New Keris/Keris baru
 

Dear Members,
Let me introduce first, my name is Ismarsodo, a new member here, Indonesian n living in Jakarta. I'm very interest to discuss more about keris, all kind of keris (Java, Madura, Sumatera, Malay, etc.), original old keris/keris sepuh or new made. Is there any thread for new keris here? If no, I would like this thread to be a special thread for sharing new keris/new made or some people call as keris tangguh kamardikan, and also for discussion @ anything new keris.
Let me share my collection first.. :D

Name of Dapur: Kalanadah - Luk 5
Name of Pamor: Kelengan
Warangka: Gayaman Solo Nagasari Wood
Garap/made by Mujiyono/Ki Mangir 2011
Besalen: Mangiran, Malang

Cheers,

Good to see you here, Ismarsodo, and welcome.

Your proposal for an increase in serious discussion of recently made keris is in my opinion, well overdue. A long time ago there was a thread in our old forum that was directed at discussion of the elements that might be considered when a determination was being made as to whether a keris was "good", or "not good". The things that surfaced in this old thread are seldom, if ever, raised in discussion these days. There currently seems to be a fixation on whether or not a keris is "old", or in other words, "genuine", and thus of value, or whether it is "fake", meaning "recently produced".

It saddens me when I see these sort of comments, and I have virtually stopped giving any attention to threads that fail to regard keris which have been recently produced as a legitimate continuation of cultural expression.

Recently made keris can be some of the very finest expressions of keris art that have ever been produced. By "recent", I mean since WWII.

The vast bulk of older keris that become available on the open market are in most cases not much more than junk. Certainly an older piece of high quality can be a very satisfying thing to either see, or have custody of, but the simple fact of the matter is that there are very few older keris of high quality, and when they do become available the price is almost always very high.

If one prefers old junk rather than recent high quality, then that is of course always a matter of personal preference. However, if one is a student of the keris, then to ignore the quality that is available in recently produced keris is clearly an attitude that contributes to a failure to increase knowledge.

Possibly many people do not wish to become students of the keris, but merely collectors of keris. I would suggest that to indulge in collection of anything in the absence of attempts to increase knowledge in that subject is an almost certain way to suffer financial loss.

I do hope that this thread you have started will attract some serious attention.

I agree whole-heartedly with Alan's post. While i do prefer a keris with history i think it is important that we do not disregard excellent work simply because the work is recent. Some of the finest examples of keris art is being produced today.

I do find this interesting, because, I too, am very new to the keris and I am in the process of not only learning about it, but deciding what, or how, I want to collect.

I have a couple of relatively new kerises in my collection, one being my wilah with the Udan Mas pamor. I am really fond of this example and fully appreciate the skills needed to create it.

But, I'm torn at this point. Do I want a keris solely for it's technical aspects or am I attracted to the romantic (for lack of a better term) aura of an old blade. I do like to think, as I hold an older keris, about a Javanese man holding the same blade with great reverence many years ago.

Am I over analyzing this or do other folks have the same thoughts?

There is no spoon, Neo ... ;) :D

I feel that if you want to experience the living art form that is the keris the (un-aged) new work shows you what can be accomplished .

Sometimes I feel that when we look at old keris we view mere shadows .

Esoteric stuff aside .... :)

I started to collect edged weapons more than 60 years ago, when my collecting life was given a kick-start by my grandfather who passed his collection of edged weapons to me when I was 12 years old.

When I began to add to this collection with my own purchases, I did not have the confusing factor of recently produced keris (or other weapons). Everything available was old. Over time my interest polarised and for a long time now I have been principally interested in the keris.

When the keris culture began its renewal in Jawa during the 1970's, I had already been making regular visits to Jawa for some years. When the makers of Central Jawa began to increase in number, and then the makers of Madura and East Jawa began their rise, I was there to see it happen. I myself had already made keris before the Madura enclave had become a factor in the market-place.

The early attempts at making keris in the modern era were not particularly impressive, but this was more than 30 years ago. The quality of the best keris blades produced at the present time is equal to, or better than anything produced in the past.

In the case of keris dress, the hilts, scabbards, and other dress items, the quality of the very best production of recent years is without parallel.

In the past, only very wealthy people with the right connections could own very high quality keris, and the same is still true in the case of old keris (pre-WWII). Old keris of any quality are almost never seen for sale in the open market, and can only be reliably obtained if one has the right connections. And good, old keris do not come cheap. Pressure is on this segment of the market, and the price of anything old and good seems to increase every time I turn around.

However, very good recent keris are within the range of affordability that most people can aspire to.

Just because a keris is old, that does not make it a worthwhile acquisition. The vast bulk of old keris were never produced as something special, and most certainly were not produced by empus, nor with any spiritual intent. Old keris are simply that:- old. In appraising their worth or otherwise they should be subjected to evaluation of their characteristics, not just accepted because they have some age.

Take as a parallel, antique furniture. Two hundred years ago furniture was produced in various qualities, just as it is today. The best of this furniture is now highly regarded, but within the trade, it is well accepted that a piece of furniture of inferior quality when it was produced, is still of inferior quality now:- it was junk when it was made, and just because it is old does not make it of any higher quality now.

Would we prefer good quality new furniture, or junk quality old furniture?

Some people do have a preference for old things. In some respects I'm a bit this way myself. However, if one is a keris student/collector, as distinct from just somebody who likes old things, one does oneself a great disservice by failing to pay attention to, and appreciate the fine quality keris that are currently being produced.

How to structure a collection?

To my mind, there is only one answer to that:- we collect what we like, because ultimately each of us has to live with his collection.

This attitude of course gives the green light to the those who only want to collect old keris, no matter the quality, and this is fine, because that's what they like:- old. However, it is notable that as a collector's knowledge of the keris increases he usually reaches a point where he can see the mistakes in his early purchases, and at the same time appreciate the quality of recently produced keris. Time and experience will sometimes alter attitudes.

EDIT:-

I just noted your "shadows" reference Rick.

Absolutely spot-on.

I have just had the opportunity to closely examine very old keris in original condition.

There is no doubt that the vast bulk of old keris that we see now are just ghosts. The difference between a typical 17th century Mataram keris as found in Jawa now, and a 17th century Mataram keris that went to Europe when it was still close to new is immense. The new one is a solid, beefy substantial weapon; the one that we see in Jawa is a light, flimsy heavily eroded piece. A ghost.

Alan,

Thank you for your reply - very enlightening. I quoted the one line because it is something I don't think I have ever read before. For me, it is quite profound and produced an attitude adjustment. There is quite a bit of "romanticism" enmeshed in all the keris lore and sorting the wheat from the chaff is part of the learning process and makes it all the more interesting.

Dan

Dan, the romantic aspect of I think perhaps all edged weapon collecting is something that I think of as "the Silk Road Syndrome" .

Its the old "Sun Comes up Like Thunder" --- Raffles --- Kipling --- Lord Jim thing that some of us --- me included --- have floating around in the back of our minds.

It can take a few different forms, and these forms will usually reflect our own personal characteristics, but at base its a form of escapism --- and there ain't nuttin wrong with that. Helps us cope with the insanity of modern life.

This attitude does seem to be extremely prevalent when it occurs in partnership with the keris, and it can be noted not only with collectors in the western world, but also in Jawa, where they have their own version of reference points --- obviously Kipling is not going to work in Surakarta.

Alan,

As a collector by nature, every interest that I have has a romantic allure of some nature. I think it's a healthy aspect and part of the joy of collecting - it varies by subject and the keris is not found wanting on the scales! In my opinion, the romantic aspect needs to be tempered with a realistic approach and knowledge of the item, though some folks don't seem to care.

I love your analogy - it's perfect!

Dan

Hello and welcome to the forum Ismarsodo,
thank you for posting your very elegant piece to start this thread. Please excuse my ignorance, I am a novice ....could you explain the term 'kamardikan' for me. Does it refer to a specifically modern time frame of construction or is it more the modern style/nature of the piece. Many thanks
DrD

The same question two weeks ago, with a correct answer:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=15541

Actually Sukarno and Hatta declared Independence from Dutch overlordship on 17 August 1945.

Indonesians regard this as the gaining of freedom, or "merdeka".

The word "kamardikan" derives from "merdeka", so a kamardikan keris is one dating from the era of Merdeka, ie, after 1945.

It is a relatively recent term, coined to give a legitimate classification to recently produced keris.

And I would add that a kamardikan kris should normally be a good quality kris, so it does not include the fake or replica krisses ;)
Regards

Good quality?

Looks like we've come full circle.

Let me ask the question:-

What is a good keris?

Then we have the other two very obvious questions:-

What is a replica keris?

What is a fake keris?

There you are, three very nice questions sitting there awaiting answers. Should keep us going for the rest of this year.

At least.

Well, i'm not going to jump on board just yet here, but would be interested to hear just what folks think a "replica" or "fake" keris is. :shrug: :)

I might approach this question indirectly: what criteria do we use in choosing an item for our collection of arms?

Keris, IMXO, is a thing apart. It had never been used as a weapon first and foremost. It was made, chosen and kept for its artistic value and for its mystical intangible aura: protecting the owner, bringing good luck, threatening enemies, communicating with the dead etc. The former requires good taste, money, skills and knowledge of decorating and forging techniques. The latter is a matter of personal beliefs. Thus, both can be achieved by a combination of superb contemporary mastery of the craft and superstitions of the owner. Old or new - they all are worthy and comparable to their 15th century brothers. This is what I think A.G. Maisey meant when he defended and extolled modern kerises.


Examples from other cultures are primarily concerned with the "weapon" dimension: shamshir, khyber, kindjal, yataghan,- you name it, - were weapons first and foremost. Their artistic component is important, but secondary to their fighting usage. In those swords we look for stories of battles, bloodshed ( real or not), famous military owners, etc. Thus, no modern replica would qualify for an object of interest, no matter how artistically-pretty or richly embellished. We are looking for history, not for the spiritual aspect. Keris criteria would be simply not applicable. It is either antique or junk. Would anyone here buy a contemporary Syrian-made pala, despite the fact that its modern steel alloy blade might be better than the original one from the 17th century and carries profuse golden inscriptions? Or a Cold Steel khyber that is mechanically better than the village-made old Afghani one?


Keris is first and foremost object of art and spirituality, and is therefore always real. The rest are objects of history. Therefore, new keris is perfectly fine, whereas new shashka is either a replica or a fake.

Sorry Ariel, but i completely disagree with your downplaying of the historical aspects of the keris. History is not simply a matter of the battle capability of a weapon or whether or not a weapon has drawn blood (though in some Indonesian cultures such as the Bugis the keris had a much greater use as an actual physical weapon. I also believe that the keris began as a true physical weapon, first and foremost and developed it's spiritual attributes as it evolved). A keris that is pusaka can hold the "history" of many generations. If i were to be the custodian of such a keris i would say that clearly the history of that blade is of utmost importance. At least it would be to me. :)
I would also say that contemporary keris are much more objects of art and much less objects of spirituality. The days of the Mpu is for the most part past and the magickal qualities that were once their providence to impart on the blades though fasting, prayer and magickal incantation are lacking in today's modern keris. Most keris are not made by Mpus anymore, only skilled (sometimes highly skilled) metal smiths who do not have the knowledge or priestly lineage to create such keris. I do not believe that is a reason to dismiss modern keris by any means, but i did want to correct your impression just a bit.
As an expression of high Indonesian art the keris is a living art form and though the keris does not hold quite the same cultural importance it once did it still has a place to fill in Indonesian culture. That is the difference that i see between it and the other weapons you mention and what i see as a real reason to encourage it's continued growth as an art form.
In my own collection i have mostly antique keris, but quite a few recent ones. I collect keris that i like, first and foremost. A blade need not be a master work to attract my attention, but it must hold some kind of character that attracts my attention. But with the antique keris that i have collected i am most certainly interested in that link to the past, that connection to history.
As for what is or is not a "fake", i would say that all depends on how it is presented. Artificial aging of blades is not a sign of forgery in and of itself. The look is a preference for many collectors within the culture. If, however, you age a blade and then try to pass it off as an ancient weapon, that is indeed fakery. As for the term replica, i am not sure how that applies to keris. Keris form is often set by certain pakem. So a keris that follows that pakem will, for the most part, look like any other keris that follow that pakem, regardless of when they were made. I can't see how that would make the newer blades "replicas", especially in a culture that still has a place for the keris in it's traditions and cultural practices.

David, you make some excellent points. It was the spiritual aspect of the keris that first attracted and fascinated me. As I've learned more, I have a growing appreciation for the fact that it is also an art form. At first I bought every keris as a because of it's spiritual history (I bought the story, not the blade), now I find I'm looking for something that peaks my interest - unless it's dirt cheap on eBay. ;) I still have a special affinity for the older kerises.

Now here's an example of what what may be considered a fake keris. It's the Bali Tourist Special. The hilt is kind of cool, but overall, I consider it a caricature of a keris and I don't even keep it with my others. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yep, this is indeed what i would call a "fake" keris or a keris-like object (KLO)
:D
This hilt form can be found in much finer quality.

There's not much about it that can't be found in finer quality... :D

A perfect specimen of fake kris indeed, what a pity that you have destroyed this fine "pamor"! :D
And as kris replica, I have in mind these roughly made naga krisses from Madura with brass kinatah for instance, or artificially aged copies of antique krisses.
Regards

Jean - LOL!!! That pamor! I could tolerate everything else, but that pamor was way, way over the top! :D

I´m game :) Now... I think that this is a way more complex a theme that one would first think of. First there is the underlying problem of semantics bested with the multiple of ways - viewpoints - one could use in trying to answer such a question. I´ll leave Mr. Maiseys first question regarding what constitutes a good keris aside and concentrate on the latter questions "replica" and "fake".

Replica in my opinion is something that could be found on the upper right hand corner of below matrix (which I "loaned" from a professor of marketing named Joseph Pine ). Thus a replica is "real real" - it is being treated openly as a replication of something that itself is not ("is what it says it is"), and it "is true to itself" as it is a truthful replica. If on the other hand we would think that in order to be true to itself an item has to be unique in its design (something a replica cannot be), we could think of replicas as "real fake", alike Disneyland is not really a magic land it portrays (being open about it) itself to be. Of course viewer discretion is yet advised, as just like with the keris, some people may take illusion as true despite it is not deliberately attempted (small children in Disneyland alike noobies in the kingdom of the keris cannot separate tale from truth). On the contrast - often times they, in their own minds, prolong the honest fantasy onto something that exceeds what was said, what happened etc. Call it imagination if you will :)



We are left with "fake fake" and "fake real". "Fake real" is an honest ripoff - a con if you will: somebody promotes something which has been purportedly design and manufactured to give an illusion that it "is not what it says it is", thus it "is true to itself". "Fake fake" is a bad fake, ie. a fake that can be recognized as one thus it cannot be "true to itself".

Easy, huh?

No. It gets more complicated now. - What about when you have, for example, a keris that has been honestly designed and executed as keris X following a Pakem Y, but the maker has not been able to follow the Pakem on precision needed for the keris to be classified by the court as yes, this is a "keris X according to Pakem Y"? This brings the issue of intent: what was the intent of the maker - did he act on good faith and failed because of ignorance? Did he himself thought that he had followed the Pakem, only to be corrected by some of more understanding? Thus is it not true that one mans "real-real" cannot but be another mans "fake-fake" and all the other variations on the matrix?

Replica and fake out of the way, a good keris obviously needs to be "real real", or does it? Cannot a good keris also be a "fake real" if it is honest to itself despite the fact that the observer in question does not know what he is looking at, say for example when someone is looking at a worn out piece of junk (in his mind) which an expert would cherish as something extraordinary. Why? Because he understands what that worn keris once was ("real real"). Time thus can alter perception via accumulation of damage to the point that the story the keris tells changes alike it´s appearance does, hence altering from "is what it says it is" to "is not what it says it is" (to most).

Anyway, I think it would be futile to prolong this further from my part. I tried to prove the point that things really are not so clear cut what comes to this theme of categorizing stuff as "good, bad or ugly" :p

Thanks,

J.

Well, it sounds good as a theory. What, when we are using it on keris of Ismarsodo as example in praxis (if he allows us to do it), going in to the small details?

IMO the kris from Ismarsodo is a honest/ typical keris kamardikan and not a replica. Howewer I would personally replace the pendok... :)
Regards

replica or fake is indeed not easy to define
if there is deviated from the traditional form, and we have to deal with the artistic spirit of the modern maker.
IMO its not a replica or a fake keris, but ? a modern impression? :shrug:

I guess a "purist" would say that anything that deviates from Pakem (if the maker is following one in the first place that is) is not a keris but a keris like object. That said I guess the difficulty is in deciding where to draw the line between artistic freedom and tradition.

I guess we all weigh and measure these things differently depending on our abilities, motives and capabilities :shrug:

A modern creation indeed but not a very good one IMO, the wadidang has an odd shape and I apparently see some filing marks on the gandik and pejetan? :shrug: But this is according to my personal taste only and you are fully entitled to disagree!
Regards

In some cases i guess i could indeed see these as "replicas", especially when made for a foreign market. Though i wonder if i would still look at it that way if one of these keris were to be used by a native of Jawa who is tight on cash and chooses one of these to dress himself for an low-economy wedding ceremony.
:shrug: :)

A certain amount of artistic interpretation has always been acceptable to the standards of pakem AFAIK. It can, of course, be taken too far, but that does not seem to be the case in your example.