When is a keris legitimate?

David · 30th December 2013, 04:22 PM

Very interesting thread so far. As i expected, also some difference of ideas, some which i agree with and some which i don't. But i am not sure that we can really have too many "wrong" answers on this question as much of it will depend on personal preferences and ideas.
I certainly agree that the question of what is a "real" keris cannot be answered without also answering "what is a keris".
1. A cultural icon and a symbol of manhood.
2. An asymmetric double edged dagger (i do still consider keris sepang a legitimate keris form. Most of the ones i have seen are not perfectly symmetrical anyway).
3. The blade has a gonjo, either true or implied as in gonjo iras blades.
4. The blade if forged and often pattern welded with contrasting material to create a pamor pattern, though the use of contrasting material is not mandatory.
5. The blade may be straight or wavy (so obviously any blade with a wavy blade cannot automatically be considered a keris).

For me there are two things that have no real bearing on legitimacy for me. The first is weapon readiness. While i am of the mind that the keris first developed as a functional weapon (and i have many examples that fit that bill quite nicely), there are many keris that were forged solely to serve an esoteric function such as keris sajen and keris picit.
The second thing that has no bearing on legitimacy for me is quality. If a keris has been made within the culture to serve the cultural purpose of a keris it is still a keris to me even if it is not particularly well produced. It still does need to fit the other requirements, but it doesn't need to be a "good" keris to be a "real" keris. This doesn't mean that i necessarily want to add poorly conceived keris to my collection, but i would still count such keris as "real". I don't image that too many of us have many truly Mpu made keris in our collections. I know most of what i have collected was made outside the keraton. Some of those are still very nicely conceived blades. Some perhaps are more imperfect, but they contain a character or "spirit" that suits me personally that i find attractive so i collect it. Certainly some of the more esoteric blades that i have collected are not great examples of highly skilled keris work. They are still real, important and valued parts of my collection.
For me a really important part of legitimacy relates to my first specification for what makes a keris. For what intent and purpose was the keris created? I personally find it impossible to remove the keris from it's cultural context. So to use GIO's example i would not consider the "Bali" keris made in England to be a legit keris. I might still like it and consider it collectable, but removed from its context as a cultural icon it no longer meets my personal requirements of legitimacy. For me a cultural icon must be made within and for use within that culture. In 2005 UNESCO proclaimed the keris a "Masterpiece of Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity". I think a "real" keris should probably be able to live up to this designation in some way.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

30th December 2013, 04:22 PM	#18
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,211	Very interesting thread so far. As i expected, also some difference of ideas, some which i agree with and some which i don't. But i am not sure that we can really have too many "wrong" answers on this question as much of it will depend on personal preferences and ideas. I certainly agree that the question of what is a "real" keris cannot be answered without also answering "what is a keris". 1. A cultural icon and a symbol of manhood. 2. An asymmetric double edged dagger (i do still consider keris sepang a legitimate keris form. Most of the ones i have seen are not perfectly symmetrical anyway). 3. The blade has a gonjo, either true or implied as in gonjo iras blades. 4. The blade if forged and often pattern welded with contrasting material to create a pamor pattern, though the use of contrasting material is not mandatory. 5. The blade may be straight or wavy (so obviously any blade with a wavy blade cannot automatically be considered a keris). For me there are two things that have no real bearing on legitimacy for me. The first is weapon readiness. While i am of the mind that the keris first developed as a functional weapon (and i have many examples that fit that bill quite nicely), there are many keris that were forged solely to serve an esoteric function such as keris sajen and keris picit. The second thing that has no bearing on legitimacy for me is quality. If a keris has been made within the culture to serve the cultural purpose of a keris it is still a keris to me even if it is not particularly well produced. It still does need to fit the other requirements, but it doesn't need to be a "good" keris to be a "real" keris. This doesn't mean that i necessarily want to add poorly conceived keris to my collection, but i would still count such keris as "real". I don't image that too many of us have many truly Mpu made keris in our collections. I know most of what i have collected was made outside the keraton. Some of those are still very nicely conceived blades. Some perhaps are more imperfect, but they contain a character or "spirit" that suits me personally that i find attractive so i collect it. Certainly some of the more esoteric blades that i have collected are not great examples of highly skilled keris work. They are still real, important and valued parts of my collection. For me a really important part of legitimacy relates to my first specification for what makes a keris. For what intent and purpose was the keris created? I personally find it impossible to remove the keris from it's cultural context. So to use GIO's example i would not consider the "Bali" keris made in England to be a legit keris. I might still like it and consider it collectable, but removed from its context as a cultural icon it no longer meets my personal requirements of legitimacy. For me a cultural icon must be made within and for use within that culture. In 2005 UNESCO proclaimed the keris a "Masterpiece of Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity". I think a "real" keris should probably be able to live up to this designation in some way.