Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

A. G. Maisey · 28th October 2013, 10:22 PM

Jean, as I wrote in my response to Rasdan:- "we are dealing with convention, not actuality"

If we are to study any cultural artefact, a large part of that study involves learning the way in which the people in the society or societies concerned see and understand that artefact. We cannot claim to have any knowledge nor understanding of a cultural artefact unless we are able to understand that artefact in the same way that the people in the culture concerned understand it.

This understanding must always involve an understanding that governs the way in which the artefact is seen and understood by the people who are acknowledged authorities within the relevant culture.

Now, if we are not a part of the society or culture concerned, we can always invent our own way of understanding any cultural artefact, and that way may serve our purpose better than the accepted conventions within the culture that owns the artefact. But by using our own way of understanding we have consciously taken the decision that the understanding of the artefact within its originating culture is not relevant to our purpose.

So now let us consider this matter of the number of luk in a keris blade.

The currently applied convention used to count luk in a keris blade demands that the count begin at the first depression in the blade above the gandhik, and this is the first luk. The second luk is the first depression in the blade on the opposite edge of the blade, that is, the first depression above the wadidang. Counting continues by crossing the blade diagonally until the point of the blade is reached. The count must complete on the same side of the blade that it began. Observance of the rule that sets down how to count blade luk demands this. If there is no blade depression, or the shape of the point section of the blade is such that no clear luk can be seen, this is completely unimportant:- the count must finish on the same side that it began. All keris must have an odd number of luk, whether they actually have that odd number of luk, or not, so where there is no luk the convention demands that we add a luk.

The convention I have outlined above is the current convention that applies in Jawa. I do not know when I first became aware of it, but I do know that it was very clearly stated to me by two men who were both Empus in the Karaton Surakarta.

It is possible that luk are counted in different ways in different societies.

I recently proposed that in early Hindu-Jawa, keris luk were counted in a way that results in a total of two luk less that the number obtained by using the current method of counting luk. But that method is no longer employed in Jawa.

It seems that at one time in Brunei luk were counted by counting every instance where the edge of the blade deviated from a straight line, so if this method were to be applied to most 7 luk Javanese blades the result would be that the blade had 14 luk.

Another way of counting luk is to count both negative and positive depressions in the blade. If we apply this method to most Javanese 7 luk blades the result will be 11 luk.

There are possibly other ways in which luk can be counted, but all these other ways are not relevant to the convention applied in Javanese keris culture.

No matter what our field of study may be, there are certain conventions that we must follow if we wish to be taken seriously. Engineers are required to think and act in certain ways in the practice of their profession, as are lawyers, accountants, physicians, carpenters, plumbers and people who carry boxes and push brooms. Each profession demands that those who practice that profession think in a particular way that is recognised as correct within the relevant field of knowledge. This is the rationale behind the concept of education. Education is only in part about imparting knowledge, that knowledge in and of itself is not particularly important, it will always exist in other places and can be accessed by anybody, not just the professional in the field. The truly important element of education is that it teaches the student to think in a particular way.

It is no different with keris:- we must observe the relevant conventions and think in a particular way if we are to be taken seriously by others in the field of keris study. Certainly we can always invent our own rules that may suit our own purposes, but in most cases it is probably best to use those rules only for our own personal purposes.

In response to your question, yes it would seem that the blade under discussion did originally have 2 more luk.

28th October 2013, 10:22 PM	#9
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Jean, as I wrote in my response to Rasdan:- "we are dealing with convention, not actuality" If we are to study any cultural artefact, a large part of that study involves learning the way in which the people in the society or societies concerned see and understand that artefact. We cannot claim to have any knowledge nor understanding of a cultural artefact unless we are able to understand that artefact in the same way that the people in the culture concerned understand it. This understanding must always involve an understanding that governs the way in which the artefact is seen and understood by the people who are acknowledged authorities within the relevant culture. Now, if we are not a part of the society or culture concerned, we can always invent our own way of understanding any cultural artefact, and that way may serve our purpose better than the accepted conventions within the culture that owns the artefact. But by using our own way of understanding we have consciously taken the decision that the understanding of the artefact within its originating culture is not relevant to our purpose. So now let us consider this matter of the number of luk in a keris blade. The currently applied convention used to count luk in a keris blade demands that the count begin at the first depression in the blade above the gandhik, and this is the first luk. The second luk is the first depression in the blade on the opposite edge of the blade, that is, the first depression above the wadidang. Counting continues by crossing the blade diagonally until the point of the blade is reached. The count must complete on the same side of the blade that it began. Observance of the rule that sets down how to count blade luk demands this. If there is no blade depression, or the shape of the point section of the blade is such that no clear luk can be seen, this is completely unimportant:- the count must finish on the same side that it began. All keris must have an odd number of luk, whether they actually have that odd number of luk, or not, so where there is no luk the convention demands that we add a luk. The convention I have outlined above is the current convention that applies in Jawa. I do not know when I first became aware of it, but I do know that it was very clearly stated to me by two men who were both Empus in the Karaton Surakarta. It is possible that luk are counted in different ways in different societies. I recently proposed that in early Hindu-Jawa, keris luk were counted in a way that results in a total of two luk less that the number obtained by using the current method of counting luk. But that method is no longer employed in Jawa. It seems that at one time in Brunei luk were counted by counting every instance where the edge of the blade deviated from a straight line, so if this method were to be applied to most 7 luk Javanese blades the result would be that the blade had 14 luk. Another way of counting luk is to count both negative and positive depressions in the blade. If we apply this method to most Javanese 7 luk blades the result will be 11 luk. There are possibly other ways in which luk can be counted, but all these other ways are not relevant to the convention applied in Javanese keris culture. No matter what our field of study may be, there are certain conventions that we must follow if we wish to be taken seriously. Engineers are required to think and act in certain ways in the practice of their profession, as are lawyers, accountants, physicians, carpenters, plumbers and people who carry boxes and push brooms. Each profession demands that those who practice that profession think in a particular way that is recognised as correct within the relevant field of knowledge. This is the rationale behind the concept of education. Education is only in part about imparting knowledge, that knowledge in and of itself is not particularly important, it will always exist in other places and can be accessed by anybody, not just the professional in the field. The truly important element of education is that it teaches the student to think in a particular way. It is no different with keris:- we must observe the relevant conventions and think in a particular way if we are to be taken seriously by others in the field of keris study. Certainly we can always invent our own rules that may suit our own purposes, but in most cases it is probably best to use those rules only for our own personal purposes. In response to your question, yes it would seem that the blade under discussion did originally have 2 more luk.