories of origin back and forth. Some of the exchanges became pretty heated.I'm not sure exactly how the name "Keris Majapahit" arose. A point of origin for use of the term could probably be identified, but this would involve a lot of time in going back through all the mentions of this form. It might even go all the way back to that Dutch academic who found one in one of the stupas at Borobudur.In any case, it doesn't matter much at this remove who started calling these little keris, "Keris Majapahit" . They are known as that now by many, if not most collectors outside of Indonesia. Yes, I agree that confusion could arise about the term "Keris Majapahit", but if we simply use "Keris tangguh Majapahit", when that is what we mean, there will be no confusion.It is simply a matter of saying what we mean, instead of taking shortcuts. Your use of the phrase "stand point" confuses me. I do not know exactly what you mean here. Rather than have me guess, could you please put this thought in another way? In essence, what Hill said was this :- keris Majapahit are small and useless as a weapon if Keris Majapahit are charms then it is logical that they followed rather than preceeded the keris proper no proto-type keris of the keris proper has been found the available evidence indicates that the keris proper was a new weapon in the 13th century the length of a normal keris is about 12" to 16" In the context of knowledge at the time Hill was writing, I don't think I can disagree with any of this. We now know about the Keris Buda, we now have identified certain relief carvings, so we can point to fore-runners of the keris proper. This information was not available to Hill. To me, its a simple thing:- these early writers saw things in light of the information they had available; we have additional information available and we see things differently. A hundred years down the track there could be more additional information available, and a different point of view to our own may prevail. It is a simple thing:- we've moved on from Gardner, Woolley, Hill. It is no different to a medical doctor moving on from blood letting.Somebody who studies medicine does not turn to 50 or 100 year old books to further his knowledege. A serious student of the keris should study current sources if he wishes to stay abreast of current knowledge. I would ask you to bear one thing in mind:- I started to study keris in about 1955, Hill published his paper in 1956; Gardiner published in 1936, Woolley published on origin in 1938. I grew up on this stuff. Way back then, everybody more or less accepted as gospel that the original keris was the Keris Majapahit. We have now expanded our knowledge, and I don't think many people believe this any longer, however, if the Keris Majapahit did exist prior to the 13th century, then it may have been a contributing factor to the form of the Modern Keris. Our major problem is this:- we do not know if the Keris Majapahit existed pre 13th century or not.

3rd August 2007, 05:24 AM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	According to the recognised authorities on Javanese sculpture, all the work on Borobudur, and Prambanan, was completed by local craftsmen, and interpreted the stories shown in a local form, using local objects, buildings and landscape. Craftsmen were not imported from India to carry out this work.