New edition Gardner's book

[Marcokeris]

coming soon http://d30021575.purehost.com/ba_malay.html#keris

[ronpakis]

if the pictures are the same as the original you can hardly see any details. could be a nice book if the keris were photographed again but thats impossible.

gr ron

[Marcokeris]

Originally Posted by ronpakis

if the pictures are the same as the original you can hardly see any details. could be a nice book if the keris were photographed again but thats impossible.

gr ron

IMO also with nice pics the book would be the same (not so good ... but one of the first about keris)

[Rick]

Does anyone have Iron Ancestors ?
I'd love a review .

[David]

Just a heads up to all, this book is now available for about $20 USD. I just ordered it myself through amazon. I'm not too worried about the quality of the photos as Ron pointed out. I want to read it ....with a grain of salt on the side of course...

[sirek]

Also available on E-bay:

[David]

We should just leave this as readily available from multiple sources. When i mentioned that i purchased mine on Amazon this does not promote any particular sell as Amazon gives many seller options for any item. If any member is selling copies, either on eBay or through a website they can make an announcement in the Swap Forum.

[DAHenkel]

A reminder to all that while a classic of the literature - this book should be taken with a fair pinch of salt. Gardner was a very interesting man but a bit of a crank with some rather dubious ideas about keris, history, magic and so forth. The book is perhaps the single most important source for many of the misconceptions, strange theories and errors which continue to plague keris knowledge - particularly in the Malay world. Buy the book but remember...it is an imperfect resource.

[David]

Originally Posted by DAHenkel

A reminder to all that while a classic of the literature - this book should be taken with a fair pinch of salt. Gardner was a very interesting man but a bit of a crank with some rather dubious ideas about keris, history, magic and so forth. The book is perhaps the single most important source for many of the misconceptions, strange theories and errors which continue to plague keris knowledge - particularly in the Malay world. Buy the book but remember...it is an imperfect resource.

Seems to me that just about all written sources are imperfect resources for the study of keris Dave. I am well aware that Gardner's book is perhaps even less perfect than others.I think i also made the "grain of salt" reference in my previous post. I would not, however, go so far as to refer to him as a "crank" and while i don't know much about his views on history i don't find his views on magic to be all that dubious.

[DAHenkel]

Well if you want to be post-modern about it sure - but Gardner is particularly egregious in this regard...

...just sayin.

[t_c]

Wish I had waited to find a copy, paid a pretty penny for a 70's edition not too long ago...
I'm interested in how the pictures came out though, even the publisher had some concerns. I'd be curious to hear your opinions when you get your copies in hand. The current price is nice for a book that appears in so many bibliographies (pinch of salt accounted for ).

[Alam Shah]

Originally Posted by t_c

I'm interested in how the pictures came out though, even the publisher had some concerns. I'd be curious to hear your opinions when you get your copies in hand. The current price is nice for a book that appears in so many bibliographies (pinch of salt accounted for ).

I've got a copy of the 1936 edition. There are good info found in it, but there are misleading info as well. The problem is when later authors (do not verify) simply use it entirely without scrutinising it, assuming that it's correct. Well, we know what assume can do..

[A. G. Maisey]

I do agree that Gardner is somewhat dated in the way in which he presents information, and when I read David Henckel's remarks in his post # 8 my immediate reaction was a nod of agreement.

However, I've just done a quick review of the keris section of Gardner, a book I haven't opened in years. Gardner was in Malaya for 30 years. Much of the information that he put into his book was from Malay informants. The book was published in 1936.

There are some things that we could probably look askance at now, there are a few things that are simply wrong. But there is much that although it might need a little massaging in respect of spellings or unclear re-telling, is quite OK. If there is decidedly inaccurate information in Gardner, it is very probably a reflection of what he was told by his informants. Some of his theories are very definitely wrong, but theories are created to be disproved, and in 2010 we have the benefit of 70 more years of research that Gardner did not have access to.

But still, I'm looking at it from a base of Javanese knowledge, David Henckel is looking at it from a base of Malay knowledge, so, David, could you oblige and point out inclusions in this book that cause you to evaluate it as:- "---the single most important source for many of the misconceptions, strange theories and errors which continue to plague keris knowledge---".

Many of the people who read this will have Gardner, and some more will probably acquire this book, so if you could point out for us the major errors in Gardner's work you would be doing many people a very great favour.



We've had a plethora of keris books hit the market in recent years, and a number of people have carried out fairly serious research on the keris, so it is possible that our beliefs now might be a little more rooted in fact than was the case 80 years ago.

But then again, as David our moderator notes, "---just about all written sources are imperfect resources for the study of keris---".

When the second edition of Ensiklopedi was published there was a lot of criticism of it in Solo, because a lot of information in it, especially about people, was either straight out wrong, or had been "coloured", additionally a number of very highly regarded ahli keris commented that it seemed as if a lot of the names and descriptive terms had been invented.

Then we have other publications on the keris by noted Europeans that are so full of error and strange ideas that it becomes really difficult to sort the chaff from the wheat.

Edward Frey's first edition was so full of errors it took 14 double spaced hand written pages to list them all.

There are the many little short-run Indonesian publications, that almost invariably put forward the point of view of one man, or one keris study group, with no references, no argument, just little books full of often very peculiar assertions.

Even the historical greats cannot escape from criticism. Groneman was recently published in English, something I had been awaiting for many years. Regrettably Groneman either did not see the forging of a keris that he reported on, or he did not understand what he saw, or he made his notes later and forgot, or he was deliberately misled by the smith.

Empu Suparman would sometimes become quite vitriolic about keris books, and comment that it was a pity that the writers did not learn about keris before they wrote about them.

I cannot recall ever having met a Javanese person with a high level of keris knowledge who had much respect for most publications about the keris.

However, my position is different, I feel that we really need to read everything available on the keris. Yes, its all imperfect, some sources are worse than others, but by reading it all and continually carrying out a process of verification we can possibly come to a position where we might be able to establish a reasonably firm foundation for our beliefs.

In respect of Gardner's book, it is valuable for providing a historical perspective, if for no other reason.

[Jean]

As a modest kris book author myself, I know very well how we are easily prone to mistakes even if we check and conter-check our descriptions.
I bought and carefully read Gardner's book and I found it interesting in spite of some mistakes or inaccuracies. He was serving in Malaysia so his knowledge of Javanese and Balinese krisses was probably less accurate than those from Malaysia and Sumatra.
Alan is asking to pinpoint some mistakes and I would indicate four of them in my opinion:
. In page 11 he shows 4 specimens of Balinese kris hilts of which one is obviously Madurese and the other most probably East Javanese.
. In pages 15 & 17, he shows a Jawa demam hilt from Sumatra which actually seems to be a burung hilt from Sulawesi or Riau.
. In page 17, he shows a Banjarmasin gilt copper hilt labelled as Javanese.
. In page 21, he shows a Bugis kris sheath which rather looks from Sumatra.
The pictures quality is poor by modern standards but this book remains a precious historical reference and was worth to be re-published in my opinion.
Jean

[Tim Simmons]

I assume it is a jazzed up cover of this 16th reprint 2003. I just cannot imagine why I bought it. The Edwardian schooled attitude to the book is rather quaint.
I have just found out he was one of those me first people, running around a fire naked as a toff is fun but if poor people do it, it's all rather vulgar.

[David]

Originally Posted by Tim Simmons

I assume it is a jazzed up cover of this 16th reprint 2003. I just cannot imagine why I bought it. The Edwardian schooled attitude to the book is rather quaint.
I have just found out he was one of those me first people, running around a fire naked as a toff is fun but if poor people do it, it's all rather vulgar.

Same title Tim, but a completely different book.
The book we are discussing is one which was solely penned by Gardner, not this compilation of essays by various writers.
I also own this one and it does have a few interesting pieces of information but is not a particularly good resource for accurate knowledge.

[David]

Originally Posted by Tim Simmons

I have just found out he was one of those me first people, running around a fire naked as a toff is fun but if poor people do it, it's all rather vulgar.

I am not quite sure what you mean by this Tim. Gardner is known as the father of modern Wicca, a resurgence of earth based religion which he cobbled together from a combination of old folk lore and what was, for him, a fairly contemporary practice of ritual lodge magick (Golden Dawn). Yes, he, as many neo-pagans since, advocated nudity during ritual (what is know as skyclad), but i don't understand, nor, i believe, want to understand you comment in relationship to poor people in this context. I would suggest that we try to keep our conversation here focussed on the keris and not other parts of Gardner's life which you may consider colorful, but has absolutely no bearing on this conversation.

[A. G. Maisey]

I strongly endorse your remarks, David.

Comments which denigrate personal spiritual belief have no part in discussion relating to keris, which is itself an icon with a high spiritual content.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks for your response on the "error" issue, Jean.

I note that all the inadequacies that you have identified are related to the graphic identification of keris components. Some of these I also noted, the Madura hilt is a stand-out, however, I personally do not place a great deal of importance on what could be considered to be relatively minor errors in identification or classification. There is other graphic error also, but its only names, and does not affect understanding.

My principal interest is in the information contained in the text, and there are inadequacies in this too. I'm not going to enumerate what I consider to be incorrect, because I am hoping that David Henckel will provide info on what he sees as incorrect, his criticism of Gardner is very much stronger than mine would be, so he obviously has seen some quite severe flaws that have the potential to affect basic understanding. Read in the context of the time, I cannot see these flaws, but my knowledge is limited to one area, David Henckel's knowledge covers a different area, so I feel it is important for him to identify for us these serious flaws in Gardner's work.

[DAHenkel]

Honestly, I'm not all that against the book - I simply pointed out that it is (liberally) salted with inaccuracies and mistakes and should be used with caution. Given the choice between seeing this source reprinted and a new - more accurate book I'd much rather have the latter. Gardner and his generation of colonial era gentleman scholars have played a key role in snatching the last dying embers of keris knowledge from the abyss and deserve a lot of credit for that. I just wanted to point out that they are far from perfect and cannot be taken as cannonical works uncritically.

[David]

Originally Posted by DAHenkel

I just wanted to point out that they are far from perfect and cannot be taken as cannonical works uncritically.

Thanks Dave, but you are still not being all that specific. And could you possibly name a keris book which is perfect and can be taken as a cannonical work uncritically. I can't think of any.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you David (Henkel) for clarifying your remarks.

[PenangsangII]

I agree with Dave, Gardner's book is full with inaccuracies, and I thought the publisher would like to reprint the book with some correction/s found after 70 years.

Speaking of inaccuracies and mistakes, I opine that the least mistakes in keris book is still "Keris Jawa: Antara Mistik dan Nalar" though ofcourse there's room for improvement

[ganjawulung]

Inspiring for me, as a javanese, is Garret & Bronwen Solyom, "The World of the Javanese Keris"... The way he prepared to write the book (for the time being, became a "mranggi" in Jogja, and also spent a lot of time with Empu Djeno in his besalen in Jitar, Jogja) is one reason to admire. The other reason, is his "barat" view (viewing keris, objectively with his western eye) is another thing... My one cent opinion, of course... David van Duuren's books, always interesting to me too

Indonesian books? Yes, still "minus malum" if you may say it -- Haryono Guritno's book "Keris Jawa" and not a perfect one, Bambang Harsrinuksmo's Ensiklopedi...

GANJAWULUNG

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for your opinion Penangsang.

Perhaps you might like to become a little more specific and tell us exactly what all those errors are?

I agree with, yes there are errors, but just how material are those errors?

Since you can identify these errors so easily, I feel you would be doing the community here a service if you spell out exactly what the errors are.

Thank you for your consideration.

I agree with you totally Pak Ganja, Garrett & Bronwen's book is excellent. For me, it is the only keris book in which I cannot find anything with which I am in disagreement. There may be a few differences of opinion, but in accord with what I have been taught, there is no outright error.

[David]

I have received my Gardner book. I haven't read it yet, but i can report that the illustrations, while hardly stellar, are reproduced fairly well for a book of this price. The photos are not all that clear or telling. The drawings are much clearer, though they are not expertly drawn. Once i have time to read it i will gladly report any obvious errors i find.
I must agree with Alan and Ganja that the Solyom is one of the very best i have encountered and a must have for any keris enthusiast.

[PenangsangII]

"Since you can identify these errors so easily, I feel you would be doing the community here a service if you spell out exactly what the errors are.

Thank you for your consideration."

I think the gravest mistake in Gardner's is his assertion that keris was probably originated in Malaysia (whatever that means) - quite surprising considering "Malaysia" was formed in 1963.

Keris terminology used are often mixed up between Malay and Jawanese.

I can go on and on pointing out mistakes made 70 years ago, but we all know that most of the mistakes were corrected by other writers....

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for your response, Penangsang.

As I said in an earlier post:-

"There are some things that we could probably look askance at now, there are a few things that are simply wrong. But there is much that although it might need a little massaging in respect of spellings or unclear re-telling, is quite OK. If there is decidedly inaccurate information in Gardner, it is very probably a reflection of what he was told by his informants. Some of his theories are very definitely wrong, but theories are created to be disproved, and in 2010 we have the benefit of 70 more years of research that Gardner did not have access to."

Yes, of course his origin ideas are wrong, and there is other error, as I have already stated. However, I was hoping for either you or David Henckel to be able identify some really material errors.

I don't know how much of the keris literature you may have read from say, pre-1970, but if we go back to any time before 2000 the subject of the origin of the keris was enough to generate heated discussion amongst any group of students of the keris.Back in the 1930's there was a lot of discussion going on, and it not infrequently seemed to generate some pretty vitriolic comments.

Here in 2010 we have a slightly different set of beliefs concerning the keris , than applied back in the 1930's --- and make no mistake about it, most of what we believe about the keris at this point in time is quite likely to be disproven at some time in the future. We're talking belief here, not fact that is graven in stone.

I personally do not consider theories that were held in the past and that have now been disproven, as error, nor as misleading. Anybody with a genuine interest has already updated his beliefs, and those who have not don't really matter, because the interest is obviously not genuine.

I also do not consider errors in classification according to point of geographic origin to be of any real importance.

Mixture of terminology from differing localities reflects what Gardner himself was told by his informants. Does anybody know precisely what terminolgy was in vogue in Malaya 90 years ago?

In some of the stories Gardner relates, I can recognise the germ of well known stories and legends, and in Gardner's re-telling, the stories come through in a garbled way, but probably that reflects the way in which he got them from his informants.

Yes, I agree, there are many inadequacies in Gardner's work when we judge it in terms of 2010, however, any time up to perhaps about 1970 or 1980, what he wrote was still accepted as valid by most people.

Gardner's greatest value is in provision of historic perspective.