What is the relationship between a keris and its hilt in the ancient culture?

A. G. Maisey · 1st January 2011, 02:00 AM

Neo, you have specified a particular period in your question, and for this period it is probable that no answer can be given that could be supported.

The history of the keris extends over a period greater than 1000 years.

Even if we limit our enquiries to early Jawa/Bali a number of possible answers can apply.

For instance, in the Sang Hyang Siksakandang Karesian manuscript from 16th century Sunda weapons are categorised according to whether one is a noble, a farmer, or a priest. Only the nobles had kerises, and the dewa that applied to a nobles weapon was a raksasa, because these weapons were used to kill; a farmers weapons dewa was Detya because the farmer provided sustenance; a priests weapons dewa was Danawa.

At other times and in other places the relationship between the hilt and the blade can differ.

When we consider a later period, and we look at , say, Ganesha as a hilt figure, that does not mean that Ganesha is actually in the hilt, nor in the blade. In Bali-Hindu thought a figure of a dewa is only a recepticle for the dewa to occupy if the dewa is called and chooses to come. In fact, the place for the dewa to occupy need not necessarily be in the form of the dewa, the form given is only to help the human mind concentrate on that entity. When the mind is sufficiently advanced, no figure nor point of reference is required.

My earlier post indicating a protective function is probably accurate, but only in one context.

Many possibilities, very few certainties.

1st January 2011, 02:00 AM	#11
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,056	Neo, you have specified a particular period in your question, and for this period it is probable that no answer can be given that could be supported. The history of the keris extends over a period greater than 1000 years. Even if we limit our enquiries to early Jawa/Bali a number of possible answers can apply. For instance, in the Sang Hyang Siksakandang Karesian manuscript from 16th century Sunda weapons are categorised according to whether one is a noble, a farmer, or a priest. Only the nobles had kerises, and the dewa that applied to a nobles weapon was a raksasa, because these weapons were used to kill; a farmers weapons dewa was Detya because the farmer provided sustenance; a priests weapons dewa was Danawa. At other times and in other places the relationship between the hilt and the blade can differ. When we consider a later period, and we look at , say, Ganesha as a hilt figure, that does not mean that Ganesha is actually in the hilt, nor in the blade. In Bali-Hindu thought a figure of a dewa is only a recepticle for the dewa to occupy if the dewa is called and chooses to come. In fact, the place for the dewa to occupy need not necessarily be in the form of the dewa, the form given is only to help the human mind concentrate on that entity. When the mind is sufficiently advanced, no figure nor point of reference is required. My earlier post indicating a protective function is probably accurate, but only in one context. Many possibilities, very few certainties.