Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

A. G. Maisey · 22nd November 2008, 12:12 AM

Thank you Kai Wee for clarifying this "chieftain" terminology. I think that I now might have some small understanding of what is meant by the term.

I thank you also for bringing to my attention a defect in my recent attitude towards posts made to this discussion group.

I have slipped into the habit of making posts in much the same manner that I would adopt if I were to be engaged in casual conversation with a group of friends. During the last 24 hours it has been most forcibly brought to my attention by events which have occurred outside this discussion group, that it is a great mistake to adopt an on-line persona that reflects one's personal approach and character.

I will take a step back, and try to avoid such a relaxed manner in future.

In respect of this current thread, I will attempt to correct some of the statements I have made, and rephrase them in more precise language.

Post of 18th November:-

Quote:- "I believe that the original position of the grip on this keris was correct."

This is very poorly phrased.
If I had wanted to use the word "correct", I should have defined the concept of "correct" in this context. I did not, and the result is a statement that can be read in many ways, resulting in a misunderstanding of the idea I wished to convey.

The idea I wished to convey was that in its place of origin, it was highly probable that the hilt had been reversed by a owner or user of this keris, who was indigenous to that location.

I apologise for any misunderstanding caused by my poor use of my native language.

Quote:- "The tang on these Bugis type keris nearly always seems to be bent to some degree, I doubt that I have ever pulled a keris of the generic Bugis type apart and found it with a straight tang---"

Again, a poorly constructed and imprecise, not to say contradictory statement.I have attempted to encapsulate two opposing ideas into the same construct.

I should have written something like this:- "My experience gained from handling many Bugis type keris over many years indicates that in most cases the tang is bent to greater or lesser degree."

This morning I have checked a sample of 19 of these keris; I have found that in 16 keris the tang has some degree of bend , in three keris the tang could be considered to be straight.

One thing that Kai Wee has highlighted very effectively is the question of the meaning of "correct".

Exactly what does "correct" mean in the context of hilt orientation?

I would propose that in fact, there is no overall "correct" hilt orientation, without a corresponding definition of context.

Thus, in the case of "correct" orientation of a hilt on a keris to be worn in a court environment, that "correctness" would reflect the requirements of this environment.

In the case of "correct" orientation of a keris to be used as weapon, that "correctness" would reflect the personal preferences of the user.

Again I apologise for any misunderstandings caused by my relaxed attitude.

22nd November 2008, 12:12 AM	#20
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,965	Thank you Kai Wee for clarifying this "chieftain" terminology. I think that I now might have some small understanding of what is meant by the term. I thank you also for bringing to my attention a defect in my recent attitude towards posts made to this discussion group. I have slipped into the habit of making posts in much the same manner that I would adopt if I were to be engaged in casual conversation with a group of friends. During the last 24 hours it has been most forcibly brought to my attention by events which have occurred outside this discussion group, that it is a great mistake to adopt an on-line persona that reflects one's personal approach and character. I will take a step back, and try to avoid such a relaxed manner in future. In respect of this current thread, I will attempt to correct some of the statements I have made, and rephrase them in more precise language. Post of 18th November:- Quote:- "I believe that the original position of the grip on this keris was correct." This is very poorly phrased. If I had wanted to use the word "correct", I should have defined the concept of "correct" in this context. I did not, and the result is a statement that can be read in many ways, resulting in a misunderstanding of the idea I wished to convey. The idea I wished to convey was that in its place of origin, it was highly probable that the hilt had been reversed by a owner or user of this keris, who was indigenous to that location. I apologise for any misunderstanding caused by my poor use of my native language. Quote:- "The tang on these Bugis type keris nearly always seems to be bent to some degree, I doubt that I have ever pulled a keris of the generic Bugis type apart and found it with a straight tang---" Again, a poorly constructed and imprecise, not to say contradictory statement.I have attempted to encapsulate two opposing ideas into the same construct. I should have written something like this:- "My experience gained from handling many Bugis type keris over many years indicates that in most cases the tang is bent to greater or lesser degree." This morning I have checked a sample of 19 of these keris; I have found that in 16 keris the tang has some degree of bend , in three keris the tang could be considered to be straight. One thing that Kai Wee has highlighted very effectively is the question of the meaning of "correct". Exactly what does "correct" mean in the context of hilt orientation? I would propose that in fact, there is no overall "correct" hilt orientation, without a corresponding definition of context. Thus, in the case of "correct" orientation of a hilt on a keris to be worn in a court environment, that "correctness" would reflect the requirements of this environment. In the case of "correct" orientation of a keris to be used as weapon, that "correctness" would reflect the personal preferences of the user. Again I apologise for any misunderstandings caused by my relaxed attitude.