H4ow to count Luk???

rasdan · 28th October 2013, 04:08 PM

If we set the current convention aside, what do you presume is the actuality of luk number Alan? Does the age (not necessarily the tangguh) and the maker (empu or pande) makes a difference? I would imagine the Pengging keris makers doesn't have to be a Hindu to adopt a Hindu system probably?

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.

A. G. Maisey · 28th October 2013, 10:48 PM

Again I must apologise to you Rasdan, I'm not very clear on exactly what you are asking here, but I'll answer what I think you are asking.

If we are talking about the number of luk in a Javanese keris blade there is only one way to determine that number, and that way bears no relationship to actuality:- it is part of a system of belief.

This being so, it is impossible for me to answer in terms of actual luk, only in terms of perceived luk.

In any system of belief we do not deviate from the conventions that are acknowledged as correct within that system.

Keris classifiable as Pengging are not like other Javanese blades in a number of ways, they are recognised as being quite peculiar in a number of respects. Why this is so I simply do not know.

The time and place where a keris was manufactured does result in it having certain identifiable characteristics, and this is also often true of keris made by different makers.

Whether luk are counted by the way I proposed as being used in early Jawa, or whether they are counted by the way that is used now, the only difference is that the number of luk will vary by two.

My proposition is dependent upon a hierarchical societal structure that cannot exist within Islam.

ariel · 29th October 2013, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

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

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.

....

Whether luk are counted by the way I proposed as being used in early Jawa, or whether they are counted by the way that is used now, the only difference is that the number of luk will vary by two.

.

Forgive me, Alan, but that does not make much sense to me. If the keris has an odd number of luk, it has the odd number of luk. And if the even number, - then the even.

If I have 2 legs, I have 2 legs. If I lose one, no convention would prove that I am not a handicapped person. One cannot state the desired outcome and then manipulate the data.

This "convention" sounds a lot like Marx Brothers : " Who do you believe, me or your own cheating eyes?"

Also, isn't it true, that if your method is correct, any keris with an even number of luk by the "old convention" will still have an even number? 12-2 =10, after all.

A. G. Maisey · 29th October 2013, 06:39 AM

Once again Ariel, you are absolutely correct.

However you are correct only from the view point of a person who has not yet learnt the elements of the belief system that governs an understanding of the Javanese keris.

In this Forum it has often been repeated that an understanding of the keris is dependent upon an understanding of the belief system that is attached to the keris. The whole thing is based on belief. Everything that is of any importance in the world of the Javanese keris is based upon belief. It is a field of knowledge that has quite specific rules attached to it, rules that are not unlike the rules that govern major religions:- we cannot understand any major religion by reverting to logic. The same is true of the keris, logic has no part in its understanding.

The way in which the waves, ie, luk, are counted in a Javanese keris blade is no less dependent upon this belief system than is anything else in the world of the keris.

Of course, if we wish to step outside the rules that govern this understanding for Javanese people, then we can make our own rules and decide for ourselves how we wish to count those waves. This then would be our own understanding, not the understanding of the people who originated and own this cultural icon, the keris.

However, such an approach would seem to be out of step with the approach taken by collectors in any field of ethnography that I can think of, where the collectors and students who live in societies that are foreign to the society that is home to the object collected or studied, do strive to try to understand the object of their interest in terms that are in synch with the understanding of the people of that originating society.

As an example we could perhaps consider the field of nihonto. Have collectors in this field followed their own guidelines, or have they endeavored to understand the way in which the Japanese people approach the subject?

If we wish to understand the keris we really have no alternative but to try insofar as we are able to understand the perspective of the Javanese people.

But if we only wish to collect the object and divorce that object from any understanding of it, then we can take any approach to its collection that we wish.

Jean · 29th October 2013, 09:56 AM

Thank you Alan for this very informative discussion, and also to all the participants in this debate, whether keris believers or just collectors

Regards

rasdan · 29th October 2013, 12:26 PM

Yes Alan, I am asking about the actual number of luk. I just thought that it is possible for a non-Hindu keris maker to use a Hindu way of counting/making the luk. But still of course that does not explain the last luk ending towards the wadidang phenomena. Anyhow, thank you Alan for you insight.

A. G. Maisey · 29th October 2013, 09:43 PM

Jean, I do think that it is valid to collect things, including keris, just for the sake of collecting. The urge to collect things that give us pleasure seems to be universal. Thus its probably unfair to refer to anybody as "just" a collector.

Similarly I do not believe that it is necessary to become a "keris believer" in order to appreciate many of the qualities of the keris.

However, I do most definitely believe that for anybody who wishes to understand the keris, and keris culture, it is absolutely necessary to understand, or at least try to understand the belief system that is incorporated into keris culture:- we need to understand what the Believers believe, we do not need to become one.

I'd like to make an analogy.

Let us say, just for argument's sake, that I am a devout Buddhist.

During my childhood I had contact with a kindly Catholic priest who had come to my village to provide medical aid. Because of this contact, very early in my life I gained an interest in the paraphernalia of the Faith that I saw this priest using, most particularly was I attracted to his crucifix.

As I grew older I began to buy any crucifix that I might happen to stumble upon, and by the time I was an adult I had a very considerable collection of crucifixes. I did not understand exactly what was so important to Catholics about these little crosses, but looking at them and handling them gave me pleasure. Not only did I not understand the importance of the crucifix to those who were adherents to the Christian Faith, I had not the vaguest idea of any of the beliefs of this Faith.

But I did like my crucifixes.

There is a lot more to this story:- went to live in the city, I began to attend church services, gained an understanding of the Christian Faith, I furthered my education, went to university and after years of study I gained a doctorate in comparative religion. Eventually I truly understood what my crucifixes were all about. In fact, I understood my crucifixes very much better than most people who practiced the Christian Faith.

I did not become a Christian, I remained a Buddhist.

But I did understand Christianity, and I did understand exactly what a crucifix meant within that Faith.

My understanding had the effect of intensifying my pleasure in my collection of crucifixes.

28th October 2013, 04:08 PM	#1
rasdan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Kuala Lumpur Posts: 369	If we set the current convention aside, what do you presume is the actuality of luk number Alan? Does the age (not necessarily the tangguh) and the maker (empu or pande) makes a difference? I would imagine the Pengging keris makers doesn't have to be a Hindu to adopt a Hindu system probably?

28th October 2013, 10:22 PM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	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, 10:48 PM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	Again I must apologise to you Rasdan, I'm not very clear on exactly what you are asking here, but I'll answer what I think you are asking. If we are talking about the number of luk in a Javanese keris blade there is only one way to determine that number, and that way bears no relationship to actuality:- it is part of a system of belief. This being so, it is impossible for me to answer in terms of actual luk, only in terms of perceived luk. In any system of belief we do not deviate from the conventions that are acknowledged as correct within that system. Keris classifiable as Pengging are not like other Javanese blades in a number of ways, they are recognised as being quite peculiar in a number of respects. Why this is so I simply do not know. The time and place where a keris was manufactured does result in it having certain identifiable characteristics, and this is also often true of keris made by different makers. Whether luk are counted by the way I proposed as being used in early Jawa, or whether they are counted by the way that is used now, the only difference is that the number of luk will vary by two. My proposition is dependent upon a hierarchical societal structure that cannot exist within Islam.

29th October 2013, 06:39 AM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	Once again Ariel, you are absolutely correct. However you are correct only from the view point of a person who has not yet learnt the elements of the belief system that governs an understanding of the Javanese keris. In this Forum it has often been repeated that an understanding of the keris is dependent upon an understanding of the belief system that is attached to the keris. The whole thing is based on belief. Everything that is of any importance in the world of the Javanese keris is based upon belief. It is a field of knowledge that has quite specific rules attached to it, rules that are not unlike the rules that govern major religions:- we cannot understand any major religion by reverting to logic. The same is true of the keris, logic has no part in its understanding. The way in which the waves, ie, luk, are counted in a Javanese keris blade is no less dependent upon this belief system than is anything else in the world of the keris. Of course, if we wish to step outside the rules that govern this understanding for Javanese people, then we can make our own rules and decide for ourselves how we wish to count those waves. This then would be our own understanding, not the understanding of the people who originated and own this cultural icon, the keris. However, such an approach would seem to be out of step with the approach taken by collectors in any field of ethnography that I can think of, where the collectors and students who live in societies that are foreign to the society that is home to the object collected or studied, do strive to try to understand the object of their interest in terms that are in synch with the understanding of the people of that originating society. As an example we could perhaps consider the field of nihonto. Have collectors in this field followed their own guidelines, or have they endeavored to understand the way in which the Japanese people approach the subject? If we wish to understand the keris we really have no alternative but to try insofar as we are able to understand the perspective of the Javanese people. But if we only wish to collect the object and divorce that object from any understanding of it, then we can take any approach to its collection that we wish.

29th October 2013, 09:56 AM	#6
Jean Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,740	Thank you Alan for this very informative discussion, and also to all the participants in this debate, whether keris believers or just collectors Regards

29th October 2013, 12:26 PM	#7
rasdan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Kuala Lumpur Posts: 369	Yes Alan, I am asking about the actual number of luk. I just thought that it is possible for a non-Hindu keris maker to use a Hindu way of counting/making the luk. But still of course that does not explain the last luk ending towards the wadidang phenomena. Anyhow, thank you Alan for you insight.

29th October 2013, 09:43 PM	#8
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	Jean, I do think that it is valid to collect things, including keris, just for the sake of collecting. The urge to collect things that give us pleasure seems to be universal. Thus its probably unfair to refer to anybody as "just" a collector. Similarly I do not believe that it is necessary to become a "keris believer" in order to appreciate many of the qualities of the keris. However, I do most definitely believe that for anybody who wishes to understand the keris, and keris culture, it is absolutely necessary to understand, or at least try to understand the belief system that is incorporated into keris culture:- we need to understand what the Believers believe, we do not need to become one. I'd like to make an analogy. Let us say, just for argument's sake, that I am a devout Buddhist. During my childhood I had contact with a kindly Catholic priest who had come to my village to provide medical aid. Because of this contact, very early in my life I gained an interest in the paraphernalia of the Faith that I saw this priest using, most particularly was I attracted to his crucifix. As I grew older I began to buy any crucifix that I might happen to stumble upon, and by the time I was an adult I had a very considerable collection of crucifixes. I did not understand exactly what was so important to Catholics about these little crosses, but looking at them and handling them gave me pleasure. Not only did I not understand the importance of the crucifix to those who were adherents to the Christian Faith, I had not the vaguest idea of any of the beliefs of this Faith. But I did like my crucifixes. There is a lot more to this story:- went to live in the city, I began to attend church services, gained an understanding of the Christian Faith, I furthered my education, went to university and after years of study I gained a doctorate in comparative religion. Eventually I truly understood what my crucifixes were all about. In fact, I understood my crucifixes very much better than most people who practiced the Christian Faith. I did not become a Christian, I remained a Buddhist. But I did understand Christianity, and I did understand exactly what a crucifix meant within that Faith. My understanding had the effect of intensifying my pleasure in my collection of crucifixes.