How to read a greneng

[A. G. Maisey]

Johan, we can see that in the keris as it is now, and during the period following the rule of Sultan Agung, there are many variations in the way in which the greneng is expressed, so yes, when I say "other elements" I mean anything and everything that can be found in a greneng that is other than just the ron dha.

In post #18 I qualified my remarks in para.1, so anything I say in this discussion must be understood as being only applicable within the identified context.

In post #18, para.2 I identified these "other elements" as being associated with development in an environment that was no longer Buddhist-Hindu, or if preferred, Hindu-Buddhist or Javanese Hindu, being a synthesis of Hindu, Buddhist and indigenous religious and spiritual beliefs.

Thus, when I read the sorsoran as "aum, Ganesha, Siwa, aum" I am of course reading that within the Javanese -Hindu context.

You ask if we can assume that "om" was inferred in those cases where the ron dha does not appear as a jenggot. Frankly, I am not prepared to assume this, as I believe the inclusion of the ron dha preceding the kembang kacang was a later development. My attitude to this would be that where the ron dha read as "om" appears it is intended, where it does not appear, it is not intended.

(yes, I have spelt "om" as "aum", "aum" seems to be the preferred Roman textualisation of "om" within the Indonesian Hindu community)

In any religion, or any system that embraces religious beliefs, there can be many variations in what is held to be the correct way in which to do anything, including the observation of prayer.

When we present a hypothesis about anything at all, it is perhaps best only to base that hypothesis upon ideas that can be supported by evidence in one form or another, it is probably never a good idea to attach our own unsupported "good ideas" to anything.

This we can say with relative certainty:- many of the Vedas commence with om, and probably most Brahmins commence most mantras and prayers with om. However, in Javanese-Hindu belief we are dealing not with mainline Vedic beliefs, but with Shivaism and Tantrism, thus the question arises:- was it correct in 14th century Jawa to commence all mantras, all prayers with "om"?

I do not know, however, if we recognise that the iconography of the keris is in one interpretation Shivatic in nature, then everything that adorns the keris is an addition to that overarching symbol of Siwa. The keris itself when understood in the context of Shivaism is an icon of Siwa. But as we know, Javanese symbolism is multi symbolism, so the keris can also be understood as the Gunungan, and other things will flow from that interpretation.

To return to the iconography of Siwa, from "Interpretation ---":-

"--- The worship of Ganesha is regarded as a part of the worship of other deities; most Hindus commence their prayers with a prayer to Ganesha. Ganesha is one of the five major deities, and the worship of Ganesha has formed a part of the worship of Siwa since at least the 5th century.---"

Thus, the Shivatic iconography can only be read from left to right, in the same way that Javanese text can only be read from left to right.


The keris with no ron dha, no kembang kacang, no added characteristics at all is still a symbol of Siwa, and as such can initiate a prayer addressed to Siwa, just as a cross can initiate a prayer to Christ. However, with the addition of other symbols to the foundation symbol of the keris, the religious intent is intensified.

For example, the sogokan is also a symbol of Siwa, so when the sogokan is added to a keris, this extends a reading of the keris itself to be understood as Gunungan symbolism, but with Siwa included as the sogokan. Of course, a prayer to Siwa is opened by a prayer to Ganesha, and om completes, and sometimes opens that prayer.

But even when the keris is read as a Gunungan, this does not remove Siwa from the understanding, because the Gunungan is itself to be understood not only in reference to indigenous ancestor worship, but as symbolic also of the Gods and especially as Siwa.

I did try to get most of that which I have written above into "Interpretation ---", please accept my apologies if I have failed to do so.

[A. G. Maisey]

Jean, yes, I can understand the point you are making. However, when I used the term "common knowledge", I was guilty of seeing this information that I presented not from the perspective of a collector of keris in the world outside Central Jawa, but from my own perspective which is to say, a view of the keris that has been formed very much by Central Javanese influence. I cannot think of one keris conscious person whom I have ever known or met in Central Jawa who was not totally aware of the concepts, although not perhaps of the details or interpretations, incorporated into that which I set forth.

In respect of EK and KJ, I really do not want to comment in detail on either of these publications, or on their authors, except to say that the content of these books, and the expertise of their authors was perhaps not held in quite the same esteem amongst many of the old school ahli keris whom I have known, as it is held by present day collectors in general.

It is just a matter of levels of knowledge, or perhaps more correctly, levels of belief. As you know, I am fond of drawing religious parallels with keris "knowledge", and I will do so again here. The Pope in Rome will have a higher, and perhaps variant understanding of some things than will his cardinals and bishops, the cardinals and bishops will be at a variant level of understanding to that of the ordinary clergy, and the congregation, the ordinary followers of the faith will have very little true understanding at all.

In fact, in the long past it was not considered necessary for the followers of the Faith to have any understanding at all, services were held in Latin, and a little bell was rung so that the congregation would know when to say "Amen". The followers were simply supposed to do what their betters told them to do, they were insufficiently spiritually advanced to understand even the lowest level of knowledge.

It is really no different with the keris. We are all given understanding in accordance with our need for understanding and our ability to understand.

[Johan van Zyl]

Thank you Alan and all other participants in this fascinating thread. I would have liked to see some more relevant pics, but I must say I am very much satisfied with the information given. Your trouble to supply same is greatly appreciated.

Johan

[Gustav]

[QUOTE=A. G. Maisey]

Johan, we can see that in the keris as it is now, and during the period following the rule of Sultan Agung, there are many variations in the way in which the greneng is expressed, so yes, when I say "other elements" I mean anything and everything that can be found in a greneng that is other than just the ron dha.

QUOTE]

What are the "other elements" found in a Greneng?

Does a feature some call Ri Pandan (I mean here the first "hook" from above, when Greneng is extern) belong to the "other elements"?

Is the Greneng variation as found on Keris with Dhapur Megantoro, and also other Keris, a later (post Sultan Agung) development in your oppinion?

[QUOTE=A. G. Maisey]

(...) as I believe the inclusion of the ron dha preceding the kembang kacang was a later development.

QUOTE]

Alan, what leads to think you so?

How much later?

[A. G. Maisey]

Interesting questions Gustav.

I would ask you to bear one thing in mind:- at this time I am not prepared to comment on anything that is outside the context of Hindu-Buddhist Javanese society and the keris within that system.

The other elements that can be found in a greneng are many and varied, if we consider the page of greneng forms that was taken from KJ, what we can see is that in every example where the ron dha appears the ron dha form is Surakarta. When did each of these greneng forms first appear? I don't know. When did the keris dhapurs that support these greneng forms first appear? I don't know. In the case of some dhapurs keris belief attaches the name of a ruler to the creation of the dhapur, so from this it might seem possible to estimate a date when a particular dhapur first came into being, and thus to be able to say that such & such a greneng appeared at that time. But as we know, even when we have the name of a ruler in Old Jawa, we do not necessarily know exactly who that ruler is, nor when he ruled, or even if he was a real ruler, or a ruler from literature.

Now, you have raised the question of the "greneng variation in megantara". Precisely what variation do you mean Gustav? From memory, dhapur megantara is not included in the Surakarta pakem. I'm pretty sure that it is in EK, and it is in KJ, but again working only with memory, neither of these sources get into much detail in respect of greneng composition. So, megantara is supposed to have exactly what elements included in the greneng? Well, going on the KJ drawing, there are two ron dha, one can probably be read as Jenggolo, but the other is Surakarta.

I think that the Surakarta Pakem does record a dhapur megantoro for tombak, but I'm relatively certain that it does not include a dhapur megantoro for keris (I'll check this as soon as I can). So --- why?

This is fertile ground for good ideas. But you can count me out.

There are a number of dates that can be justified for the termination of Hindu-Buddhist society in Jawa. Arguments can be constructed to support whatever date suits one best, but my personal choice is 1525. Its as good as any other date, and probably better than most.

Pre-1525 the keris was a prerogative of court nobles. It had a purpose and a meaning within court society. Court style was copied by merchants along the North Coast, and this imitation of court dress and behaviours extended to wear of the keris. We do not, to my knowledge, have any keris from Jawa that pre-date the collapse of the Kingdom of Mojopahit, thus all the early Javanese keris that we can examine come from a time when the keris had become something that was available to anybody who could pay the price. That price did not include lessons in Hindu-Buddhist belief systems for Muslim merchants. This was the time when the keris began a new stage of development.

If we consider the tuah of a keris dhapur, we will find that very often a dhapur is associated with a profession. Farmers, merchants, civil servants, and so on all have available to them specific dhapurs that carry a tuah suited to their profession.

However, the nature of Hindu-Buddhist court society was such that the caste entitled, and in fact probably compelled to carry the keris was the k'satriya caste. Considering the nature of Javanese court society prior to 1525, it seems to be highly unlikely that farmers and merchants would have appeared at court wearing a keris. So we are left with the proposition that the bulk of dhapurs that existed at the beginning of the 20th century were for the most part created during the time when Jawa was under Muslim influence.

It was once suggested to me by a person whom I am unwilling to name, that in fact much of both keris form and keris belief developed because of a reaction by the Javanese aristocracy against European domination. I am not yet ready to completely support this opinion, but it certainly does have much to recommend it.

Gustav, you have asked why I am inclined to believe that the ron dha as jenggot was something that was included in keris symbolism, and when. Taken in context what I wrote was this:-

"You ask if we can assume that "om" was inferred in those cases where the ron dha does not appear as a jenggot. Frankly, I am not prepared to assume this, as I believe the inclusion of the ron dha preceding the kembang kacang was a later development. My attitude to this would be that where the ron dha read as "om" appears it is intended, where it does not appear, it is not intended."

My response was to Bjorn's question:-

"Reading a mantra across the sorsoran certainly seems appropriate in the context of Majahapit times. And the mantra om ganesha siwa om seems logical when a jenggot is present.
However, in many cases there is no jenggot. Can we assume that it would then be implied?"

Let us never forget that the spiritual iconography of the keris exists even in a keris with no additional symbols at all. Even in the most plain form of keris the symbolism of Siwa and the Gunungan is present, but if we pray to Siwa we open our prayer with a prayer to Ganesha, thus Ganesha symbolism is logically the first additional enhancement, then the sogokan is included to permit an icon of Siwa to appear within a representation of the Gunungan.

It is not mandatory for the mantra 'om' to be used in every mantra, in every prayer, by all members of all the variations of the Hindu belief system. The nature of Hindu belief in Jawa was Shiviatic and Tantric, it was not Vedic. However, once the related symbolism of Siwa and Ganesha are in place it would be seen as appropriate to turn simple symbolism into a prayer. This is what I mean by "later". All the enhancements associated with the keris that can be read iconographically were products of development. Development takes time. The question remains of how much time. I believe that the symbolism that can clearly be read as Hindu-Buddhist symbolism was mostly completed by the time of the later migrations from East Jawa to Bali.

Why do I believe this? Because those Hindu-Buddhist symbols also appear in Balinese keris. It is not realistic to believe that enhancements developed under Islam were included in the Balinese keris.

[Gustav]

Alan, thank you for your response.

With Greneng of Megantoro I mean a variation of Greneng, as seen on this blade, which possibly is the best preserved M in existence.

Another, perhaps somewhat related Greneng variation is found on Dresden Inv. Nr. 2895.

Also on this blade with replaced Gonjo (so only the Greneng part on blade itself is of importance). Because of the style of Kinatah and Blumbangan I think it is quite older then Sultan Agung.

Of course these all could be younger forms of Greneng (younger then 1525, but barely made after, say, end of 17th cent.), I never (until now) have seen these variations on Keris Bali, also no Megantoro there.

Regarding Jenggot, I probably have misunderstood you. I suppose, if an early Keris had Kembang Kacang and Greneng, there almost automatically was also Jenggot on KK, mirroring the Greneng (the only exeptions I can think of would be Sempana type blades, but I have seen better preserved specimens with small Jenggot).

[Marcokeris]

Originally Posted by Gustav

Alan, thank you for your response.

With Greneng of Megantoro I mean a variation of Greneng, as seen on this blade, which possibly is the best preserved M in existence.

Another, perhaps somewhat related Greneng variation is found on Dresden Inv. Nr. 2895.

Also on this blade with replaced Gonjo (so only the Greneng part on blade itself is of importance). Because of the style of Kinatah and Blumbangan I think it is quite older then Sultan Agung.

Of course these all could be younger forms of Greneng (younger then 1525, but barely made after, say, end of 17th cent.), I never (until now) have seen these variations on Keris Bali, also no Megantoro there.

Regarding Jenggot, I probably have misunderstood you. I suppose, if an early Keris had Kembang Kacang and Greneng, there almost automatically was also Jenggot on KK, mirroring the Greneng (the only exeptions I can think of would be Sempana type blades, but I have seen better preserved specimens with small Jenggot).

stunning!!

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for posting this photo Gustav, here we have a very good example of what happened when the keris became profane under Islam.

In this keris that you have posted a photo of, we cannot comment on the greneng, because of the replaced gonjo, we can only comment on the ron dha nunut.

The enhancements that occupy the place of the ron dha nunut and jenggot on this blade are very clearly not related in any way to the ron dha of the early Modern Keris within Hindu-Buddhist society. This was one of the things that happened when the keris was adopted for wear by people who did not understand the cultural significance of the keris, nor its symbolism --- or perhaps they did understand, and intentionally moved away from this. Let us not forget that Demak was established by a prince of Majapahit.

I agree that this keris you have shown us is probably older than the first half of the 17th century. This is a North Coast blade, very possibly classifiable as Banten, and it demonstrates very nicely the point that I made in respect characteristics associated with the Hindu-Buddhist belief system, however, those features in this keris have been distorted.

Dresden 2895 can be seen in Jensen's Kris Disk, chapter 3, page 22. This kris has its original gonjo and is an excellent example of the early Modern Keris under Islam. Jensen measured it as 41.8cm, I measured it at 42.4cm. It has a single front sogokan and in respect of the greneng and ron dha, I noted that they were "very confused". In any case Dresden 2895 is a big keris, in the hand it is very similar to a Bali keris.

This confusion in the formation of the ron dha and greneng is not uncommon in keris from this period. We can only guess why this happened, it could have been intention on the part of either the person who ordered the keris, or of the maker, as a movement away from Hindu-Buddhist symbolism, or it could have simply been a lack of knowledge of the true form required. In any case this distortion of the ron dha is not uncommon and Gustav has given us a very good example of it.

These corruptions of form are most definitely not younger forms of keris enhancement. They are clearly, obviously and logically demonstrable corruptions. They do not appear in the Bali keris, and that tells us exactly what they are.

There is a slight problem with the naming of Gustav's example as dhapur megantoro, but this is not really an issue, its just a name.

Gustav, in respect of this statement:-

"--- if an early Keris had Kembang Kacang and Greneng, there almost automatically was also Jenggot on KK, mirroring the Greneng (the only exeptions I can think of would be Sempana type blades, but I have seen better preserved specimens with small Jenggot).---"

I do not accept that there was any "automatic" inclusion of the RD as jenggot in pre-1525 keris. There was absolutely no need to always, automatically include the RD to be read as "aum" in this position. Sometimes it was there, sometimes not. There may have been socio-cultural reasons for inclusion, there may not have been. At this time I am not prepared to hypothesise on the presence or absence of the RD as "aum" preceding the KK as Ganesha.

In my post #18 I said this:-

" Johan, any remarks I may make in respect of ron dha, greneng and keris iconography in general are to be understood only within the context of the Pre-Islamic Javanese keris and/or the Balinese keris."

Gustav has drawn me away from my commitment to keep my comments restricted to the Hindu-Buddhist context, but I feel that this momentary divergence was justified because Gustav was kind enough to give us such a beautiful example of the corruption of symbolism under Islam. I'm not prepared to go any further down this Islamic track at the moment.

[Gustav]

Alan,

regarding the Greneng variation I presented, I don't think it is as simple as "They are clearly, obviously and logically demonstrable corruptions. They do not appear in the Bali keris, and that tells us exactly what they are". This Greneng appears on a very small number of Keris, and they all are older then first half of 17th cent. After that this variation disappears. Speaking of myself, I haven't seen many Keris from Bali, which could be somewhat supportably datable as older then perhaps 18th cent. We have much less reasoned to say on subject older Keris in Bali then we have regarding older Keris in Java - and that isn't much.

This variation of Greneng clearly don't fit in your hypothesis, but I am not sure, if it is a reason enough to deem it as a corruption from Islamic period.

It consists of two identical elements with a Ron Dha in the middle. That element is repeated on Jenggot. Stylistically I don't see any confusion there.

That variation we also see on a Keris from Munich Inv. Nr. Gr. 598, which is much less known, because Jensen probably wasn't aware of its existence. The age of blade is, as always debatable, but I have difficulties to see the hilt of it in an Islamic Kontext.

Regarding my use of word "automatically" regarding the parallel use of Greneng and Jenggot, I am aware, it also doesn't fit in your hypothesis. I for myself wanted to express with it my oppinion, which is adeqately supported by Keris from early collections as material evidence, that there is no KK without Jenggot on old, well preserved Keris, except perhaps Sempana in some cases. If we speak about a corruption during the period following the rule of Sultan Agung you mention in #21, KK without Jenggot is one indeed.