keris hilts material

[Marcokeris]

An interesting article about keris hilts material

http://atkinson-swords.com/collectio...-spiritual.pdf

[Battara]

A great article thank you for posting this!

[David]

Thanks Marco, a very interesting and well presented article indeed, though i cannot say that it is not generously peppered with many questionable statements and inaccuracies that have plagued keris study for generations. It might be a good idea for us to ferret some of these out for discussion here.

[Sajen]

Thank you Marco!

[kai]

Hasn't this link been posted here before? If not, sorry for not bringing it over here earlier!

I'm with David - it seems like a compilation (mainly) based on secondary or tertiary sources and hardly any statements are explicitedly referenced.

Chinese whisper, anyone?

I realize how tough it is to present a critical discussion on interesting topics like this. I do believe though that we need to adhere to academic and/or journalistic standards, if we really want to progress from story-telling.

Regards,
Kai

[A. G. Maisey]

An interesting article.

It is very easy to criticise any writing that deals with the keris. As a general rule knowledgeable keris people from Solo will ruthlessly criticise keris opinions and writing produced by people with a Jogja background, and the opposite is also true. Both will level criticism at opinions and writing produced by people from outside the heartlands of Jawa.

I think I have heard :- "Why don't people learn about the keris before they write about the keris?" more times than I can remember. But when generally held opinions change from place to place, keris group to keris group and even if you cross the road, it is not really so easy to present an opinion, or even well based information, that is acceptable to everybody.

Yes, there are a number of statements in this article that are questionable or inaccurate, but that is only a reflection of my own opinion, which in some respects could be as inaccurate as that which I question.

Certainly, many statements in this article are not attached to a citation. I can understand this, if I write something I have a lot of difficulty providing citations, for the simple reason that most of what I write is the product of either personal experience, often experience over years, of small fragments of information coming together to produce a whole.

Then there is the question of just how good any citation in the matter of keris knowledge is able to be. I do not know of any published work on the keris that I could not write pages of criticism on. Most have been produced by people who have never been a part of the core of keris knowledge, frequently by people who do not speak Bahasa Indonesia, and who do not understand the society or the culture from which the keris has come. Even when a piece of writing has been produced by an Indonesian it is often the case that the Indonesian concerned either does not understand Javanese, or is on the outside of the World of the Keris, looking in through a window.

I just wrote that I could level extensive criticism of every piece of writing on the keris. This was not correct. I do know of one piece of writing, only one, that is above criticism, and that is the landmark publication of Garrett & Bronwen Solyom.

Personally, I am rather hesitant to publicly criticise anybody when it comes to keris opinions, and writing on the keris. We are dealing here with a subject that does not have a solid, universally agreed foundation. Most of that which is accepted as "knowledge" is in fact opinion or belief, and the opinion or belief that we might hold has probably come from somebody else, either in full, or by way of another person's opinions or beliefs.

The article under discussion here seems to have an equal measure of information gathered from other published sources, and information that the writer has sourced from personal informants and personal experience. I have not seen anything quite like this article, and I personally regard it as a useful addition to the keris literature.

[David]

Well Alan, i don't completely disregard what you wrote. However, this is hopefully a place of learning where questionable parts of any writing presented for our edification can be discussed and debated. The alternative it to simply accept what is written, say thank you very much and move on. Yes, just about everything written on this topic is opinion, but if we don't question opinions that we either disagree with or feel that sufficient evidence to that opinion has not as of yet been presented we run the risk of simply extending false impressions for future generations of keris collectors. I don't believe anyone here has suggested that the linked article is not interesting and useful information. But i also find argument with it from the very first paragraph. If we are not here to discuss such things what are we here for.

[A. G. Maisey]

David, I would most gently suggest that almost all writing on the keris is open to question, and that is why in most cases we express our opinions, rather than hard facts.

In respect of the article in question, there is a lot there that very few people are equipped to debate, and even if there is somebody who feels that he can debate the content, what solid evidence can he use to back up that debate?

I suggest that all anybody can do is to state an opposing opinion and quote somebody else's opposing opinion to support his own argument. Even where somebody who has personal experience of a matter can contradict something that has been written this still becomes an unsupported argument.

Kai would like to see academic standards, or journalistic standards maintained. So each time I write something that nobody else is aware of, I need to cite a reference, or perhaps supply photographs? Sorry, the best I can do in most cases is just to tell stories or give opinions, and since we are a friendly little group here, I personally feel that this is sufficient.

I am not suggesting that we should not discuss this article, or anything else for that matter, but I personally would draw the line at criticism of this article.

I did state an opinion though:-

"--- I personally regard it as a useful addition to the keris literature."

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

I did state an opinion though:-

"--- I personally regard it as a useful addition to the keris literature."

Well that appears to be one opinion no one has so far disagreed with.
However, this article presents it's information not as opinion, but as fact. As such i personally have no problem questioning some of these views and i don't necessarily need evidential proof to the contrary to make a point about it.
For instance...
"The hilt is shaped to represent a squatting human figure (understood as a “divine” ancestor) and shares the same material as the blade, iron (or steely iron), which is often meteoric and therefore a symbol of the cosmic force."
What convincing evidence has ever been presented that meteoric ore was used with any consistency in keris manufacture before the Prambanan meteorite fall? I could never say that no keris was ever made with meteoric material before that 18th century fall, but i do feel fairly safe saying that it wasn't used "often" before then. Frankly, it wasn't really used often even after Prambanan.
Yes, i do realize that there are those who hold the opinion that keris have always used such "star metal" in its construction. However, if you are going to put that kind of questionable "information" in an academic article on the subject without backing up such claims they are, IMHO, fair game for criticism.
But frankly, i don't think i use that word criticism in the same manner as you do Alan. Maybe it is because i teach and am accustom to facilitating critique class all the time that i tend to use the secondary meaning of the word more often.
"...the analysis and judgment of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work. Alternative methods of criticism supported by well-developed literary theories.
synonyms:evaluation, assessment, appraisal, analysis, judgment"
Criticism need not always be negative and i do hope we can also discuss the virtues of this article as well as its potential errors.
Perhaps you could discuss what you actually find useful about the article.

[A. G. Maisey]

Actually David, I tend to think of "criticism" in the sense of passing judgement upon something. I guess I do that because it is what I have done professionally for in excess of 50 years. True, when we undertake to pass judgement upon anything written about the keris, or opinions expressed about the keris, either verbally or in writing, we do very often criticise in a negative fashion; this weighting of criticism towards the negative is inherent in use of the word "criticise", as in British English the primary meaning given to the word incorporates the qualifiers of "especially unfavourable". On the other hand, a "critique" is usually more in the nature of a balanced judgement with no weighting.

Personally, I am not only reluctant to pass public judgement upon what others may write about the keris, but I am also reluctant to pass judgement upon the syntax of people who write in a language other than their own. I think I would be correct in saying that Marco A. Briccola is not a native speaker of the English language. Perhaps his writing style is a little bit more positive than it need be, but possibly his writing skills do not permit a more measured approach. I taught English to new migrants to Australia, as a community service, for about ten years, and my personal life has been interwoven with non-native speakers of English for virtually all of my life. What I have found is that quite often the verbally expressed idea will be a shade different to the written idea. In any case, I'm prepared to give Marco the benefit of the doubt in respect of the way he presents his information.

Insofar as the old meteoritic myth goes, well, that has been so often quoted as fact that I'm sick to the back teeth of reading it and hearing it. In fact only in the last few days I read something written by somebody with a lot more letters after their name than I guess Marco has, there was the old meteoritic thing again. Yes, agreed unconditionally, this meteoritic thing has been put to bed long ago.

But the funny thing is this:- in Jawa I can find any number of people who believe that many old keris contain meteorite. They cannot prove it, and once the material goes into a blade, nobody can prove where it actually came from. The meteorite thing is like a lot of keris "knowledge":- it is a matter of belief.

Personally I believe that the only keris that we can be relatively certain do contain meteoritic material are a very few that were made by Central Javanese mpus with kraton connections and after about 1820, as well as an even lesser number that have been made in recent times.

So, although we can be pretty certain about which keris do contain meteorite, we cannot be at all certain if we say that all other keris do not contain meteorite.

Its like a lot of things connected with the keris:- it comes down to opinion and belief:- you & I choose to believe one thing, others choose to believe something else. Let them believe, I'm not prepared to try to convince them otherwise.

This article is in David Atkinson's site, where he tells us that it is an unpublished manuscript. I sincerely doubt that we can classify Marco's unpublished manuscript as a piece of academic writing. I could be totally wrong on this, but I feel that it was written by an avid collector, rather than an academic. Academia is a very hard place to be, it is not particularly pleasant, it is populated with people seeking advancement and renown at the expense of those whose (figuratively) dead bodies they crawl over. Personally I will be very happy to not see any academic taint on our friendly little discussion group.

In respect of the usefulness of Marco's article to me, I'm sorry to say that it is no use whatsoever to me. Everything that Marco has written I have already heard, some things I agree with, some I do not agree with, but just as I have never taken apart the writing of other much, much better known writers on the keris, I will also not take Marco's writing apart.

Many years ago I did dissect the first edition of one keris writer's book. He had made one hell of a lot of silly statements, and in my own defence, I was much younger then than I am now. In any case, he published his second edition of this book and a lot of those silly things had disappeared. I could do the same exercise with just about everything that has been published on the keris, but I will not. There is no future in it, and mostly what this type of exercise comes down to is one person's opinion and belief measured against another person's opinion and belief. In fact, it is pointless, and at its best does nothing at all to advance the understanding of the keris. At its worst, it only generates animosity.

[David]

Well Alan, i've made no questions nor judgements of Marco's writing skills and other than a few spelling errors this article seems quite well written regardless of his language of origin. I don't quite see your point there.
As to the word "academic", it can be taken to many higher levels and extremes to be sure. But we have a well written and illustrated article that uses footnotes and references in it's writing (including a reference to your own writing). I don't know much about Marco, but it seems his approach was indeed an academic one even if Marco himself does not appear with a litany of letters after his name. He was not writing an opinion piece after all, but a well researched paper on the subject of keris hilts which, i am sure, he intended to be taken seriously.
As such (though of course i cannot know for sure) i do not sense that Marco was writing from a place of "belief" nor that he would feel animosity if any of his writing were to be brought into question. He is simply repeating things he has read or heard (as you have stated, there is nothing in this paper you have not heard before). Now i am speaking on assumption, a dangerous thing indeed, but given Marco's full name i reckon he is probably a Western collector or enthusiast, not member of any keris culture per se. So my sense is that he is not speaking from a place of "belief", but rather he is attempting to write a well researched and factual paper on the subject that will be informational, educational,interesting and, hopefully, correct. Yes, this "correct" thing can indeed be a spurious word, especially in the world of keris where many things are regarded simply as a matter of belief. However, i don't get the impression that he is necessarily culturally tied to a "belief" or series of beliefs when it comes to keris. Now, as you said yourself: "Insofar as the old meteoritic myth goes, well, that has been so often quoted as fact that I'm sick to the back teeth of reading it and hearing it. In fact only in the last few days I read something written by somebody with a lot more letters after their name than I guess Marco has, there was the old meteoritic thing again. Yes, agreed unconditionally, this meteoritic thing has been put to bed long ago."
And yet, it hasn't been put to bed, has it, because it keeps coming back again and again each time someone uses an old reference book that makes an unsubstantiated point of saying it is true. And the myth is extended and supported by its own weight.
If you feel it is useless to point out these questionable points of the keris mythos that is, of course, your own affair. However, i disagree that it does nothing to advance the understanding of the keris and would encourage further discussion on this very interesting article including honest and straightforward critique of its contents.

[A. G. Maisey]

You are undoubtedly correct David.

As with many things, its a matter of perspective.