Keris golok? - Page 2

Jussi M. · 26th April 2009, 02:40 PM

Well gentlemen...

I´ve obviously slipped a brain-fart here and should of have said nothing. I apologize in case I have irritated anyone. That has not been my purpose. I am just somewhat tired of the endless name games. I guess that comes with the territory so to speak and is something that one must get used to if one wants to continue within kerisology. Will keep the lid on from now on.

Thanks,

J.

A. G. Maisey · 27th April 2009, 05:05 AM

I feel that this has been an interesting thread, not only because of the subject matter, but because of the contributions to it.

Jussi, I can most definitely sympathise with you. Those people who have known me for a little while know that one of my pet hatreds is "The Name Game". I rather dislike the perpetual striving to stick a name on things, without first establishing a foundation.

There are many reasons why the names that we use to describe South East Asian artifacts are not necessarily accurate, even when those names are accepted as accurate. However, when we attempt to use Javanese names to describe artifacts from some other area, in the case before us, from Lombok, the whole scenario becomes ludicrous.

I do understand the desire of collectors to want to tag whatever is before them with a name. For the purposes of a personal collection record, I can see very little wrong with that. However, to extend that personal collection record into the public arena and claim that such and such a name is the correct name for something or other is simply not a responsible attitude.

Perhaps we might be able to say that a particular keris form resembles some dhapur or other, but to say that it is a particular dhapur when it is patently obvious that it has only a passing similiarity with some known dhapur is wrong.

It is a sign of healthy interest when a number of us combine to search our references and try to come up with a name for something, however, when we think we might have a candidate for the possible name, we need to firstly try to establish if the name we propose is applicable in the probable area of origin; then, we need to ensure that the reference example we are drawing on is exactly the same in all respects with the item we wish to name.If that reference example varies in only the smallest detail, the best we can do is to say that the object we seek to name resembles such and such, and quote the reference.

I'm well aware that my approach to this sort of thing is too disciplined and dry for most people, however, we can either treat the whole subject as lighthearted fun and stick any name we fancy onto something, or we can attempt a slightly more rigorous approach and try to make our opinions count for something.

When I see the interest that this thread has generated it gives me great hope for the future of keris study.

26th April 2009, 02:40 PM	#31
Jussi M. Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 235	Well gentlemen... I´ve obviously slipped a brain-fart here and should of have said nothing. I apologize in case I have irritated anyone. That has not been my purpose. I am just somewhat tired of the endless name games. I guess that comes with the territory so to speak and is something that one must get used to if one wants to continue within kerisology. Will keep the lid on from now on. Thanks, J.

27th April 2009, 05:05 AM	#32
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,771	I feel that this has been an interesting thread, not only because of the subject matter, but because of the contributions to it. Jussi, I can most definitely sympathise with you. Those people who have known me for a little while know that one of my pet hatreds is "The Name Game". I rather dislike the perpetual striving to stick a name on things, without first establishing a foundation. There are many reasons why the names that we use to describe South East Asian artifacts are not necessarily accurate, even when those names are accepted as accurate. However, when we attempt to use Javanese names to describe artifacts from some other area, in the case before us, from Lombok, the whole scenario becomes ludicrous. I do understand the desire of collectors to want to tag whatever is before them with a name. For the purposes of a personal collection record, I can see very little wrong with that. However, to extend that personal collection record into the public arena and claim that such and such a name is the correct name for something or other is simply not a responsible attitude. Perhaps we might be able to say that a particular keris form resembles some dhapur or other, but to say that it is a particular dhapur when it is patently obvious that it has only a passing similiarity with some known dhapur is wrong. It is a sign of healthy interest when a number of us combine to search our references and try to come up with a name for something, however, when we think we might have a candidate for the possible name, we need to firstly try to establish if the name we propose is applicable in the probable area of origin; then, we need to ensure that the reference example we are drawing on is exactly the same in all respects with the item we wish to name.If that reference example varies in only the smallest detail, the best we can do is to say that the object we seek to name resembles such and such, and quote the reference. I'm well aware that my approach to this sort of thing is too disciplined and dry for most people, however, we can either treat the whole subject as lighthearted fun and stick any name we fancy onto something, or we can attempt a slightly more rigorous approach and try to make our opinions count for something. When I see the interest that this thread has generated it gives me great hope for the future of keris study.