[A. G. Maisey]

I appreciate your comment Ariel, and in some respects what you have said is very accurate. However, when I made the comment about aesthetic standards, I was not using a yardstick manufactured in recent times. There are some aspects of Javanese aesthetics that have remained constant over time, and when we wish to appraise any Javanese art from a past era we must appraise it in comparison with what we know of the aesthetics of the time when it might have been produced. Fortunately we do know quite a lot about the artistic standards and parameters of Javanese art through the ages.

However, having said that, one constant in Javanese aesthetics is the measure of harmony. This applies in the 21st century just as it did all the way back to the Early Classical period, say 600-1000CE in Central Jawa. By Javanese standards this keris lacks harmony, and it lacks harmony in very large measure. The lack of harmony is so great that it is sufficient to disturb a refined Javanese sensibility. It is downright ugly. It screams. And it would have done pretty much the same 500 years ago.

The reality of this particular keris is that it does not represent an unquestionable reality. That is the reason why we are questioning it. If Gustav is correct it has been altered from its original form. I've had a couple of guesses at it, one of which suggests manufacture outside the culture that certain tells indicate as its origin, and the other of which places it in a variant of the culture, which at the time it was probably made was very different in its values to Javanese culture.

Gustav:- its been damaged and reshaped

Maisey:- #1 --- its a copy made in India
Maisey:- # 2 --- it displays Bugis, Javanese, and Peninsula characteristics (& unmentioned, possibly even Sumatra characteristics)

In both Gustav's hypothesis, and in my own two ideas, we place it well and truly away from a Javanese aesthetic base.

The true reality of any keris of the artistic level of this one under discussion is that it was not created by one individual:- its creation is the product of the tradition which produced it; the maker was not free to make as he wished, he was compelled to produce an object that complied with the demands of the lord who commissioned it, and to work within very restrictive parameters. This keris when it was made, if it was made in a keris bearing society rather than outside it as I first theorised, was produced to set rules and intended to be read iconographically. If it was made outside a keris bearing society this would not apply, and if it was made in a place other than Jawa (which it was), then the iconography cannot be read in the same way, but that iconography still did exist and would have been understood by the people concerned with it at that time.

If Gustav is correct and we are looking at something that has been damaged, this is almost the same as looking at a Renaissance religious sculpture that is missing parts, or a poem that is missing stanzas:- it simply makes no sense. Why? Because it can no longer be read, we can only guess.

Ariel, I really do appreciate your new interest in keris. Its very gratifying to see a new interest in this subject develop, and I'm certain that all of us who are regular contributors here feel the same way. The keris is without any doubt at all the most complex area of edged weaponry to try to understand, even in a very limited way it presents enormous difficulties that other fields of edged weaponry do not. Japanese weaponry is recognised for its difficulties, but with Japanese weaponry there is a very great deal of information available:- if you have a good memory you can learn Japanese weaponry. It is not possible to learn the keris without learning Javanese culture, society, art, architecture, history, and in fact learning how to understand Javanese thought processes. This is the reason why very, very few people in societies outside Jawa have ever been able to gain an understanding of the keris:- it is simply too hard; the best that most of us can do is to gain a very small part of an understanding. One does not learn the keris by studying the keris. I've said this many times, and it is an accurate statement. To learn the keris we need to learn other things. In respect of aesthetics, a good place to start is by looking at art and architecture. Here are a few reference works that it may be worthwhile having a look at at:-


Bennett James, "Crescent Moon: Islamic Art & Civilisation in Southeast Asia", the Art Gallery of South Australia& the National Gallery of Australia, 2005,
ISBN 0 7038 3030 6

Bodrogi Tibor, "Art of Indonesia", Academy Editions, 1973

Coomaraswamy Ananda K., "History of Indian and Indonesian Art", Dover Publications Inc., New York, 1965, Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number: 65-24018

Fontein J., "The Sculpture of Indonesia", 1990, ISBN 0-89468-141-9.

Jessup H.I., "Court Arts of Indonesia", The Asia Society Galleries & Harry N. Abrams, New York, 1990, ISBN 0-8109-3165-6

Kempers A.J.Bernet , "Ancient Indonesian Art", Harvard University Press, Cambridge,Massachusetts, 1959.

Ramseyer Urs, "The Art and Culture of Bali", Schwabe & Co. AG, Verlag Basel, 2002, ISBN 3-7965-1886-9

Subadio Haryati (editor), "Pusaka: Art of Indonesia", Editions Didier Millet Pte. Ltd., 1992, ISBN 979-8353-00-5

Van Der Hoop A.N.J.Th.a Th., "Indonesian Ornamental Design", A.C. Nix & Co., Bandoeng, 1949.

Van Lohuizen-De Leeuw J.E., "Indo-Javanese Metalwork", Linden Museum Stuttgart, 1984.

(unattributable), "Indonesian Art, Treasures of the National Museum", Editions Diddier Millet Pte. Ltd., (1998?), ISBN 962-593-320-4