Greneng

[A. G. Maisey]

As I remarked in my previous post, we have wandered away from the spirit of the original question .

Yes, "greneng" does mean to grumble,yes, we can find other words in modern Javanese that contain the syllable "dha", however, as far as I can ascertain, the word "greneng" did not exist in Old Javanese. Those with knowledge in the field of Javanese linguistics tell us that up until the time of Mataram the language spoken in Jawa was more akin to Old Javanese than to Modern Javanese.If we can accept that the greneng and ron dha were in existence prior to Mataram, then I believe we must also accept that greneng as a name for this feature is one which has come into usage since the 17th century.

Based upon the fact that the greneng can be found in keris originating in areas to which it spread during the Majapahit era, it is a reasonable assumption that the greneng did exist prior to Mataram.

The question has been raised as to whether the kembang kacang is a product of form following function.
Why stop at the kembang kacang?
Why not ask if all features to be found in the modern keris are a product of form following function?
My answer to this would be that yes, of course they are.
But the question remains:- what was that function?

I have already said:-

"I am of the opinion that the greneng, and its integral parts, were added to the keris to satisfy a percieved need associated with its function as something other than a weapon.

So yes, form does follow function, but the function of the keris at the time the greneng was added to it had already begun to move from that of a simple weapon."

David has said a similar thing using different words:-

"--- that function need not be a physically one."

Thus, my answer to the question of whether the ricikan of a keris were put in place for a specific reason, to serve a specific function, must be that most definitely they were.

But what was that function?

How can we begin to even consider a rational answer to this question when there is as yet no clear answer to the nature of the keris from the point where it began to develop into the modern keris?

In respect of the keris in pre-Islamic Jawa we have a number of barely grasped concepts that it is entirely possible we may never grasp, simply because our way of looking at the world and its structure is so very much different to the way in which people in pre-Islamic Jawa looked at the world.

If we are to come to even the smallest understanding of the reason for the incorporation of the greneng, the ron dha, the kembang kacang, etc, etc, etc , into the form of the modern keris, then we must first endeavour to come to an understanding of the nature of the keris at the point in time when these features began to appear.

This is what I identify as the problem:-

a)--at what point in time did the keris begin to display features that are difficult, if not impossible, to explain in terms of its function as a weapon?

b)--what societal and cultural factors were in existence at that time which may have been instrumental in the appearance of these features?

These are the matters which must be addressed before we can begin to hypothesize upon the reason for the greneng.
We must first come to an understanding of the culture of the society which gave birth to the modern keris.
If we can construct a supportable answer to my two questions, then we have placed ourselves into a position where we may be able to hypothesize upon the nature of the keris within that cultural framework, and then the reason for the greneng.

So gentlemen, can we begin to consider this question in a logical and structured manner?

The question that Dr. David has raised is a very, very important question. It is positioned at the core of our understanding of the keris, and of early Javanese society. A question such as this must be addressed with respect, care, thought, knowledge and logic. To do otherwise would be disrespectful to both the keris and the culture which gave it birth.

[Boedhi Adhitya]

It seems we all agree to use the 'form follows functions' approach to address with the question DrD propose, that is the 'original' function of greneng (please separate it from ganja).

Before we go further, we must consider the function of keris itself. If we see keris as a weapon, we could compare it with other weapons from other cultures. The form of a weapon seems to evolve to the most effective and efficient form, according to the way it is used. Now we see, the form of any weapon from any culture seems to evolve to a single, or several but limited, similar shape. A Japanese sword, for example, despite it's minor differences in details, resembling only a single form. Tanto, Wakizashi and Katana, basically differ only in length. Chinese swords evolve to basically two shapes, which simply caused by how it is used: Dao and Jian. European sword has many shapes, but it 'method of employment' for each shape also differs. All in all, effectiveness and efficiency are two elements that weapon always sought after. Keris, if it only served as a weapon, must sought these two elements too while the shapes evolved. But despite evolving to a single or several, limited forms, keris, especially Javanese and Bali, had amazingly evolved to hundreds, some in bizzarre shapes, while retained virtually single mode of employment: to stab. If we see keris only as a weapon, and thus it’s elements/details (ricikan) were driven by merely ‘weapon factor’, the beneficial ricikan that proven in fight would be soon copied by another maker, e.g. if greneng effective enough to catch opponent’s blade, then all keris would have greneng. In reality, it is not. In fact, the most abundant keris shape (dhapur) perhaps is tilam upih, a very simple keris. The keris’ evolution suggests that keris might be serving another function, other than weapon. But to explain what function other than weapon keris has been serving for comprehensively, I’m afraid, would take a separate book.

Denys Lombard, a French historian, describes how Java islands lacked it source for iron, while it needed it badly to open the forest. This, according to him, explains why iron had been connected to magical properties in Java more than any other cultures and how the blacksmith earned their special status. The lack of iron also explains why Javanese prefer keris as their symbol of status and knighthood while another culture such as Japanese’s Bushido and European’s Chivalry choose sword, as keris is smaller and thus, need less iron. The Dutch soon found the Java’s iron shortage and enlisted iron as main cargo in their ships that left Europe.

Regarding original function of greneng (or Ron Dha), I’m afraid, none of us could gives satisfactory definite answer if it is what we’re looking for. Suffice to say, greneng and ron dha, in my humble opinion, serves as a symbolic form. Unfortunately, only very limited, relatively recent sources, which explained what it stand for. Serat Centhini (ca. early 19 C), described the meaning of ron dha together with kanyut, which according Serat Centhini resembling ‘Ma’ character in Javanese alphabet, so it sound ‘Dha-dha Ma’, which interpreted as ‘inside the chest, the death reside’. (Dhadha, as Mas Bram said, is chest. Ma, interpreted as Mati, is Death). Other interpretation by Widyaharja, an old Mranggi of Jogjakarta Court, describes greneng (dha-dha) as a symbol of honesty. Other book regarding keris’s symbolism, among other, is the work of Pangeran Karanggayam, supposed to be Demak Court’s poet, so it might be as early as late 16 C. Unfortunately, I haven’t read it. Ganjawulung perhaps? I would not be surprised if he wrote another interpretation. This ‘open interpretation’, while confusing to strangers, plays an important role in old Javanese art’s survival. Despite creating new form of art from the scratch when values had changed, Javanese would rather changed or ‘modify’ their interpretation of the symbolic meaning of a particular form/art. Everyone is free to interpret, as long as capable and reasonable. Thus, we see some ancient art of Java such as keris and wayang survive until now. But further survival, unfortunately, is questionable.

Regarding the first appearance of greneng, well, it could be quite hard to determine exactly when it emerged. According to the table of alphabet comparison by Sonobudoyo Museum, the ‘dha’ character emerged during Majapahit era. IF greneng really resembling ‘dha’, than it’s safe to assume that greneng might started to emerged as early as in Majapahit era, probably later, but not sooner. Serat Panangguhing Dhuwung also stated indirectly that ron dha form had been known in Majapahit and Pajajaran era (interestingly, this work, attributed to Wirasukadga, a well-known Surakarta’s empu, didn’t mention about Tangguh Singasari, Kediri, Jenggala or any other tangguh older than Pajajaran/Majapahit era. The books is enigmas in itself, as many of its terminologies, perhaps was easily understood in its era, but today is hard to be understood. A good example of how things changed). Why they choose ‘dha’ and not any other character or form and what it was originally stands for would remind a mystery, and I haven’t seen any viable method to solve it. It is also worth to note that, if I’m not mistaken, the ‘dha’ character is unknown in Bali alphabet.

Regarding the problem that Alan proposed, well, I agree no more that those problems are some of the important problem regarding keris. Regarding the first question, two elements should be identified simultaneously. The first is the keris’ features which are hard to explain in the weapon’s point of view, and the second is the time those features emerged. The first element could be answered by blade examples that exist today or indirectly by any valid old/ancient keris pictorial/illustration. The second element, naturally, would be answered by dating the blades or illustration samples. Here comes the stumbling point: dating the blades, a classic problem.

Please remind, while I proposed to see the keris from another point of view, I didn’t negate its function as a weapon. Please also bear in mind, what I wrote is mostly from Javanese keris culture point of view.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for your thoughtful input Pak Boedhi.

In so far as the question of the time at which the greneng first appeared, I feel that the evidence is fairly convincing for its appearance during the Majapahit era.

The earliest keris in European collections date from the end of the 1500's, beginning of the 1600's. These keris are still in pristine condition, and give a good idea of the appearance of keris from this period when new. Many of these keris carry fully developed greneng and other ricikan, indicating that by the year 1600 these features of the keris were already full developed.
In other parts of South East Asia in which keris are found, the keris forms frequently echo the ricikan of Javanese keris. It is generally agreed that keris spread into these other areas during the Majapahit era.If this is so, then these ricikan were undoubtedly present on Javanese keris when they first entered other parts of South East Asia during that Majapahit era.

In light of these two factors, I believe that the assumption is reasonable that the greneng, along with some other ricikan of the modern Javanese keris, first appeared during the Majapahit era.

Apart from these two factors, there is the other evidence for a Majapahit origin that has been offered by Pak Boedhi

Now, what do we know of Javanese society and culture during this era?

This is where we must start if we are to hypothesize on the original reason for the greneng & etc.

There is no doubt in my mind that it is possible to construct a defensible hypothesis to explain the greneng, and other ricikan, but to do this we must leave "traditional keris knowledge" behind us and embark on an anthropologically based examination of Jawa during the Majapahit era.This is doable, but it is not doable other than by engaging in serious and extended research of the period.

[kai]

Hello Alan and all others,

Thanks for your contributions!

The earliest keris in European collections date from the end of the 1500's, beginning of the 1600's. These keris are still in pristine condition, and give a good idea of the appearance of keris from this period when new. Many of these keris carry fully developed greneng and other ricikan, indicating that by the year 1600 these features of the keris were already full developed.
In other parts of South East Asia in which keris are found, the keris forms frequently echo the ricikan of Javanese keris. It is generally agreed that keris spread into these other areas during the Majapahit era.If this is so, then these ricikan were undoubtedly present on Javanese keris when they first entered other parts of South East Asia during that Majapahit era.

D'accord.

In light of these two factors, I believe that the assumption is reasonable that the greneng, along with some other ricikan of the modern Javanese keris, first appeared during the Majapahit era.

This is a non sequitur: Why couldn't some kind of greneng have evolved earlier?

Apart from these two factors, there is the other evidence for a Majapahit origin that has been offered by Pak Boedhi

Yes, these are very interesting points. Just playing advocatus diaboli: Are there Majapahit era keris with greneng which don't display any ron dha?

Regards,
Kai

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

In light of these two factors, I believe that the assumption is reasonable that the greneng, along with some other ricikan of the modern Javanese keris, first appeared during the Majapahit era.

Apart from these two factors, there is the other evidence for a Majapahit origin that has been offered by Pak Boedhi

Now, what do we know of Javanese society and culture during this era?

OK, i'll start with the obvious. We know that for the most part, certainly on the keraton level where keris development would be taking place, we are talking about a Hindu culture. So if symbolism is involved then we are most likely dealing with Hindu symbolism.