The Keris of Majapahit

[rasdan]

Well, I don’t have much apart from what I read here previously Alan. What I know is that Majapahit is a hierarchical society. So status is probably reflected in objects they carried daily.

In your Pre-Islamic Interpretation paper, you mentioned that the number of tiers in Balinese temples reflects the level of the deity worshipped in the temple. More tiers showing the higher level of the diety. The number of tier happens to corresponds to the number of luks on a keris where 11 luk is the highest level if we count the luk in the smith’s way of making the luk. I think this is highly possible and I would imagine that the mantra for every luk is different. In this case, a commoner probably was only allowed to carry a straight blade. If the blades observed by Ma huan have luks, he would certainly mention it because it is a very important feature for a keris.

In Ma Huan’s journal he used the word pu-la’tao for keris. If I’m not mistaken, in Negarakertagama a different word was used for what is probably a keris. But it is not keris, dhuwung or curiga. (I am not too sure about this as I didn’t really study it throughly) Negarakertagama was written somewhere in the 1360 not too far from Ma Huan’s record in early 1400s. So, I am guessing they are using different name for different level of keris. A commoner keris is a pu-la’tao and at keris of nobles or priests are called with a different name – if what they carry is indeed a keris.

[Gustav]

Originally Posted by rasdan

If the blades observed by Ma huan have luks, he would certainly mention it because it is a very important feature for a keris.

I agree.

Originally Posted by rasdan

In Ma Huan’s journal he used the word pu-la’tao for keris. If I’m not mistaken, in Negarakertagama a different word was used for what is probably a keris. But it is not keris, dhuwung or curiga. (I am not too sure about this as I didn’t really study it throughly) Negarakertagama was written somewhere in the 1360 not too far from Ma Huan’s record in early 1400s. So, I am guessing they are using different name for different level of keris. A commoner keris is a pu-la’tao and at keris of nobles or priests are called with a different name – if what they carry is indeed a keris.

Interesting idea, yet here we have a problem or a bunch of problems: Ma Huan introduces pu-la’tao describing kings appearance, not commoners, and speaks of "one or two short knives", which the king wears.

Of course we could argue, Ma Huan never made it behind the "double gates, very well kept and clean". If he wasn't acquainted with the high society of Majapahit, he also wouldn't know the term for the "knife" used in highest language level. He absolutely doesn't mention the varna, yet on other hand describes the hilts of pu-la’tao as made from "gold or rhinoceros’ horn or elephants’ teeth". As we know, gold and ivory was later in Bali reserved for the upper varna.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks for your further comment Rasjid.

Yes, the number of tiers in the roof of a meru indicates the hierarchical level of the deity, however, this only applies when the meru is located in a temple complex. When the tiered roof is located on a cremation tower, the number of tiers indicates the hierarchical level of the person being cremated.

Rulers and some other royalty could use 11 roofs in a cremation tower.

A commoner (sudra) was not entitled to any roofs in his cremation tower.

This hierarchical indicator was repeated in the luk of a keris blade.

In Old Javanese, the word or words that were applied to what we now know as a keris included "tewek" and "tuhuk", however, these words probably indicated a method of usage.Tewek occurs associated with weapons other than keris, tuhuk seems to occur only with the keris, or perhaps not with the keris, but rather with a stabbing weapon that is short enough to use overhand.

Other Old Javanese words that can be used for the keris are "duhung" & "kadgo". Tewek is a root word that produces a number of other words. "Curiga" is another word that can be used for a keris, and it has a connotation of something less than sharp --- just as in its other application of "doubt" :- doubt is not a sharp perception, it is still formatively dull.

The short and simple fact is this:- we do not really know what a keris was known as in Majapahit times, just as we do not really know what it looked like. However, Rasdan's suggestion that different hierarchical levels within the society carried different forms of personal weapons, and that these different forms had different names is very probably an accurate perception.

Gustav: there has been spasmodic debate for a long time as to the meaning of Ma Huan's "pu-la’tao", I think most scholars who have looked at this matter are in agreement that he was using a word that he had learnt in another place to describe the daggers worn in Jawa. Ma Huan visited Jawa in about 1413, but he did not begin the write drafts of his book until three years later, and it was not in its final form until some time after 1450. My guess is that he did not know what these daggers worn in Jawa were known as locally, or, if he had heard the word, it got lost between 1413 and 1450-something.

Old Javanese was not structured in the same way as Modern Javanese. Modern Javanese seems to have developed in the Second Kingdom of Mataram. It has been hypothesised that the rulers of Mataram enforced language levels as one of the ways in which they tried to legitimise their right to rule. The Old Javanese rulers did not have the same problems as did the rulers of Mataram, and Old Javanese was not nearly as highly structured as Modern Javanese. There probably were polite and impolite forms of speech, and possibly these forms did extend to the names used for the weapons of commoners and the weapons of nobility, but the name used could just as easily been because of form of the weapon, as because of status of the weapon.

On the use of the word "varna".
"Varna" is a word that is applied to all beings in creation , not only to human beings, and it classifies all those beings into four classes that broadly equate with caste as we now understand caste, but varna is not the same as "caste".

"Jati" is the same as "caste" as we now understand it.

However, caste in mainstream Hindu society was much different prior to the Muslim Mughals, and even they did not have as great an effect as did the British, who used caste to ease administrative difficulties.

I would suggest that since we are writing in English, that perhaps it may be advisable to use the English word caste, rather than "varna", or "jati", as we all know exactly what is meant by "caste".

[rasdan]

Hi Gustav, I think Ma Huan did know the higher society, he just didn't get to inspect higher ranking keris. Probably he sees lower officials keris. People at his level; people that he can be easily approach and ask to see their keris.

In the code of Melaka (probably around 1450s) it is stated that keris with gold hilts were prohibited to be used by lower ranking people unless it is a gift from the king. I don't know how the people at that time divide the ranking, but a later document shows that the ranking used in a Malay kingdom is quite complicated and probably derived from the caste system.

Apart from the clear cut kshatriya, vaisya, sudra etc they also have people in middle ranks. When a kshatriya married a vaisya, sudra etc. If i remembered correctly one of the middle ranks are called magadha (Megat in Malay) and there are other lower middle ranks also. If the Malay ranking system are derived from the caste system, I think that Majapahit also would have something similar. So perhaps Ma Huan meets these people? Again, if it is indeed a keris. Or probably he just sees a badik..

But come to think about it, this would confine the usage of luk keris to a very small group that is also can be argued.

On ivory, I am not aware of any prohibitions of using ivory for lower ranks/commoner whether in Majapahit or Melaka.

p/s: just saw Alan's comment on varna. Changed it to caste.

[rasdan]

G'day Alan,

Thank you for your explanation Alan. Just one question, do you know when does the word keris actually started to be used?

Guys,

This is rather silly, but I just thought that if Ma Huan really inspects a keris to a point that he sees the pamor, even if it is a straight one, wouldn't he be mentioning that the blade is asymmetrical and it has ganja? Apart from the luk, asymmetry and ganja also is features of a keris that cannot be ignored.

[A. G. Maisey]

Rasdan, I don't think we can know with any certainty when the word "keris" first was used, but it does appear in Old Javanese, along with other derivatives of "iris":- aniris, iniris, kahiris, mengiris; and we can go this route too:- akris, aniris, kinris, aneris. Seems to me that "keris", or "kris" was a very old word:- something that cuts.

Re Ma Huan's observation of a pu-la’tao, yes, just mention of the result of blade made of irons of varying characteristics is not really sufficient to brand a pu-la’tao as a keris, this is the reason why there has been debate over a lengthy period as to whether he really did see a keris as we know it, or whether he saw a personal dagger of a different kind, however, what he saw may well have been known as a keris at that time. We simply do not and cannot know.


Rasdan, I feel that it is entirely possible that within Majapahit Keraton society, only the ksatriyas would have had the right to carry keris. Others of lower rank may have been permitted to carry formalised tools, for instance wedung, but unless a lower ranked official was a ksatriya I feel it is unlikely that this official would have had a keris.

We must also not lose sight of the fact that any person within keraton society would not, and will not whip out his keris to let another unknown person inspect it. The keris amongst the higher ranks at this time, and even until today, had and has the status of a holy and respected object, it is not for casual inspection.

Personally, I do not believe that Ma Huan would have had the opportunity to see a noble keris, not even from a distance. The hilt, certainly, but the keris itself, no.

The possession of keris with luk was of course confined to a very small number of people prior to the use of the keris, along with other Javanese icons, to assist in the spread of Islam.

[Gustav]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

We must also not lose sight of the fact that any person within keraton society would not, and will not whip out his keris to let another unknown person inspect it. The keris amongst the higher ranks at this time, and even until today, had and has the status of a holy and respected object, it is not for casual inspection.

This is why I think, the role of Keris Luk as a status indicator for somebody other then oneself would be difficult or nearly impossible. It would never be meant do draw outside of Keraton, and I believe, there would be very severe restrictions about drawing it within Keraton, where the most people anyway should be aware of other peoples rank.

This is why the hilt form and/or material makes a better status indicator, like in Bali.

Alan, one question regarding Keris Luk (in general the theory seems to be very plausible to me): there are some very old Keris with Luk only at the base of blade and the tip. Do you have an explanation for these forms?

[A. G. Maisey]

Gustav, I don't really want to repeat everything that I have written in "Interpretation", I began this thread not to parade my own ideas, but rather to hear the ideas and opinions of others. May I gently suggest that you re-read my rationale in respect of luk as related to hierarchical status? Incidentally, this was not something that came to me as revelation out of a clear blue sky, it was given to me by a Balinese Brahman around 30-odd years ago, however, I must admit I did not understand sufficient at the time to fully comprehend what was told to me, it took a while for my informant's words to become clear to me.

Yes, a keris hilt can also indicate status, as can any number of other dress indicators, body language indicators, or language indicators, but there is nothing like the constant presence of one's personal shrine to remind a man who he is and what his position is. The necessity was to control the man who wore the keris, not to indicate that man's status to others. By inclusion of religious iconography the keris became a personal shrine.

No Gustav, I have no comment at all to make at this time on the further development of the keris that followed the initial introduction of religious icons into its character.