New Book?

[ganjawulung]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

I understand that you are a man who is well read in history. Consider for a moment the origin of the Malay people in Southern China, Yunnan. Consider the waves of migration which spread down through the Peninsula and into what is now known as the Indonesian Archipelago, but at one time was known as the Malay Archipelago.Consider that it is not so long ago that anthropologists lumped Polynesians and the peoples of South East Asia together, and called them Malayo Polynesian.

The Malay race is very wide spread and very diverse.

So, yes, these are weapons of the Malay Race, but most definitely they cannot all be considered as Malaysian weapons.

This is not a matter for opinion, rather it is a matter of definition in terms, and demonstrable fact.

Thank you, Alan for the explanation,
For me, it is still questionable, whether this "keris culture" originated from Malay culture alone (thus, if I follow your consideration), then it came from Malay people's culture in Southern China -- Yunnan province now -- or originally from Java but with Indian influence. Thus, it was local genius in Java who had invented it through many influences (still questionable, though) from India and also middle east (damascus steel, for instance).

Or maybe, the combination of both Malay culture and Indian-Javanese culture. The traces of this, you may look at javanese history and other past traces in Java.

In the past, there were very long power struggle, between the possibly "Malay dynasty" of Sailendras (Buddha) versus Sanjaya dynasty (Hindhu) before 10th century in Java. Culminated in the form of temples in central Java. In Prambananan, near Yogyakarta for instance, the Hindhu temples complex surrounded by budhist temples -- we call it "candi sewu" complex or "a thousand temples" complex.

The form of Sanjaya's temples and Sailendra's temples are uniquely javanese. As does keris form. There were influences from India (the motifs, the philosophy), but have original form of Java. And the Sailendras? The Angkor Wat temple in Cambodia, was built by the dynasty of Sailendra, after the Sailendras had built Borobudur temples in Magelang, Central Java before 10th century.

But, please, this is my humble speculation. But I do agree, some forms of kerises later, were Malay form -- mainly the Sumatran kerises...

GANJAWULUNG

[A. G. Maisey]

Please forgive me Pak Ganja, but I believe it is time to clarify the essence of this discussion.

Your original question was this:-

"Do you think that Sumatran keris, Bugis Keris, Cirebonese keris, Javanese kerises they are Malay weapons?"

To answer this question one must first define what is meant by "Malay".

You did not define this, however, in my response to your question I did define "Malay" as meaning "The Malay People".

The Malay People originated in Yunnan Province in Southern China and began their migration into the Malay Peninsula and the Indonesian Archipelago between 2500 and 1500 BC. The waves of Malay migration spread across the Pacific Ocean to the Phillipines, Borneo, what is now Indonesia, the coast of New Guinea, and to Madagascar.

The Malay People are very wide spread, and the peoples of the Indonesian Archipelago are classified as of Malay stock.

I am not positing my own opinion here, but simply repeating what can be found in encyclopaedias and text books.

Thus, people from Sumatra, Sulawesi, and Jawa can all be classified as being of Malay stock, even though that Malay blood is something from ancient history.

This being so --- and it is so --- these forms of keris can be legitimately referred to as "Malay weapons", that is, weapons of the Malay peoples.

Not Malaysians, but people who can claim descent from those immigrants from Yunnan of several thousand years ago.

As for origin of the keris, there can be no doubt at all that it originated in Jawa. Yes, there were inputs from various other sources, but the modern keris that we recognise today did originate in Jawa. If there is a solid argument accompanied by evidence to the contrary, I would love to hear it.

I fail to grasp the relevance a recitation of kings, kingdoms, and temples to an understanding of what the term "Malay" means.

In the book title in question, the writer has clearly intended the term"Malay" to be understood in the scholarly sense of reference to a race of people, rather than in the colloquial sense of our modern understanding a "Malay" person as an adherent of what we regard as "Malay Culture".