Origin of the keris

Rick · 18th August 2006, 01:42 AM

Interesting stuff Pusaka ; welcome back to the show !

You've been absent too long .

Any idea who the entity is wielding the K.L.O. ?

David · 18th August 2006, 03:22 AM

Sorry, i accidently posted under the wrong name as i don't intend to use two different monikers on this forum.

Anyway, hey Pusaka, welcome aboard. Any chance you can supply a close-up on the weapon in the first photo? If i try to blow it up it will just pixelize.
Rick...K.L.O.?

Rick · 18th August 2006, 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

Sorry, i accidently posted under the wrong name as i don't intend to use two different monikers on this forum.

Anyway, hey Pusaka, welcome aboard. Any chance you can supply a close-up on the weapon in the first photo? If i try to blow it up it will just pixelize.
Rick...K.L.O.?

Keris Like Object .

I suspect Pusaka found that online; what say you Pusaka ?
Any chance for a better (sharper) picture ?

David · 18th August 2006, 04:15 AM

Yes, certainly what would help determine whether it is more than just a K.L.O.

or a E.K.L.O (extremely keris-like object

) would be what happens at the base of the blade, which appears to be somewhat covered by the hand of the figure in this relief. Doubled edged daggers are quite a common occurrence. Hopefully a close up would tell more.

A. G. Maisey · 18th August 2006, 04:50 AM

Yes, this is a good graphic example of the line of descent of the keris.

A number of Indian swords as illustrated in Rawson (Library of Congress Cat Card:- 69-11144) display the symmetric blade base observed in the Karnataka relief shown by Pusaka.

A 5th. Century Gupta sword, 10-13th century Pala sword, various khandas including the Harasnath, the South Indian Madrasi swords---some even display a waved blade---the Orissan khanda; all these types shown by Rawson have some feature which can be seen as keris-like.

Older Indian swords tended to be shorter than the khandas I have mentioned, but the typology is still evident in these later, longer blades.

As I noted in my "Origin" article, the keris seems to be a descendant of the leaf shaped blades of India, which Rawson considers to be a "a common Aryan heritage of the Indo-Aryan peoples".

The Panataran relief showing a monkey warrior wielding a dagger with symmetric base is often distorted in published photographs by having the part of the blade where the gandik would be , shortened, or otherwise manipulated, to make it appear more keris-like.In fact, this Panataran representation shows a blade with a very symmetric base---which of course, makes it even more Indian.

There can be no doubt that the keris as we know it developed in Jawa, however, I think that there can be equally no doubt that it developed from Indian roots.

Pusaka · 18th August 2006, 12:30 PM

Hi guys, good to be back

Personally I find the depictions strikingly similar

David · 18th August 2006, 01:41 PM

Thanks for the better pictures Pusaka. Yes, i agree that they are strikingly similar and as Alan has stated, there is a strong line of development that seems to lead to a great influence from India. Generally, though, the keris as we know it is an asymmetric weapon while these are both fairly symmetric in form (the exception would be the keris sepang which is a relatively rare form and, i think, came a bit later in the evolution of the keris form). I think that most folks here probably buy into the concept of a strong Indian influence, though i would agree with Alan that the keris as we know it in it's asymmetric form probably developed in Jawa.

Pusaka · 18th August 2006, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

Any idea who the entity is wielding the K.L.O. ?

Sorry Rick, yes he is king vishnuvardhana.

Rick · 18th August 2006, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pusaka

Sorry Rick, yes he is king vishnuvardhana.

Thanks for the ID !
Say; do you have a copy of Hindu Arms and Ritual by Robert Elgood ?
Think about buying a copy .

Added any new keris to your collection ?

Battara · 18th August 2006, 09:43 PM

First, is the monkey with the blade Hanuman?

Secondly, Rick, you should get the Elgood book, it is great.

A. G. Maisey · 18th August 2006, 10:53 PM

I always thought he was Hanoman, but I`ve seen this same relief ---with the altered blade base, of course---in publications by people who know more about the literature than I do, describe him as just a "monkey warrior". I don`t think it makes much difference for our purposes whether it's Hanoman or or a warrior. Both monkeys. Both using weapons.

Rick · 18th August 2006, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Battara

First, is the monkey with the blade Hanuman?

Secondly, Rick, you should get the Elgood book, it is great.

I've got it Jose .

Pusaka · 18th August 2006, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

Thanks for the ID !
Say; do you have a copy of Hindu Arms and Ritual by Robert Elgood ?
Think about buying a copy .

Added any new keris to your collection ?

No I don’t have that book but will probably get round to buying it at some point.
I do have a few keris and will post a few pic`s when I get a new camera. The Camera I have at the moment is useless and I can’t seem to get any decent close up photos with it.

Rick · 19th August 2006, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pusaka

No I don’t have that book but will probably get round to buying it at some point.
I do have a few keris and will post a few pic`s when I get a new camera. The Camera I have at the moment is useless and I can’t seem to get any decent close up photos with it.

I can understand Pusaka; I have a Fuji F700 digi and sometimes I just cannot get decently focused pictures out of it .

I have a collection of Nikon film cameras that give me no problems; but digi's drive me crazy!!
I use mine at 1 meg per picture because really a computer screen only renders at 72 DPI; so what's the use of shooting at a higher res.
Frustrating !!

Have you downloaded irfanview ?
www.irfanview.com free !

Alam Shah · 19th August 2006, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

... I have a Fuji F700 digi and sometimes I just cannot get decently focused pictures out of it .

...but digi's drive me crazy!!
I use mine at 1 meg per picture because really a computer screen only renders at 72 DPI; so what's the use of shooting at a higher res.
Frustrating !!

Have you downloaded irfanview ?
www.irfanview.com free !

Gee.. Rick, I'm using a Fujifilm Finepix F700, too. Most of my pics are, OK except for a few, under certain conditions. Normally, I'll take a 3.2 megapixels pic and edit to get a sharper res. As for simple picture editing, I use Google's Picasa2, it's free too. http://picasa.google.com/download/index.html

A. G. Maisey · 19th August 2006, 04:10 AM

Hate digipics.

Hate digicams.

Hate the false focal length, which means that at 5'8'' I need to balance on an old paint tin to focus anything bigger than a Jawa keris.

Hate the indefinite focus.

Hate the time I have to spend with photoshop to produce anything like acceptable , fast download pics.

Hate the dust that can get attracted to guts of the thing if you change lens.

Hate the predicted short working life---still got and use my old Nikon F from 47 years ago---it still takes good pics and has been dropped, kicked, taken swimming lessons, and otherwise trashed. Two Nikon techos assure me that anything over five years out of my D70 is a gift from God.

Probably other things I hate about them too, just can`t think of anything else at the moment.

Nothing works like a macro lens for closeups.

The devil was at work when they invented digital cameras.

Pusaka · 19th August 2006, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

I can understand Pusaka; I have a Fuji F700 digi and sometimes I just cannot get decently focused pictures out of it .

I have a collection of Nikon film cameras that give me no problems; but digi's drive me crazy!!
I use mine at 1 meg per picture because really a computer screen only renders at 72 DPI; so what's the use of shooting at a higher res.
Frustrating !!

Have you downloaded irfanview ?
www.irfanview.com free !

The editing software I use came with the digital camera. The software itself is quite good with many features but sadly I can’t say the same for the camera.
I don’t think it’s a question of mega pixels because my digital camera is a 4 mega pixels camera with 6x digital zoom. That should be sufficient resolution to take a good photo however that is not the case.
I find that it is too sensitive to movement and if I want to take close up photos I have to rest my hand on something to make it really steady. Even if I manage to do this 8 out of 10 photos are not of a suitable quality.
Also I find it eats batteries like no tomorrow.
Taking a simple close-up photo has never been so difficult!
I think im better-off going back to “primitive” optics and to hell with this technological junk!

Rick · 19th August 2006, 01:48 PM

Jeepers !

I go off to bed here in New England and I wake up to a photo equipment discussion!

Might as well throw my two cents in here also; I like others here have a pair of early 1960's F's they; are unmetered old beasts and I have a hand held light meter . I've also got the large prism sports finder which some people I guess are willing to kill for . Also got that lovely micro-NIKKOR-P 3.5 lens that A.M. was raving about . Also got a N90s with a very large zoom for surf photography and an S just for sentimental reasons .

I guess I'll just have to keep practicing on my digi; I've read better instruction books though; it's just that it gives such immediate gratification when you want to throw a picture up on the forum . It seems mostly to be the mid range pictures that give me trouble with sharpness. Maybe I'll try upping my file size and see if that helps .

I wonder when they'll be coming to take away our film; most stuff for publication is digi these days.

18th August 2006, 12:30 PM	#6
Pusaka Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 341	Hi guys, good to be back Personally I find the depictions strikingly similar Attached Images

18th August 2006, 01:42 AM	#1
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,347	Interesting stuff Pusaka ; welcome back to the show ! You've been absent too long . Any idea who the entity is wielding the K.L.O. ?

18th August 2006, 03:22 AM	#2
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,228	Sorry, i accidently posted under the wrong name as i don't intend to use two different monikers on this forum. Anyway, hey Pusaka, welcome aboard. Any chance you can supply a close-up on the weapon in the first photo? If i try to blow it up it will just pixelize. Rick...K.L.O.?

18th August 2006, 04:15 AM	#4
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,228	Yes, certainly what would help determine whether it is more than just a K.L.O. or a E.K.L.O (extremely keris-like object ) would be what happens at the base of the blade, which appears to be somewhat covered by the hand of the figure in this relief. Doubled edged daggers are quite a common occurrence. Hopefully a close up would tell more.

18th August 2006, 04:50 AM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,047	Yes, this is a good graphic example of the line of descent of the keris. A number of Indian swords as illustrated in Rawson (Library of Congress Cat Card:- 69-11144) display the symmetric blade base observed in the Karnataka relief shown by Pusaka. A 5th. Century Gupta sword, 10-13th century Pala sword, various khandas including the Harasnath, the South Indian Madrasi swords---some even display a waved blade---the Orissan khanda; all these types shown by Rawson have some feature which can be seen as keris-like. Older Indian swords tended to be shorter than the khandas I have mentioned, but the typology is still evident in these later, longer blades. As I noted in my "Origin" article, the keris seems to be a descendant of the leaf shaped blades of India, which Rawson considers to be a "a common Aryan heritage of the Indo-Aryan peoples". The Panataran relief showing a monkey warrior wielding a dagger with symmetric base is often distorted in published photographs by having the part of the blade where the gandik would be , shortened, or otherwise manipulated, to make it appear more keris-like.In fact, this Panataran representation shows a blade with a very symmetric base---which of course, makes it even more Indian. There can be no doubt that the keris as we know it developed in Jawa, however, I think that there can be equally no doubt that it developed from Indian roots.

18th August 2006, 01:41 PM	#7
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,228	Thanks for the better pictures Pusaka. Yes, i agree that they are strikingly similar and as Alan has stated, there is a strong line of development that seems to lead to a great influence from India. Generally, though, the keris as we know it is an asymmetric weapon while these are both fairly symmetric in form (the exception would be the keris sepang which is a relatively rare form and, i think, came a bit later in the evolution of the keris form). I think that most folks here probably buy into the concept of a strong Indian influence, though i would agree with Alan that the keris as we know it in it's asymmetric form probably developed in Jawa.

18th August 2006, 09:43 PM	#10
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,308	First, is the monkey with the blade Hanuman? Secondly, Rick, you should get the Elgood book, it is great.

18th August 2006, 10:53 PM	#11
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,047	I always thought he was Hanoman, but I`ve seen this same relief ---with the altered blade base, of course---in publications by people who know more about the literature than I do, describe him as just a "monkey warrior". I don`t think it makes much difference for our purposes whether it's Hanoman or or a warrior. Both monkeys. Both using weapons.

19th August 2006, 04:10 AM	#16
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,047	Hate digipics. Hate digicams. Hate the false focal length, which means that at 5'8'' I need to balance on an old paint tin to focus anything bigger than a Jawa keris. Hate the indefinite focus. Hate the time I have to spend with photoshop to produce anything like acceptable , fast download pics. Hate the dust that can get attracted to guts of the thing if you change lens. Hate the predicted short working life---still got and use my old Nikon F from 47 years ago---it still takes good pics and has been dropped, kicked, taken swimming lessons, and otherwise trashed. Two Nikon techos assure me that anything over five years out of my D70 is a gift from God. Probably other things I hate about them too, just can`t think of anything else at the moment. Nothing works like a macro lens for closeups. The devil was at work when they invented digital cameras.

19th August 2006, 01:48 PM	#18
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,347	Jeepers ! I go off to bed here in New England and I wake up to a photo equipment discussion! Might as well throw my two cents in here also; I like others here have a pair of early 1960's F's they; are unmetered old beasts and I have a hand held light meter . I've also got the large prism sports finder which some people I guess are willing to kill for . Also got that lovely micro-NIKKOR-P 3.5 lens that A.M. was raving about . Also got a N90s with a very large zoom for surf photography and an S just for sentimental reasons . I guess I'll just have to keep practicing on my digi; I've read better instruction books though; it's just that it gives such immediate gratification when you want to throw a picture up on the forum . It seems mostly to be the mid range pictures that give me trouble with sharpness. Maybe I'll try upping my file size and see if that helps . I wonder when they'll be coming to take away our film; most stuff for publication is digi these days.