Errors in Keris Literature

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

A. G. Maisey · 3rd August 2007, 09:56 AM

Pak Ganja, as to whether you call these little keris "sajen" or "majapahit", or "seking" or anything else, I really don't care. I understand what you mean, and that's really all that matters. I myself call them "sajen", most of the time, but if I'm talking with somebody who wants to call them "majapahit", I don't have any problem with that.

The purpose of language is to transfer a thought, or an idea, from one person's mind to another person's mind. Language is just a tool. If that transfer can be achieved, it really doesn't matter what words are used to achieve it.

If I am correct, your objections are based in the approach of grouping together all types of keris. You do not want to group keris sajen, with other types of keris. Is this correct?

You do not want to compare keris sajen with other types of keris, but rather to hive them off into a separate category. Is this correct?

I can see no objection to this as a methodology, but I can also see no objection to grouping all types of keris together.One methodology is no better and no worse than any other, from my perspective. Why not group all different types of keris separately? Classify according to point of origin , and then according to percieved era, a la tangguh?We could have our Javanese keris all split up according to tangguh and then classify our sajens, and our budas, and our long keris, and our Moro type keris; we could classify everything else according to whether Bali, Madura, Sumatera, or whatever.

We could classify endlessly if we so wished.We could classify according to weapon functionability, artistic worth, tuah, isi, and on and on. Actually, one of my inlaws in Solo classifies according to whether the keris was previously owned by a Kyai, or by a Pangeran; it must be have been owned by either one or the other, or he will not have it in his collection. How does he know who previously owned it? He dreams it.

Yes, I know, Majapahit was the Golden Age.

But much of the belief surrounding the Majapahit era in Jawa is pretty much like a lot of the belief surrounding England's Golden Age of chivalry, King Arthur & etc.

Why did some inconsiderate barbarian decide to call these little keris sajen "Keris Majapahit", and thus taint the glorious Golden Memory of Magnificent Majapahit?

I don't know, but he did, and it stuck.

If you don't like it, you could begin a campaign to change the terminology of the western collecting world. I'll even help you by doing my best to only use the term "keris sajen".

In fact, however you want to group, consider, treat, or talk about keris sajen is just fine with me:- I agree in advance with whatever approach you want to take.

Now, can we move on from the deadly keris sajen:keris majapahit duel, and get on to what this thread is supposedly about:- the identification of specific statements by specific writers, with which we no longer agree.

ganjawulung · 3rd August 2007, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

If I am correct, your objections are based in the approach of grouping together all types of keris. You do not want to group keris sajen, with other types of keris. Is this correct?

You do not want to compare keris sajen with other types of keris, but rather to hive them off into a separate category. Is this correct? .

Not exactly only the approach of grouping the types of keris. My main objection is the opinion of the writers in the book, that "Keris Majapahit and keris pichit is the surviving specimens of the oldest Majapahit keris" (GC Woolley article, "The Origin of Malay Keris"). This statement is clear, that "keris sajen" according to Mr Woolley is "the surviving specimens of the oldest Majapahit keris".

I am neither scientist, nor archeolog. But I dare to say -- but don't ask me to prove it -- that this statement or opinion is inaccurate. The surviving, and the oldest? Based on what? And what about the old pusakas in kraton Yogya and Surakarta that are even older than Majapahit era? Are they false?

I like very much the special appearance of Keris Sundang in complete dress, for instance. I think it is not worth to compare, with small kerises that mentioned for other purpose, like "keris sajen"... Not comparable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

If you don't like it, you could begin a campaign to change the terminology of the western collecting world. I'll even help you by doing my best to only use the term "keris sajen".

Thanks Alan, for your generosity. But let people know by themselves, what the truth is... I agree with you. The appellation of "keris majapahit" for "keris sajen", or "keris pichit" for "keris pejetan", it won't diminish one of the greatest era of keris making in the past.. Let the river flow...

Ganjawulung

kai · 3rd August 2007, 08:58 PM

Dear Pak Ganja,

Quote:

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.

I believe you misunderstood the purpose of the drawing: keris sajen were not added to belittle Indonesian keris and glorify Malayan keris (nor keris Jawa vs. Malay/Bugis keris since the distribution of these types don't follow current political boundaries...). The aim of the paper was to show the diversity of Malay keris and keris sajen are also found in Malaysia (no idea wether genuine examples were locally forged or if they arrived through trade or migration). Thus, the author needed to include keris sajen, too.

BTW, I don't think that we should place too much emphasis on this collection of rather old papers - just keep the dates when each got originally published in mind and move on...

Regards,
Kai

A. G. Maisey · 3rd August 2007, 10:06 PM

OK, I think I see where you're coming from, Pak Ganja:- you object very strongly to Woolley, and other writers of seventy years ago, harbouring the belief that keris sajen were representative of keris produced during the Majapahit era. Is this correct?

Yes, I think we can accept this as an outdated opinion, but it was just an opinion, and a generally held one at the time--- seventy years ago.

However, you have mentioned the pusakas held by the karatons in Surakarta and Yogyakarta. Pusakas that pre-date Majapahit.

May I most humbly suggest that prior to endorsing the validity of claims for the age of these pieces, a study of the history of the House of Mataram may be rather enlightening. Most especially , a focus on the early years of Mataram, through to the demise of Sultan Agung, and again on the Kartasura period.

Of great additional value would be an investigation of the social and economic conditions which influenced the Javanese elite during the period from about the middle of the 17th century, through to, probably, the Japanese occupation.

I am well aware that what I have touched on here is an extremely sensitive issue with most Javanese people, most particularly those Javanese people who have great pride in their culture. Because of this, I will not be drawn on this subject, but I do urge all true students of the keris to involve themselves in the lines of investigation that I have indicated.

As to the the movements of the Syailendras after they left Jawa, my feeling is that most authorities are still somewhat undecided about that. I'd have to check references before I would be brave enough to make any definitive statements, but I do not think that their authorship of Angkor Wat is necessarily a done deal.

ganjawulung · 4th August 2007, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kai

BTW, I don't think that we should place too much emphasis on this collection of rather old papers - just keep the dates when each got originally published in mind and move on...

Regards,
Kai

I agree Kai. That was just my small opinion... Let's move on...

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, 12:54 AM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,019	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	#3
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	#2
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	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,019	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	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,019	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.

3rd August 2007, 09:56 AM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,019	Pak Ganja, as to whether you call these little keris "sajen" or "majapahit", or "seking" or anything else, I really don't care. I understand what you mean, and that's really all that matters. I myself call them "sajen", most of the time, but if I'm talking with somebody who wants to call them "majapahit", I don't have any problem with that. The purpose of language is to transfer a thought, or an idea, from one person's mind to another person's mind. Language is just a tool. If that transfer can be achieved, it really doesn't matter what words are used to achieve it. If I am correct, your objections are based in the approach of grouping together all types of keris. You do not want to group keris sajen, with other types of keris. Is this correct? You do not want to compare keris sajen with other types of keris, but rather to hive them off into a separate category. Is this correct? I can see no objection to this as a methodology, but I can also see no objection to grouping all types of keris together.One methodology is no better and no worse than any other, from my perspective. Why not group all different types of keris separately? Classify according to point of origin , and then according to percieved era, a la tangguh?We could have our Javanese keris all split up according to tangguh and then classify our sajens, and our budas, and our long keris, and our Moro type keris; we could classify everything else according to whether Bali, Madura, Sumatera, or whatever. We could classify endlessly if we so wished.We could classify according to weapon functionability, artistic worth, tuah, isi, and on and on. Actually, one of my inlaws in Solo classifies according to whether the keris was previously owned by a Kyai, or by a Pangeran; it must be have been owned by either one or the other, or he will not have it in his collection. How does he know who previously owned it? He dreams it. Yes, I know, Majapahit was the Golden Age. But much of the belief surrounding the Majapahit era in Jawa is pretty much like a lot of the belief surrounding England's Golden Age of chivalry, King Arthur & etc. Why did some inconsiderate barbarian decide to call these little keris sajen "Keris Majapahit", and thus taint the glorious Golden Memory of Magnificent Majapahit? I don't know, but he did, and it stuck. If you don't like it, you could begin a campaign to change the terminology of the western collecting world. I'll even help you by doing my best to only use the term "keris sajen". In fact, however you want to group, consider, treat, or talk about keris sajen is just fine with me:- I agree in advance with whatever approach you want to take. Now, can we move on from the deadly keris sajen:keris majapahit duel, and get on to what this thread is supposedly about:- the identification of specific statements by specific writers, with which we no longer agree.

3rd August 2007, 10:06 PM	#10
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,019	OK, I think I see where you're coming from, Pak Ganja:- you object very strongly to Woolley, and other writers of seventy years ago, harbouring the belief that keris sajen were representative of keris produced during the Majapahit era. Is this correct? Yes, I think we can accept this as an outdated opinion, but it was just an opinion, and a generally held one at the time--- seventy years ago. However, you have mentioned the pusakas held by the karatons in Surakarta and Yogyakarta. Pusakas that pre-date Majapahit. May I most humbly suggest that prior to endorsing the validity of claims for the age of these pieces, a study of the history of the House of Mataram may be rather enlightening. Most especially , a focus on the early years of Mataram, through to the demise of Sultan Agung, and again on the Kartasura period. Of great additional value would be an investigation of the social and economic conditions which influenced the Javanese elite during the period from about the middle of the 17th century, through to, probably, the Japanese occupation. I am well aware that what I have touched on here is an extremely sensitive issue with most Javanese people, most particularly those Javanese people who have great pride in their culture. Because of this, I will not be drawn on this subject, but I do urge all true students of the keris to involve themselves in the lines of investigation that I have indicated. As to the the movements of the Syailendras after they left Jawa, my feeling is that most authorities are still somewhat undecided about that. I'd have to check references before I would be brave enough to make any definitive statements, but I do not think that their authorship of Angkor Wat is necessarily a done deal.