When is a keris legitimate?

kai · 30th December 2013, 12:54 AM

I, for one, feel quite happy in applying a sliding scale when deciding what to obtain for my collection and don't have any criteria written in stone that define what is IMHO legitimate, genuine, nice, untouched/complete, old, etc. and which need to be met by any new family member...

I'd be enthusiastic about any antique high-quality blade (even damaged and/or without any fittings) and may also be more than happy about an antique village keris of fairly crappy quality if deemed a "complete, original combination", from a rare origin, or, possibly, even special provenance. Heck, I may even go for a current era keris if it speaks to me...

From a practical POV, much more relevant than trying to define what makes a keris "legitimate" would be to ascertain that I don't fall prey of any misrepresentations that abound with things keris (from ol' myths/exaggerations like meteoric metal to downright lies and forgeries).

Regards,
Kai

rasdan · 30th December 2013, 04:04 AM

G’day Alan,

I’ll try to give some insights on this. Haven’t done much research, but here’s my call on this subject. Many of the following are actually my quick guess. There are probably dozens of loopholes in it and can be quite sticky.

IMHO, a keris that is perceived as “legitimate” differs with time and culture and at current time, the definition is really up to our perception. In order to identify a “legitimate” keris , we first must define the physical characteristics of a keris then distinguish the functions and the development of the functions of a keris. The definition part we already passed in previous discussions –asymmetric etc.

The keris IMHO, initially have 2 primary functions; starting out primarily as a weapon (in buda form) with religious symbols. I would imagine that it is not an item that exclusively used in religious rituals since it is quite a normal practice at that time where most items will bear some sort of religious symbolism.

During this a “legitimate” keris is a keris that is a weapon that forms the unique physical characteristics of a keris. Only nobles have keris as it is still a luxury item.

As the keris developed into the modern keris, it is then accepted as a pusaka in a sense that it is a symbol of regency/office of a certain group of people where still, in this time, only nobles owns or were given a keris. During this time, a “legitimate” keris is probably a keris that was manufactured according to the official purpose and the status and of its owner- a keris that is a weapon AND a pusaka.

During this time also, the keris culture as a pusaka weapon spreads to other places and kingdoms. Keris can also be a gift from one regent to another and the particular keris is then regarded as a pusaka of the kingdom - a symbol of a bond/relation. This is why we normally found that a pusaka keris in many kingdoms outside of Jawa are actually of Javanese origin. As in any type of items that are related with power/authority, the manufacturing quality must be superior subjected to the time period and the artistic qualities/symbolism of this type of keris must be set according to the artistic and symbolic viewpoint of the authority that starts that culture. It is probably during this period also, other kingdoms such as Palembang started their own pusaka keris culture which really inspired by the Javanese culture. These locally made keris soon becomes a pusaka weapon of that particular kingdom and the concept of a pusaka keris soon flourishes in that kingdom.

Over time, as iron becomes common and more pande are able to forge keris and the economic conditions of the general public improves, the use of the keris as a weapon becomes widespread and the general public throughout the archipelago had started to have the means in acquiring a keris. It now had evolved into culture and also a functional item of dress. However, the keris owned by the general public at this time is nothing more than a weapon. While it can be considered a pusaka once it is being passed down to the next generations in a loose sense, but it is probably not a pusaka in a sense where it have the binding power of a regent/chief where it is a symbol of authority over a certain group of people. The symbols are still preserved on the blade, but the meaning of the symbols was changed to fit the belief of that time. The concept of a pusaka that binds/authority was also maintained.

During this time, depending on our perception, there are 2 types of “legitimate” keris. Keris that are a weapon AND a pusaka (from the previous and the current era – still being made by an empu) and also kerises that are just weapons from that current era made by smiths (pande). Both types of keris can be a functional item of dress. However, although some weapon grade keris have reached a reasonable quality it is not infrequent that these keris does not meet the requirement of a pusaka grade keris that was set by the authority which is the palace of that particular culture.

We now reach the current era, where a large number of pusaka grade keris and weapon grade keris of the previous ere were passed down to newer generations. The only way to distinguish the pusaka grade to the weapons grade keris is using tangguh knowledge (for Javanese culture) or to have some knowledge to identify a quality keris – as pusaka grade keris would rationally have a high quality. I am unsure if we say that a pusaka grade keris is still being made at this day. Weapon grade keris, however, are still being made to a large extent and the quality now are significantly higher than its predecessor and in some cases it meets the specification of the older pusaka keris as well. It had become a platform purely for displaying artistic skills while maintaining its features as a weapon and a cultural item.

However, in the current era the function of a keris as a weapon is greatly reduced. Now, a keris that is an item of dress does not have to be a functional weapon. This breeds a new type of keris, where it is very hard for it to be considered a weapon (where it does not have a steel cutting edge). These are what we normally call “tourist keris” - a keris that serves a non-functional item of a cultural dress.

Coming back to our original question, what is a legitimate keris? The answer to this question IMHO lies in our perception towards the function of the keris. Does a keris must be a pusaka weapon- a weapon symbolising power and/or office- a weapon that is manufactured according to the specification specified by the ruler, or do we only require it to be just a weapon made according (or not) to the specification, or whether we will accept it as a keris as long as it looks pretty much like a keris – doesn’t matter if it does not serve as a weapon, what more a pusaka.

The keris started out as a weapon. It later evolves to an item that serves two purposes, a weapon and a pusaka. These are the 2 basic functions of a keris. Although there is a concept of a pusaka keris is not a weapon, I’m not sure if it is possible for us to accept that. A keris that is made as a cultural item, serves only as an icon of a culture displayed as an item of dress. It does not satisfy the 2 basic functions of a keris. It is not a weapon and not a pusaka. Therefore IMHO, at a minimum, a legitimate keris should be a keris that at least satisfy at least one of its original purpose- that it’s to be a weapon. A weapon that bears the unique physical attributes that forms a keris.

Now we need to define keris that serves as a "legitimate weapon"..

A. G. Maisey · 30th December 2013, 04:59 AM

I very much appreciate the thought and the effort that has gone into the opinions given above.

I do not intend to give any opinion for the moment, because I asked the question, and as I have said:- I'm interested in how others may think.

"how others may think", and it seems fairly clear that there are various shades of meaning for various people.

But Rasdan's opinion has raised another question. He has focused much of his attention on the "pusaka" character that can be attached to the keris, so Rasdan, could you please clarify for us exactly what you mean by "pusaka" and under what circumstances a might a keris become "pusaka". How could we recognise a "pusaka keris" if we were not aware that it was one?

GIO · 30th December 2013, 09:34 AM

I always remember (and have also written of this a couple of years ago in another thread) that 15 years ago I found in an antique arms shop in Liverpool an apparently perfect Bali kris, with well executed pamor (ngulit semangka or wos wutah). The only odd detail was the ganja welded to the blade. I was told that it had been made by a skilful local smith (later I discovered that he is also making Japanese-type blades with a similar mastery). This said, I am asking myself if that kris - apart from the ganja problem - could or not be considered a "legitimate kris". In my opinion it could, since the raw materials and the production process are the traditional ones, the dapor is identical to that of an old Bali kris, the prabot is executed with masterly skill, and the pamor is exactly as one expects to find on an original blade.
I think therefore that the basic question (legitimate kris or not) cannot be simply answered and that one should find a solution on a case- by- case basis, taking into consideration the basic parameters listed above (dapor, prabot and pamor).
Who knows how many "western-produced kris" are circulating today among collectors ?

rasdan · 30th December 2013, 12:53 PM

double post deleted

rasdan · 30th December 2013, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rasdan

As the keris developed into the modern keris, it is then accepted as a pusaka in a sense that it is a symbol of regency/office of a certain group of people where still, in this time, only nobles owns or were given a keris. During this time, a “legitimate” keris is probably a keris that was manufactured according to the official purpose and the status and of its owner- a keris that is a weapon AND a pusaka.
……
As in any type of items that are related with power/authority, the manufacturing quality must be superior subjected to the time period and the artistic qualities/symbolism of this type of keris must be set according to the artistic and symbolic viewpoint of the authority that starts that culture. It is probably during this period also, other kingdoms such as Palembang started their own pusaka keris culture which really inspired by the Javanese culture. These locally made keris soon becomes a pusaka weapon of that particular kingdom and the concept of a pusaka keris soon flourishes in that kingdom.
……
However, the keris owned by the general public at this time is nothing more than a weapon. While it can be considered a pusaka once it is being passed down to the next generations in a loose sense, but it is probably not a pusaka in a sense where it have the binding power of a regent/chief where it is a symbol of authority over a certain group of people.
……
The only way to distinguish the pusaka grade to the weapons grade keris is using tangguh knowledge (for Javanese culture) or to have some knowledge to identify a quality keris – as pusaka grade keris would rationally have a high quality.

G’day Alan,
Actually my take on that is embedded in the post above. I’ll reiterate what I mean. The word pusaka can be translated into 2 words in the English language. One means “regalia” and the other means “inheritance”. It can be related where regalia may be inherited, but an inheritance may not be a regalia. Here’s my guessing part.

A keris is a regalia when it is made to symbolise the authority of a king over a group of people or when it is a gift to a person authorising that person as an authority over a specific area for example. I would imagine that a normal person cannot simply acquire a pusaka keris as it would require a source of power (like a country’s constitution in modern time) to authorise this. In old Hindu times, the source of power is their God and a King I guess is supposedly God’s representation on earth. (Not sure). Let’s call this type of keris Type A.

Then there are probably nobles and rich people that may acquire high quality keris made by the empu that makes regalia type keris. These keris are not regalia, but have a very high quality. These are Type B keris. There are also keris that were made by smiths. Some have a good quality, some not very much. Let’s call these Type C keris.

Going back to the second definition of pusaka – an inheritance. Type B and Type C keris will also be a pusaka where it is a keris that is inherited by a person that is not originally made to symbolise power. So, according to the second definition of pusaka these types of keris can be any type of keris as long as it fits the physical characteristics of a keris. It can be made by an empu or a smith (type B or C).

Type B and perhaps Type C keris also however, have a chance to become a Type A or maybe I should call it a “Type A” keris as the owner is elevated to a higher status in life or perhaps become a king where he may regard his keris is a regalia of his country or area of authority. Weather this act can be regarded as “legitimate” or not, I guess it is related to that particular area concept of “source of power/authority” (which normally goes back to religion) at that particular time.

Regarding quality. I would imagine the main identification characteristics of a regalia keris is quality. For Javanese keris, the tangguh knowledge is a must. However, I think, the tangguh knowledge would be insufficient to differentiate between Type A and Type B keris as both may be made by the same empu and therefore have rather similar quality. Type C keris I would imagine can easily be distinguished as someone acquires the knowledge in determining a quality keris.

For kerises from other areas, the only way to go is to look for signs of quality and old age (if desired) using conventional wisdom as keris manufactured outside Java are probably manufactured with a different specification. Therefore it is quite impossible to apply the “tangguh like knowledge” to these kerises.

As I see it, the concept of pusaka/regalia is created by us. We create and elevate it and regard it as a symbol of authority. Without our recognition, any regalia would only be an object. Most likely an expensive object. For collectors, it is very unlikely for us to differentiate Type A and B keris unless a keris have a very good provenance. Type C keris on the other hand also can have a very good quality. Therefore, the only reasonable way to go for collectors is quality. Whether a keris is really a Type A, B or C most likely in many cases will never be known and in my opinion, are the stuff of dreams.

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.

A. G. Maisey · 30th December 2013, 09:25 PM

Thank you for your response Rasdan.

My feeling is that we are gradually building a foundation of opinions here that may help us clarify the way in which people who have responded to my question determine whether or not a keris is legitimate in their eyes.

I am hopeful that some more of our regular participants in discussion will share their thoughts with us.

30th December 2013, 12:54 AM	#1
kai Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,255	I, for one, feel quite happy in applying a sliding scale when deciding what to obtain for my collection and don't have any criteria written in stone that define what is IMHO legitimate, genuine, nice, untouched/complete, old, etc. and which need to be met by any new family member... I'd be enthusiastic about any antique high-quality blade (even damaged and/or without any fittings) and may also be more than happy about an antique village keris of fairly crappy quality if deemed a "complete, original combination", from a rare origin, or, possibly, even special provenance. Heck, I may even go for a current era keris if it speaks to me... From a practical POV, much more relevant than trying to define what makes a keris "legitimate" would be to ascertain that I don't fall prey of any misrepresentations that abound with things keris (from ol' myths/exaggerations like meteoric metal to downright lies and forgeries). Regards, Kai

30th December 2013, 04:04 AM	#2
rasdan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Kuala Lumpur Posts: 368	G’day Alan, I’ll try to give some insights on this. Haven’t done much research, but here’s my call on this subject. Many of the following are actually my quick guess. There are probably dozens of loopholes in it and can be quite sticky. IMHO, a keris that is perceived as “legitimate” differs with time and culture and at current time, the definition is really up to our perception. In order to identify a “legitimate” keris , we first must define the physical characteristics of a keris then distinguish the functions and the development of the functions of a keris. The definition part we already passed in previous discussions –asymmetric etc. The keris IMHO, initially have 2 primary functions; starting out primarily as a weapon (in buda form) with religious symbols. I would imagine that it is not an item that exclusively used in religious rituals since it is quite a normal practice at that time where most items will bear some sort of religious symbolism. During this a “legitimate” keris is a keris that is a weapon that forms the unique physical characteristics of a keris. Only nobles have keris as it is still a luxury item. As the keris developed into the modern keris, it is then accepted as a pusaka in a sense that it is a symbol of regency/office of a certain group of people where still, in this time, only nobles owns or were given a keris. During this time, a “legitimate” keris is probably a keris that was manufactured according to the official purpose and the status and of its owner- a keris that is a weapon AND a pusaka. During this time also, the keris culture as a pusaka weapon spreads to other places and kingdoms. Keris can also be a gift from one regent to another and the particular keris is then regarded as a pusaka of the kingdom - a symbol of a bond/relation. This is why we normally found that a pusaka keris in many kingdoms outside of Jawa are actually of Javanese origin. As in any type of items that are related with power/authority, the manufacturing quality must be superior subjected to the time period and the artistic qualities/symbolism of this type of keris must be set according to the artistic and symbolic viewpoint of the authority that starts that culture. It is probably during this period also, other kingdoms such as Palembang started their own pusaka keris culture which really inspired by the Javanese culture. These locally made keris soon becomes a pusaka weapon of that particular kingdom and the concept of a pusaka keris soon flourishes in that kingdom. Over time, as iron becomes common and more pande are able to forge keris and the economic conditions of the general public improves, the use of the keris as a weapon becomes widespread and the general public throughout the archipelago had started to have the means in acquiring a keris. It now had evolved into culture and also a functional item of dress. However, the keris owned by the general public at this time is nothing more than a weapon. While it can be considered a pusaka once it is being passed down to the next generations in a loose sense, but it is probably not a pusaka in a sense where it have the binding power of a regent/chief where it is a symbol of authority over a certain group of people. The symbols are still preserved on the blade, but the meaning of the symbols was changed to fit the belief of that time. The concept of a pusaka that binds/authority was also maintained. During this time, depending on our perception, there are 2 types of “legitimate” keris. Keris that are a weapon AND a pusaka (from the previous and the current era – still being made by an empu) and also kerises that are just weapons from that current era made by smiths (pande). Both types of keris can be a functional item of dress. However, although some weapon grade keris have reached a reasonable quality it is not infrequent that these keris does not meet the requirement of a pusaka grade keris that was set by the authority which is the palace of that particular culture. We now reach the current era, where a large number of pusaka grade keris and weapon grade keris of the previous ere were passed down to newer generations. The only way to distinguish the pusaka grade to the weapons grade keris is using tangguh knowledge (for Javanese culture) or to have some knowledge to identify a quality keris – as pusaka grade keris would rationally have a high quality. I am unsure if we say that a pusaka grade keris is still being made at this day. Weapon grade keris, however, are still being made to a large extent and the quality now are significantly higher than its predecessor and in some cases it meets the specification of the older pusaka keris as well. It had become a platform purely for displaying artistic skills while maintaining its features as a weapon and a cultural item. However, in the current era the function of a keris as a weapon is greatly reduced. Now, a keris that is an item of dress does not have to be a functional weapon. This breeds a new type of keris, where it is very hard for it to be considered a weapon (where it does not have a steel cutting edge). These are what we normally call “tourist keris” - a keris that serves a non-functional item of a cultural dress. Coming back to our original question, what is a legitimate keris? The answer to this question IMHO lies in our perception towards the function of the keris. Does a keris must be a pusaka weapon- a weapon symbolising power and/or office- a weapon that is manufactured according to the specification specified by the ruler, or do we only require it to be just a weapon made according (or not) to the specification, or whether we will accept it as a keris as long as it looks pretty much like a keris – doesn’t matter if it does not serve as a weapon, what more a pusaka. The keris started out as a weapon. It later evolves to an item that serves two purposes, a weapon and a pusaka. These are the 2 basic functions of a keris. Although there is a concept of a pusaka keris is not a weapon, I’m not sure if it is possible for us to accept that. A keris that is made as a cultural item, serves only as an icon of a culture displayed as an item of dress. It does not satisfy the 2 basic functions of a keris. It is not a weapon and not a pusaka. Therefore IMHO, at a minimum, a legitimate keris should be a keris that at least satisfy at least one of its original purpose- that it’s to be a weapon. A weapon that bears the unique physical attributes that forms a keris. Now we need to define keris that serves as a "legitimate weapon"..

30th December 2013, 04:59 AM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,989	I very much appreciate the thought and the effort that has gone into the opinions given above. I do not intend to give any opinion for the moment, because I asked the question, and as I have said:- I'm interested in how others may think. "how others may think", and it seems fairly clear that there are various shades of meaning for various people. But Rasdan's opinion has raised another question. He has focused much of his attention on the "pusaka" character that can be attached to the keris, so Rasdan, could you please clarify for us exactly what you mean by "pusaka" and under what circumstances a might a keris become "pusaka". How could we recognise a "pusaka keris" if we were not aware that it was one?

30th December 2013, 09:34 AM	#4
GIO Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 328	I always remember (and have also written of this a couple of years ago in another thread) that 15 years ago I found in an antique arms shop in Liverpool an apparently perfect Bali kris, with well executed pamor (ngulit semangka or wos wutah). The only odd detail was the ganja welded to the blade. I was told that it had been made by a skilful local smith (later I discovered that he is also making Japanese-type blades with a similar mastery). This said, I am asking myself if that kris - apart from the ganja problem - could or not be considered a "legitimate kris". In my opinion it could, since the raw materials and the production process are the traditional ones, the dapor is identical to that of an old Bali kris, the prabot is executed with masterly skill, and the pamor is exactly as one expects to find on an original blade. I think therefore that the basic question (legitimate kris or not) cannot be simply answered and that one should find a solution on a case- by- case basis, taking into consideration the basic parameters listed above (dapor, prabot and pamor). Who knows how many "western-produced kris" are circulating today among collectors ?

30th December 2013, 12:53 PM	#5
rasdan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Kuala Lumpur Posts: 368	double post deleted

30th December 2013, 04:22 PM	#7
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,209	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.

30th December 2013, 09:25 PM	#8
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,989	Thank you for your response Rasdan. My feeling is that we are gradually building a foundation of opinions here that may help us clarify the way in which people who have responded to my question determine whether or not a keris is legitimate in their eyes. I am hopeful that some more of our regular participants in discussion will share their thoughts with us.