Pakem and Keris

[A. G. Maisey]

David, what I mean by this "this type of discussion" is the mixing of legend and myth with historical relativity.

Legend and myth are by their very nature flexible entities:- they can and do change generationally, thus the legend that our grandparents heard is very likely different in some respects to the one we read when we throw the question into google. When these differences extend over long periods of time, and are additionally encapsulated within an oral tradition, their value for historical reference is somewhat more than doubtful.

The court babads of Jawa are often confused with legend by some people, and with history by other people, and in fact, seem to be a mix of both, but for the researcher, the big advantage with the babads is that they are written, and can--- to a degree--- be taken back to a point of origin, permitting analysis. We cannot do this with a legend or myth, or other folk tale.

As to affixing a point in time for the development of the keris as a magical object, this would be a good topic for serious research, as I do not believe that this specific topic has ever been seriously tackled. We can get some sort of an idea of this from the old literature. In early Javanese literature the keris seems to be represented as a power object, and with some talismanic properties, but it does not seem to be represented as a "fly through the air, find its own way home" object. My own gut feeling is that this pure magical character of the keris probably did not take hold until well into the 19th century. It may have had a begining during Kartasura---very big "may"--- but I really think that in Jawa it probably did not become "magic" until "Javaneseness" increased during the 19th century in a reaction to Dutch oppression.As I said:- green field for a serious researcher:- I believe that this is something that might be able to be pretty well nailed down.

Jussi, the keris can fulfil a number of roles; it is not just a single thing with a single character, and whatever characters it has can change over time. In early Jawa---C 14th century---- it was referred to as "the symbol of a man". Undoubtedly it was, and remains so, but it was also a weapon. In the hands of a waterfront thug, how much of a symbol was it? In the hands of a palace courtier, how much of a weapon was it?

By the early 19th century in Jawa the keris had become pretty much an item of dress. It was still occasionally used as a weapon, but anybody who could afford to would carry a keris as a part of formal dress.

In my "Naga" paper I looked at the power associated with the keris, and of course here we are talking of the pusaka keris, both royal and of a clan. Briefly it is the power to bond present custodian with past custodians and with the clan members of the present generation.A clan nexus if you will.

In the context of royal gift to a representative of the royal authority, it binds the king--- God's representative on earth--- to the minor ruler or governor, and the governed populace to the governor, and thus to the ruler. The ruler represents God, God is the cosmos, thus it bonds the lowliest subject to God. A bonding agent, thus a power object, and in a different dimension , representative of the Naga Basuki, and perhaps even holding the essence of the Naga Basuki.

The primary power of the keris is its binding character. Relate this to its acknowledged symbolic status as the symbol of masculinity. It is not difficult to understand why the keris became such a power object in old Jawa.

As Javanese society developed and absorbed differing influences, the original concepts associated with the keris mutated from the select knowledge held by the keris smiths and the religious leaders into folk beliefs. These folk beliefs have now replaced the original beliefs associated with the keris. Nothing strange about this:- time changes all things.

I don't think this is the place to produce a list of all the possibilities in respect of the power concept, nor the magic concept, but working from what I have written above, it is possible to find all of these answers in already published works.

[David]

Sorry if i was not clear enough Alan. I have no intention of leading this conversation it a jumbled mix of myth and legend with historical relativity. We are in complete agreement here. It may well be true that we might never be able to establish when this legend as we know it today took hold. I am not aware of any writings from the times that might help to nail this down, but i also do not know that such evidence does not exist. So i was just poising the question. Maybe someone else on this forum might have better knowledge as to when this legend was first written down.

[A. G. Maisey]

Understood David.

However, we would need to consider more than just when the Taming Sari story is first in hard copy.It would very probably have been a part of verbal tradition before it was ever recorded, and to nail that down would be more than a little difficult.

Legends, myths, folk stories, and most particularly the stories that a people tells to its children, are wonderful indicators of the values of a society, but I fear that they are not really of much use in historical inquiry. A social barometer if you will, rather than an historical one.

History itself is often open to question --- we all know all that "victors write the history books", which makes of history a set of beliefs agreed upon by most people, but a very great part of what we agree history to be can be proven to be fact. It is very often very difficult to find any fact at all in a folk tale.

[Jussi M.]

Mr. Maisey,

thank you for your explanation. As I am a mere simple man I like to keep things as simple as possible so that I can better understand them. The way you described the kerises role as a power object and a binding instrument sounds --- to me --- not much different from how the Crucifix was used and seen in ancient times amongst the true believers of Christianity. - Different culture yet fulfilling basically the same purpose within that culture.

Yes?

[A. G. Maisey]

Sorry Jussi, I cannot comment on that.

I understand some things : I do not understand other things.

Comparison between the role of the keris in Javanese society, and some Christian beliefs is beyond my ability.

[David]

Originally Posted by Jussi M.

Mr. Maisey,

thank you for your explanation. As I am a mere simple man I like to keep things as simple as possible so that I can better understand them. The way you described the kerises role as a power object and a binding instrument sounds --- to me --- not much different from how the Crucifix was used and seen in ancient times amongst the true believers of Christianity. - Different culture yet fulfilling basically the same purpose within that culture.

Yes?

Sorry Jussi, you lost me here. How would you say that the keris serves the same purpose in Indonesian cultures as the crucifix does in Christian societies?

[Rick]

Jussi,
I opine that we can see a good example of the keris as a power symbol in the sending of the keris(s)(?) and their bearers to Bali during Majapahit times .

See Margaret Weiner Visible and Invisible Realms

[Jussi M.]

Originally Posted by David

Sorry Jussi, you lost me here. How would you say that the keris serves the same purpose in Indonesian cultures as the crucifix does in Christian societies?

I said "fulfilling basically the same purpose". Key word here is basically.

If the keris in Java represents God it has basically the same purpose as the Crucifix or a cross in Christianity where it too is a symbol of God. Of course what is considered as the Nature of God differs but I am not talking about religion here - I am merely asking whether the keris had/has in it´s own cultural set the same purpose as the Crusifix or a cross had in it´s own cultural set.

Let´s concentrate on the cross. It has myriad of purposes that all apply to it varying from the circumstances and the person who is wearing it. - It is a symbol that joins people to a larger body or organization, thus belonging to a group that follow structured set of practices than reinforce the unifying core that brought those people together in the first place: common Faith. Thus the Cross acts as a binding instrument joining people together.

The cross hence has the power of differentiating people onto "us" and "outsiders", it also reinforces political and commanding power in the hands of the person who is working for the body described above (think equivalents of "Church", "Pope", "Cardinal", "Priest" etc.) and also shows and creates rank as the more meaningful the person in the organization the more expensive the Cross usually is. In this regard the cross acts as a tool for transferring perceived values from it to the bearer of it (eg. expensive Cross => person of power)...

I could go on with the various functions that a cross has or which can be attached to it in the cultural setting it is a relevant symbol in but the plot is already clear. - I am asking whether the keris, basically, function in the same manner and for the "same" purposes?

Now one thing I need to add on after reading your replies to my posting is the clarification of the terms I chose to use as I get the implication I have mismanaged to write clearly what I wanted to express. Here goes, please bear me

I am a Finn. English is not my native language. I am writing of a Javanese phenomena I know very little about to an international audience with different backgrounds. Add these variables to this equation of 1+1+1+1+1 and it becomes evident that some might get 4, some 6 and some something different. So, I feel I need to clarify what I meant.

In Finnish the word that means cross (risti) is used when speaking of any cross like in "crossroad" (risteys: +). In daily language when speaking about the cross (+) as a Christian symbol it is is used interchangeably with the word Crucifix (krusifiksi) which identifies were are not talking about just any cross like in "crossroad" but only of the symbol of Christianity - "the" cross. Depending on who is talking most of the time one just uses the common word for cross and it has to be deduced from the situation whether the talk is about just any cross like in "crossroad" or is the talk is about the cross as the symbol of Christianity. In the case someone chooses to use the specific word - Crucifix (krusifiksi) instead of the usual word cross (risti) one is emphasizing the fact that one is not talking about just any cross but the symbol of Christianity, the symbol which caries deep powers within and is a symbol of those powers.

As I was talking about symbols of power I chose to use the word Crucifix instead of cross because of my Finnish background and the difference in emphasis these two words (Crusifix vrs. cross) have in the culture I live in and am a part of.

Now... the Finnish word for the act of crucifixion (ristiinnaulitseminen = to nail on a cross) is referenced to the word that in Finnish mean just any cross (risti) like in "crossroads" instead of the word that is used when emphasizing that one is talking about the symbol of Christianity.

I wanted to explain this as I am just not aware of what kind of differences does the words Crucifix and cross bear in the ears of those of you who do not have Finnish backgrounds. To make it as clear as possible I am not drawing any similarities in between the keris or the act of Crucifixion. Nor do I want to draw any similarities in between Javanese culture or religions in Java to Christianity or any other religion for that matter. Religion is not the point here - the point is were/is the keris used or were it /is it attached with similar instrumental and/or symbolical loadings as the Crusifix/cross in Western Christian cultures and were/are they used on a similar way as tools for transferring perceived values, power and rank amongst the body of people who fall under its influence?

I hope I have made myself better understandable this time around. Sorry

Thanks,

J.

[David]

Thanks Jussi, i did understand you completely the first time. Though i can see why you have drawn this comparison i don't find it to be a particularly valid or compelling one and i think that if i were to use it to try to explain to a Christian who had no understanding of the keris what it's function was or is in Indonesian cultures it would be totally misleading.

[A. G. Maisey]

Jussi, English may not be your native language, but I assure you, you handle it beautifully, far better in fact than many native born Australians who are sufficiently educated to pursue a university education. There is very little defect in your English, and I believe that we understand you perfectly.

However, my personal problem with your analogy of cross (or crucifix) : keris, is that the cross is framed in a Christian setting, and the keris is framed in a Javanese setting. I have a limited understanding of the philosophies applied in both settings, and I cannot align one with the other.

Many years ago a professor of Chinese culture said to me that it was not possible to refer to a Chinese concept of "heaven", because the Chinese word that we translated into the Christian words (in western languages) as "heaven" had an entirely different meaning for Christians to the meaning for the Chinese of the Chinese word that we translated as "heaven". To understand this Chinese concept of "heaven" we in fact needed to be Chinese, or at least to learn the a Chinese language and understand the Chinese value system and philosophies.

You tell us that the cross (crucifix) is a symbol of God. Is it ?

For the sake of discussion let us agree that it is, but what was the early Christian concept of God?

Now, is the early Christian concept of God the same, or similar to the early Javanese concept of God?

The keris is not representative of the "God" concept, but rather representative of the binding power of the Naga Basuki, which is quite different to God. Most especially different to "God" in any sense that we can understand this idea within our western philosophical frame of reference.

To me, there is no similarity between the symbolism of the Christian cross and the nature of the keris. But perhaps this is because my understanding of the way in which the early Javanese people thought, and the way in which early Christians thought is very, very far from perfect.We are talking here about value systems and philosophies of two groups of people who existed far in the past. Present day Javanese do not have the same values nor world view as their 13th century forebears, present day Christians are very different to 5th century Christians.

Additionally, when we talk of keris symbolism, we need to clarify which persona of the keris we are talking about:- is it the keris in general, or the keris as pusaka?

In pre-Islamic Jawa the keris was first and foremost the symbol of the masculine.

However, when it was a royal gift it assumed a different character, and when it was a clan pusaka, the character was different again. When it existed as a royal pusaka, again the character it had was differrent to the character of other keris. But even as the royal keris pusaka it still symbolised the masculine.

But, did the 14th century Javanese farmer, or sailor, or thug consider that his personal keris was primarily a symbol, or did he consider it in a different light?

Jussi, we use words as the tool to move an idea from our own thoughts into the thoughts of somebody else. However, this will only work when both parties to the transaction of idea exchange possess the same words and the same frames of reference to enable them to understand the words used in the same way.

I'm sorry Jussi, but I lack the ability to align the symbolism of the Christian cross with the symbolism of the Javanese keris.


David , we're both on the same page.

But let's look at the question.

To establish when the Malay people first began to give purely magical properties to the keris, we need to examine Malay literature. I myself have only a passing knowledge of Malay literature, but I do know that we have a mention of Hang Tuah in the Sejarah Melayu, and I think that dates from the early 17th century.

Then we have the Hikayat Hang Tuah, and I believe that the earliest version of that dates from about 200 years ago.

We could perhaps start by looking at Sejarah Melayu and examining the way in which taming sari is mentioned in the earliest version of that work, that could then be compared with the mention in the earliest version of Hikayat Hang Tuah.

Let's say that we find taming sari mentioned in Sejarah, and let's say it has a full blown magical nature in that mention. That will establish that by the 1600's Malay people had already given the possibility of a magical nature to the keris.

But it does not establish when this began, only that it was in place by the 1600's.

Let's say that there is no mention of taming sari as a magical object in Sejarah, but there is in Hikayat.

This can be used to demonstrate that by the 1800's that magical nature was accepted, but it does not necessarily mean that such a nature did not exist in the 1600's.

As I said in a previous post, this would be a good topic for serious research. Such research would entail as a minimum the reading of all the works in Malay literature with a mention of both Hang Tuah, and taming sari, and that reading would need to be of the original texts, not translations nor transcriptions. Maybe there's a Phd there for somebody.

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Understood David.

However, we would need to consider more than just when the Taming Sari story is first in hard copy.It would very probably have been a part of verbal tradition before it was ever recorded, and to nail that down would be more than a little difficult.

Legends, myths, folk stories, and most particularly the stories that a people tells to its children, are wonderful indicators of the values of a society, but I fear that they are not really of much use in historical inquiry. A social barometer if you will, rather than an historical one.

History itself is often open to question --- we all know all that "victors write the history books", which makes of history a set of beliefs agreed upon by most people, but a very great part of what we agree history to be can be proven to be fact. It is very often very difficult to find any fact at all in a folk tale.

Well yes Alan, but i am not looking for any fact or historical accountability in the legend of Taming Sari. My question is not if this story really happened, but when the people started telling the story with a magickal element to it. I am just trying to see if it is possible that the idea of the magickal properties of the keris started at an early time in it's development than the 19th century. It may not be possible to nail this down at all without written evidence as i would think it would be impossible to verify how a legend was told at any given time in an oral tradition. But if there is an early written copy that might give us some ideas.