When is a keris legitimate?

Bob A · 27th February 2014, 06:06 AM

“ . . .the values of collectors of keris are of less than no importance to the Javanese, but the Javanese are of immense importance to collectors of keris.”

An elegant and pithy statement which summarises the nature of the question of legitimacy regarding the keris, yet it still begs questions which the author had previously addressed, namely legitimate for what, when, and for whom.

It seems obvious that Mr Maisey’s definition of legitimacy is intimately bound to the culture and people whose iconic device is the center of this discussion, and he has presented his case thoroughly and with insight, to the extent that I feel it cannot be disputed, but it might still be refined, if that is the word I’m looking for, or perhaps expanded.

It seems therefore that legitimacy conferred on a keris would perhaps vary according to its chronological place in a cultural continuum. That is to say, a keris found legitimate in pre-Islamic Indonesia would have to remain legitimate in the eye of an outsider as well as a native Javanese; but would a keris made in the current millennium be seen as legitimate according to the lights of such a pre-Islamic Indonesian? Cultural perceptions shift, and my miniscule knowledge concerning Javanese culture leads me to suspect it is perhaps even more fluid than most.

It cannot be denied that the culture of Indonesia has been influenced by centuries of contact with the rest of the world. Can that influence be seen to be of importance to the values of the Javanese, and how might it influence their perception of the iconic nature of their keris?

While the concept of a “tourist keris” might seem, in the light of the relatively small numbers of tourists compared to the native population, tourists still number in the millions annually. The keris being obviously iconic to the culture, it is not unreasonable, although it might seem offensive to one intimate with that culture, to assume that at least some of these objects were made for purely financial reasons confined to the tourist trade. I speak as one who has never toured Indonesia, and who is nearly totally ignorant of the culture, so you may value my statement accordingly. But if it were so, I feel that this would impact on the concept of legitimacy.

“The values of collectors are of less than no importance to the Javanese” being taken as given, it seems that even the “tourist keris” would have some form of legitimacy, but it’s hard to say, as I’m unable to speak for the Javanese regarding their perception of the situation. If they confer legitimacy on such an object, who am I to object?

But I do not wish to focus on the tourist concept; the whole question is so open to consideration. Indeed, it is so open that ultimately there can be no answer such that it can be said to have been resolved to everyone’s satisfaction; or even, perhaps, to anyone’s satisfaction. As such, it is a delicious topic of exploration. Part of me wonders whether such a thing is reflective of an aspect of Javanese culture itself?

As a nearly virginal collector of keris myself, my few choices have been made on the flimsiest of bases; exposure to a large number of photographs of such objects, coupled with some reading regarding the keris and the Javanese culture. In very fact, the heaviest influence has been photographic. This permits me to hold forth in a forum of individuals who have been involved with this subject for a sum total of centuries, if not millennia; my opinions will doubtless be taken with an eye toward their intrinsic worth. Nevertheless, the level of exposure that a forum such as this, and the various sources of visual input such as auction sites, is unprecedented, and perhaps confers some small level of legitimacy to the development of an eye with which to judge the worthiness of a purchase.

It has been noted by Mr. Maisey that an ever-narrowing focus by a diminishing number of interested parties might not be a desideratum, which has prompted me to respond in these pages to his initial query; if it be considered too bold, I apologise; I have no wish to offend anyone’s sensibilities, nor do I feel that my insights are of major value to anyone beside myself.

That said, my few choices of keris to collect has been formed by a fair amount of visual input, and nearly no hands-on experience. The number of keris that one can find to handle in any major Western city is not high; in fact, the number approaches zero asymptotically. So how to decide whether, and with what, to begin a collection? My focus was on the blade, as I saw it to be the heart, if not the soul, of the keris. To my mind, older was better, as being more likely to have, yes, legitimacy. Additionally, attractive pamor or unusual appearance was of interest; something out of the ordinary might be a false trail, but just as easily might be worthy of interest for its own sake. Tuition in this sort of school must be paid, and negative information is still, after all, information.

I have no doubt that my study of the field has no chance of amounting to much, given the decades that will have been spent by others in their pursuit of knowledge of the subject, and the little time remaining to me to engage in such study. Despite that, I’m not yet deterred from further exploration.

I see that I have done little to address the subject of legitimacy; really there’s not a lot to be added to what has gone before in this thread, especially from one so far outside the subject. While I suppose it is a legitimate area of inquiry for a collector, I sense that it can only really be addressed by those within the culture being studied; even so, I’m not sure that those within said culture concern themselves with such matters. Do fish concern themselves with water? Only to the extent that the medium itself might force the matter.

David · 28th February 2014, 03:11 AM

Welcome to the forum Bob. An eloquent introductory post.

erikscollectables · 28th February 2014, 08:35 AM

Very interesting question and answers!

To me there is no generic definition of what a keris is and therefore also no generic answer to what is legitimate.

The definition of what a keris is can be different to different people but also different in context, culture, location and time (and probably some more factors I did not think of) - to each combination there will be a specific defintion as outcome and compared to that definition you can decide if a keris fits - which would make it legitimate - or not.

My personal definition of what a keris is has evolved over the last years which does not make my earlier definitions incorrect nor does it make my current definition correct - just different.

Best regards, Erik

A. G. Maisey · 2nd March 2014, 10:48 AM

Thanks for joining our discussion Bob.

Actually, I have not given any definition of keris legitimacy, but rather, I have suggested that the idea of keris legitimacy varies widely.

I do not want to deliver any lectures on why one keris may be legitimate according to my own set of values, and why another is not. Rather, I would like to try to understand the many sets of values that people with a keris interest apply when they decide the question of legitimacy for themselves.

Yes, it is fair to say my ideas about the legitimacy of keris have been heavily influenced by my lengthy involvement with Javanese culture and society. However, as I have said in post #6 :-

"I personally do not see any answers to this question as either right or wrong."

My intention in beginning this thread was to try to gain some understanding of what people with a keris interest might consider to be a "legitimate keris" as determined by their own sets of values.

Since these people will be collecting for a number of reasons, and will have various levels of knowledge and experience, as well as variation in personal preference, it is to be expected that we will see a fairly wide range of criteria expressed.

I believe I've said most of what needs to be said about the idea of the "tourist keris", but one more short comment may be useful.

There is no doubt that keris have been manufactured purely for sale as souvenirs or decorator items, but changing tastes in the wider community, as well as the present day stringent regulations that many countries have in place on import of weapons, seem to have just about removed those "tourist keris" from the shelves of tourist centres in Bali and Jawa.

The ideas about older keris, which many collectors have regarded as "tourist keris", and I am thinking here of the well known "soldier keris", are possibly a creation of the collectors themselves, caused by the transference of their own values to an indigenous society.

Bob, you have raised the question of how to decide what to include in a beginning collection. I've been asked this question more times than I could count --- probably other long term collectors have also been asked.

In my opinion there is no definitive answer. You're the person who has to live with the keris, so you need to decide for yourself just what it is about the keris that appeals to you. When you have a firm idea in your mind of why you like keris, then you have a foundation stone to build on.

However, having said that, if you continue to collect for any length of time, I believe you will find that your tastes, and your criteria, will change.

You have raised another point I'd like to comment on, and that is in the content of the last paragraph of your post.

Within Javanese and other keris bearing societies there are undoubtedly many more collectors of keris than in all of the rest of the world.

At least in Javanese society, the reasons that these people collect, and thus their ideas on legitimacy in terms of their own collections, are as varied as are these reasons in the rest of the world.

A. G. Maisey · 2nd March 2014, 10:53 AM

Erik, perhaps you may care to share at least your current thoughts on keris legitimacy with us?

erikscollectables · 2nd March 2014, 03:41 PM

My personal definition is very simple - intent for use (ceremonial or otherwise) in a keris bearing society made by a person onderstanding that society and the intended purpose of the keris.

Otherwise, to me, it can be a piece of art or craftmanship but not a keris.

The problem with intent is that it is not "measurable" after the fact, although there may be clues to what the intent could have been.

In my earlier defintions traditions of making were of influence as well but such traditions are everchanging so it can not be a sustainable definition.

Regards, Erik

Bob A · 3rd March 2014, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

T
Within Javanese and other keris bearing societies there are undoubtedly many more collectors of keris than in all of the rest of the world.

At least in Javanese society, the reasons that these people collect, and thus their ideas on legitimacy in terms of their own collections, are as varied as are these reasons in the rest of the world.

I had hoped that there might be a touchstone of sorts in the way the Javanese themselves viewed the concept. Looks like we're all wandering about in the vastness of our separate sensibilities, then.

I rather like Erik's definition as a working thesis, but I suspect it's not really operable by someone outside the culture, more or less by definition.

A. G. Maisey · 3rd March 2014, 06:43 AM

I can understand how this subject of keris understanding might seem a little bit confusing, Bob, but its not nearly as bad as you may think. Yes, there are probably a few people wandering around in a fog wondering what the whole thing is all about, but any collector, or student of the keris, who has been at the game for a little while, and given only cursory attention to the plethora of information that is available, has probably got a pretty good idea of the basics that he needs.

There probably is no "touchstone", in the sense of one single rule of thumb that can be universally applied to help a beginning collector make decisions, but as has come through in the discussion to date, people decide what is legitimate in accordance with their own area of interest or attraction.

If we care to consider the way in which collectors who are a part of Indonesian society frame their parameters, we can most certainly identify the standards of value that they apply when deciding whether any particular keris is a worthwhile addition for their own collection.

They may collect on the basis of tangguh, which is Solo-centric classification system that seeks to classify on the basis of point of origin in terms of place and time. They may collect on the basis of art. They may collect on the basis of the isi, or "content" of the blade in spiritual terms. They may collect only keris from a particular geographic location, or from only a specific designated maker or time. Or they may collect on a number of other bases.

There are very many ways in which a collection can be structured, but however one seeks to structure one's own collection, the parameters applied should take account of the collector's own interests and tastes. It is simply not possible to lay down a set of universally applicable rules and standards that could be used by everybody as a guide to the way in which their collection should be structured.

This then brings us back to the purpose of this thread:- an endeavour to identify how various people think of the concept of legitimacy when applied to the keris.

When somebody has a newly awakened interest in the keris, I personally feel that it is always a valuable use of time to read some of the hardcopy material that is available. There's a lot of information available on the keris, and on keris cultures, but it is mostly found in hardcopy form, rather than on the net.

A. G. Maisey · 3rd March 2014, 06:54 AM

Erik, I cannot disagree with your idea of what entitles a keris to be regarded as legitimate, but as you have already mentioned, and as I believe we all understand, this definition that you have framed would need to be applied within a window of time.

In the case of the keris, at least in respect of the Javanese keris, the intended purpose of a keris can often be identified by application of the principles of tangguh. When applied by a person with a good understanding of how this system functions the determination of the classification can point the way towards the intended purpose of the keris.

27th February 2014, 06:06 AM	#1
Bob A Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 435	“ . . .the values of collectors of keris are of less than no importance to the Javanese, but the Javanese are of immense importance to collectors of keris.” An elegant and pithy statement which summarises the nature of the question of legitimacy regarding the keris, yet it still begs questions which the author had previously addressed, namely legitimate for what, when, and for whom. It seems obvious that Mr Maisey’s definition of legitimacy is intimately bound to the culture and people whose iconic device is the center of this discussion, and he has presented his case thoroughly and with insight, to the extent that I feel it cannot be disputed, but it might still be refined, if that is the word I’m looking for, or perhaps expanded. It seems therefore that legitimacy conferred on a keris would perhaps vary according to its chronological place in a cultural continuum. That is to say, a keris found legitimate in pre-Islamic Indonesia would have to remain legitimate in the eye of an outsider as well as a native Javanese; but would a keris made in the current millennium be seen as legitimate according to the lights of such a pre-Islamic Indonesian? Cultural perceptions shift, and my miniscule knowledge concerning Javanese culture leads me to suspect it is perhaps even more fluid than most. It cannot be denied that the culture of Indonesia has been influenced by centuries of contact with the rest of the world. Can that influence be seen to be of importance to the values of the Javanese, and how might it influence their perception of the iconic nature of their keris? While the concept of a “tourist keris” might seem, in the light of the relatively small numbers of tourists compared to the native population, tourists still number in the millions annually. The keris being obviously iconic to the culture, it is not unreasonable, although it might seem offensive to one intimate with that culture, to assume that at least some of these objects were made for purely financial reasons confined to the tourist trade. I speak as one who has never toured Indonesia, and who is nearly totally ignorant of the culture, so you may value my statement accordingly. But if it were so, I feel that this would impact on the concept of legitimacy. “The values of collectors are of less than no importance to the Javanese” being taken as given, it seems that even the “tourist keris” would have some form of legitimacy, but it’s hard to say, as I’m unable to speak for the Javanese regarding their perception of the situation. If they confer legitimacy on such an object, who am I to object? But I do not wish to focus on the tourist concept; the whole question is so open to consideration. Indeed, it is so open that ultimately there can be no answer such that it can be said to have been resolved to everyone’s satisfaction; or even, perhaps, to anyone’s satisfaction. As such, it is a delicious topic of exploration. Part of me wonders whether such a thing is reflective of an aspect of Javanese culture itself? As a nearly virginal collector of keris myself, my few choices have been made on the flimsiest of bases; exposure to a large number of photographs of such objects, coupled with some reading regarding the keris and the Javanese culture. In very fact, the heaviest influence has been photographic. This permits me to hold forth in a forum of individuals who have been involved with this subject for a sum total of centuries, if not millennia; my opinions will doubtless be taken with an eye toward their intrinsic worth. Nevertheless, the level of exposure that a forum such as this, and the various sources of visual input such as auction sites, is unprecedented, and perhaps confers some small level of legitimacy to the development of an eye with which to judge the worthiness of a purchase. It has been noted by Mr. Maisey that an ever-narrowing focus by a diminishing number of interested parties might not be a desideratum, which has prompted me to respond in these pages to his initial query; if it be considered too bold, I apologise; I have no wish to offend anyone’s sensibilities, nor do I feel that my insights are of major value to anyone beside myself. That said, my few choices of keris to collect has been formed by a fair amount of visual input, and nearly no hands-on experience. The number of keris that one can find to handle in any major Western city is not high; in fact, the number approaches zero asymptotically. So how to decide whether, and with what, to begin a collection? My focus was on the blade, as I saw it to be the heart, if not the soul, of the keris. To my mind, older was better, as being more likely to have, yes, legitimacy. Additionally, attractive pamor or unusual appearance was of interest; something out of the ordinary might be a false trail, but just as easily might be worthy of interest for its own sake. Tuition in this sort of school must be paid, and negative information is still, after all, information. I have no doubt that my study of the field has no chance of amounting to much, given the decades that will have been spent by others in their pursuit of knowledge of the subject, and the little time remaining to me to engage in such study. Despite that, I’m not yet deterred from further exploration. I see that I have done little to address the subject of legitimacy; really there’s not a lot to be added to what has gone before in this thread, especially from one so far outside the subject. While I suppose it is a legitimate area of inquiry for a collector, I sense that it can only really be addressed by those within the culture being studied; even so, I’m not sure that those within said culture concern themselves with such matters. Do fish concern themselves with water? Only to the extent that the medium itself might force the matter.

28th February 2014, 03:11 AM	#2
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,210	Welcome to the forum Bob. An eloquent introductory post.

28th February 2014, 08:35 AM	#3
erikscollectables Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 318	Very interesting question and answers! To me there is no generic definition of what a keris is and therefore also no generic answer to what is legitimate. The definition of what a keris is can be different to different people but also different in context, culture, location and time (and probably some more factors I did not think of) - to each combination there will be a specific defintion as outcome and compared to that definition you can decide if a keris fits - which would make it legitimate - or not. My personal definition of what a keris is has evolved over the last years which does not make my earlier definitions incorrect nor does it make my current definition correct - just different. Best regards, Erik

2nd March 2014, 10:48 AM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,989	Thanks for joining our discussion Bob. Actually, I have not given any definition of keris legitimacy, but rather, I have suggested that the idea of keris legitimacy varies widely. I do not want to deliver any lectures on why one keris may be legitimate according to my own set of values, and why another is not. Rather, I would like to try to understand the many sets of values that people with a keris interest apply when they decide the question of legitimacy for themselves. Yes, it is fair to say my ideas about the legitimacy of keris have been heavily influenced by my lengthy involvement with Javanese culture and society. However, as I have said in post #6 :- "I personally do not see any answers to this question as either right or wrong." My intention in beginning this thread was to try to gain some understanding of what people with a keris interest might consider to be a "legitimate keris" as determined by their own sets of values. Since these people will be collecting for a number of reasons, and will have various levels of knowledge and experience, as well as variation in personal preference, it is to be expected that we will see a fairly wide range of criteria expressed. I believe I've said most of what needs to be said about the idea of the "tourist keris", but one more short comment may be useful. There is no doubt that keris have been manufactured purely for sale as souvenirs or decorator items, but changing tastes in the wider community, as well as the present day stringent regulations that many countries have in place on import of weapons, seem to have just about removed those "tourist keris" from the shelves of tourist centres in Bali and Jawa. The ideas about older keris, which many collectors have regarded as "tourist keris", and I am thinking here of the well known "soldier keris", are possibly a creation of the collectors themselves, caused by the transference of their own values to an indigenous society. Bob, you have raised the question of how to decide what to include in a beginning collection. I've been asked this question more times than I could count --- probably other long term collectors have also been asked. In my opinion there is no definitive answer. You're the person who has to live with the keris, so you need to decide for yourself just what it is about the keris that appeals to you. When you have a firm idea in your mind of why you like keris, then you have a foundation stone to build on. However, having said that, if you continue to collect for any length of time, I believe you will find that your tastes, and your criteria, will change. You have raised another point I'd like to comment on, and that is in the content of the last paragraph of your post. Within Javanese and other keris bearing societies there are undoubtedly many more collectors of keris than in all of the rest of the world. At least in Javanese society, the reasons that these people collect, and thus their ideas on legitimacy in terms of their own collections, are as varied as are these reasons in the rest of the world.

2nd March 2014, 10:53 AM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,989	Erik, perhaps you may care to share at least your current thoughts on keris legitimacy with us?

2nd March 2014, 03:41 PM	#6
erikscollectables Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 318	My personal definition is very simple - intent for use (ceremonial or otherwise) in a keris bearing society made by a person onderstanding that society and the intended purpose of the keris. Otherwise, to me, it can be a piece of art or craftmanship but not a keris. The problem with intent is that it is not "measurable" after the fact, although there may be clues to what the intent could have been. In my earlier defintions traditions of making were of influence as well but such traditions are everchanging so it can not be a sustainable definition. Regards, Erik Last edited by erikscollectables; 2nd March 2014 at 04:44 PM.

3rd March 2014, 06:43 AM	#8
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,989	I can understand how this subject of keris understanding might seem a little bit confusing, Bob, but its not nearly as bad as you may think. Yes, there are probably a few people wandering around in a fog wondering what the whole thing is all about, but any collector, or student of the keris, who has been at the game for a little while, and given only cursory attention to the plethora of information that is available, has probably got a pretty good idea of the basics that he needs. There probably is no "touchstone", in the sense of one single rule of thumb that can be universally applied to help a beginning collector make decisions, but as has come through in the discussion to date, people decide what is legitimate in accordance with their own area of interest or attraction. If we care to consider the way in which collectors who are a part of Indonesian society frame their parameters, we can most certainly identify the standards of value that they apply when deciding whether any particular keris is a worthwhile addition for their own collection. They may collect on the basis of tangguh, which is Solo-centric classification system that seeks to classify on the basis of point of origin in terms of place and time. They may collect on the basis of art. They may collect on the basis of the isi, or "content" of the blade in spiritual terms. They may collect only keris from a particular geographic location, or from only a specific designated maker or time. Or they may collect on a number of other bases. There are very many ways in which a collection can be structured, but however one seeks to structure one's own collection, the parameters applied should take account of the collector's own interests and tastes. It is simply not possible to lay down a set of universally applicable rules and standards that could be used by everybody as a guide to the way in which their collection should be structured. This then brings us back to the purpose of this thread:- an endeavour to identify how various people think of the concept of legitimacy when applied to the keris. When somebody has a newly awakened interest in the keris, I personally feel that it is always a valuable use of time to read some of the hardcopy material that is available. There's a lot of information available on the keris, and on keris cultures, but it is mostly found in hardcopy form, rather than on the net.

3rd March 2014, 06:54 AM	#9
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,989	Erik, I cannot disagree with your idea of what entitles a keris to be regarded as legitimate, but as you have already mentioned, and as I believe we all understand, this definition that you have framed would need to be applied within a window of time. In the case of the keris, at least in respect of the Javanese keris, the intended purpose of a keris can often be identified by application of the principles of tangguh. When applied by a person with a good understanding of how this system functions the determination of the classification can point the way towards the intended purpose of the keris.