New Keris/Keris baru

[David]

Originally Posted by Rick

Ahh, why did you have to bring up Vincent, David .

Botticelli was a great technician for his time; but Vincent; Vincent was a gift from God .

Like Mozart .

I agree, but my point is that Vincent's work and technique would never have been acceptable for Botticelli's time. His work work be viewed as crude and unschooled in that period. I could just as easily compared his work to da Vinci or Rembrandt with the same conclusion.

[Jussi M.]

Originally Posted by David

I agree, but my point is that Vincent's work and technique would never have been acceptable for Botticelli's time. His work work be viewed as crude and unschooled in that period. I could just as easily compared his work to da Vinci or Rembrandt with the same conclusion.

Yes. However in the case of keris the parameters and boundaries that the "art piece" must fit in to and meet in the manufacturing process are much closer than is the case with the presented paintings which I see as completely different art forms - they are so separated from each other. Keris is my opinion is "just one" art form with multiple subcategories. I think the painting analogy would benefit of thinking how a given painting or at least a style of painting could had been been in different eras. - Different materials, different technology, different set of skills, yet painting the same thing.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you gentlemen.

It seems I no longer need to write 10,000 words to answer Rasdan's questions. To a large extent, I feel those questions have already been answered, but answered within relative context.

Yes, we all like representations of things to look like what they represent. Problem is that very, very few artists set out to do this. The painters and sculptors of the Renaissance did not produce art works that looked like real people:- they produced idealised images of human form that pleased their clients and patrons.

Similarly, the post-impressionists did not produce works that looked like what they used as a subject. The images were idealised in a different way.

But both these different types of artists produced great art, as David has demonstrated. Art is something that touches the human soul. Great art touches the human soul deeply.

Michelangelo did not produce works that looked like real people. He produced idealised images, with distorted proportions that were intended to be viewed from a certain angle in a certain place, at which time and place they would look correct. I think it is his "David" that has a disproportionately large head, because it was intended to be viewed from below in the open air, in a square.
Portrait painters do not produce photographically correct images of their subjects --- if they did they'd never get any commissions. They idealise the subject.

This is called "art".

To understand any art we need to learn to understand it. I have friends who tell me that Jackson Pollock's works are wonderful. Personally I can't see it, but I did not go to university and get a degree in art appreciation. I am not qualified to comment on Jackson Pollock, because I don't understand his work.

The same applies to other art forms. Take classical ballet as an example. I loath ballet. This is my personal taste. I do not understand ballet, I know nothing about it, but I do know that I don't like it. I don't like classical ballet.

The point I am trying to make is this:- to understand any art form, one needs to be taught how to understand and appreciate that art form, otherwise it becomes a matter of personal taste, as with my dislike of ballet. I can certainly say if I like ballet or not, but I am not qualified to say if a performance of ballet is any good, or not.

The keris as an art work is no different.

We can all express an opinion as to whether we like a keris or not, but very few of us can give an informed opinion as to whether it is any good --- or not.

Here are Rasdan's questions:-

1. How do we measure quality? For instance, your keris have a different ratio of sorsoran width to its length when compared to Rick's keris. The sekar kacang is also different. (It's entirely different probably) How does the shape of the ricikan justifies quality?

2. If we take tangguh as age, how can we apply the quality measures to keris with different tangguh? If we take tangguh as style of keris, can we still use the same parameters?

The first question, a couple of questions actually, 'how do we measure quality', and 'how does the shape of the ricikan justify quality'

Probably the place to start is to ask another question:-

define quality

but I'm not going to do that, I will assume that Rasdan is asking his questions in an artistic sense.

Firstly we need to classify the keris. We do not apply the same standards to a Senopaten keris, as we do to a Surakarta keris.

Then we appraise in accordance with the standards of the classification.

How do we know the standards of the classification and how to apply in appraisal?

As with any art form, we need to learn those standards. There is no easy way. There is no nice neat mechanical formula that allows us to use specific measurements. We need to learn the classifications and standards from the ground up. In my experience, the only truly effective way to do this is to find an ahli keris and convince him to teach you. Otherwise you are locked in the standards of personal opinion forever.

Since it is not really possible for everybody to get the tuition that is needed to truly understand quality in a keris, perhaps the best approach is as Rasdan has said, to collect what you like, because ultimately it is you who has to live with the keris.

However, with all that said, there is one universal that applies in all art, and in all keris:- craftsmanship. A good keris will never display shoddy craftsmanship. Superb craftsmanship may not necessarily indicate that you have a good keris in your hand, but if the craftsmanship is less than excellent, the keris cannot be a good one.

The second universal that applies, especially with older keris, is condition. A good older keris will not be a worn out ghost. A very worn older keris may be appreciated for other reasons, and some very worn older keris can command pretty impressive prices, but the reasons for appreciation of such a keris need not incorporate an overall appraisal of "good".

The third universal is material:- no matter if we are looking at an old keris, or a brand new keris, the material must be good. Good iron is dense with tight grain, and stains to a good dense black. It is not open pored and grey. Good pamor is artistically correct; it conforms with the pamor standard. Good steel is able to be hardened (evidenced by the sepuh line) and is not brittle or given to cracking.

The traditional way to appraise quality is to appraise in terms of classification (tangguh), form, and features. But then you need to appraise the pamor, steel, iron, craftsmanship, and feeling.

You cannot do any of this appraisal in the absence of adequate instruction from somebody who understands all of this. An ahli keris.

That's the answer Rasdan, and it is not at all the one you wanted. To be able to appraise a keris you need to learn the keris. There is no easy way to do this. You need an ahli keris who will agree to teach you, then you need an immense amount of time and perseverance. You need to be prepared to sacrifice time and money and many other things in your life. There is no formula, no secret method, no mechanical matrix. Its like any other field of art, you need to learn the art. To do this you need time and a teacher.

In any field of art there are the laymen, and there are the authorities. Usually it is the authorities who lead, and the laymen who follow. No different with keris. When Empu Suparman was alive there was a constant stream of people to his door seeking his opinion on keris that they wanted to buy or sell. He was the authority, the expert, the ahli keris. People sought his opinion, and he was paid for this opinion. Exactly the same with art in the western world:- very often a buyer will seek the opinion of an expert before purchase of an art work.

The ordinary collector or investor in art cannot know everything. Usually he is the same as the ordinary collector of keris:- he knows what he likes, but when he wants to invest heavy money, he employs somebody who has the experience and/or qualifications to provide an opinion on the work before he buys it.

The upside of this is that anybody who truly wishes to gain the knowledge necessary to understand the keris can do this. But as with all education it costs time, and money, and sacrifice, and perseverance. It just depends on how badly one wishes to gain this knowledge.

[rasdan]

Thank you for the in depth reply Alan.

So now, different set of rules of quality for different tangguh. Meaning tangguh knowledge is on top priority and probably meaning that if a Javanese keris does not fit into a specific tangguh, it probably does not reach the minimum requirement.

When you say, "Superb craftsmanship may not necessarily indicate that you have a good keris in your hand", does this means that even if the keris can have superior material, workmanship and technical aspects (proportion etc), but it does not fit in certain tangguh hence posibly the keris is made by somebody that probably does not understand the keris? Are there any other reason for this?

[A. G. Maisey]

Short answer:- yes.

Whether one believes that tangguh is a true indication of real age, or whether one believes it is a classification that has a relationship with the passing of time, doesn't really matter, but one must have a knowledge and understanding of tangguh before one can adequately appraise a keris.

I don't know that it is a matter of "not reach minimum requirement"; I'd need to think about that and what it means, but it is certain that if one only understands, say, the Mataram Senopaten keris, one cannot adequately appraise either a Surakarta keris, or a Pajajaran keris, using the same guidelines.

When I wrote the lines on "superb craftsmanship etc" I had in mind certain recently produced keris that really are superb examples of art and metal carving, but in my opinion, and the opinions of some other purists, these works are not keris. Art, yes, maybe even great art, but keris? No.

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Firstly we need to classify the keris. We do not apply the same standards to a Senopaten keris, as we do to a Surakarta keris.

Jussi, Alan's remark above is the my reasoning for the art comparison that i presented. Certainly paintings are not the same as keris, but i still think the analogy is still an effective one.
Alan, thank you for this excellent summary. While i realize much more can be said on the subject this is the best brief i have read on the subject to date. Unfortunately i would say that the greater number of us do not have either the resources nor the opportunity to approach this from the position of apprentice to a keris ahli. My only course of action is to continue to look, listen and learn where and when i can, to take advice from people i trust and continue to collect the keris that i feel "call" to me. I believe that i have developed some recognition of quality, but certainly do not have the knowledge of exactly what is to be expected from keris quality from all the different tangguhs. And while i feel that i do in fact know how to recognize quality in general i will openly admit that i have a few keris that i truly love despite their obvious lack of quality because in my own estimation they hold great "character".
Now i would like to extent the painting analogy just a step further and play a bit of devil's advocate if you all don't mind. Please understand Alan that i do absolutely agree with you in regards to all you say, including the need to study with a keris ahli for a complete understanding of these matters. But this brings to mind the question of authorities in all kinds of social hierarchy. Certainly one would need to find a teacher that they could trust and one whose knowledge was considered accurate and comprehensive by their peers. And this leads me to my next analogy. I have recently caught the BBC show Fake or Fortune? a number of times. One episode in particular attempts to authenticate a painting as a Monet that a fellow had owned for more than a decade. They go to great lengths on this show to get to the bottom of this mystery and find many experts who feel sure that the painting in question was indeed painted by Monet. I was convinced that they had established all the provenance necessary by the end of the show. But when they final had the opportunity to present the painting to the Wildenstein Institute, the accepted final word authority on all things Monet, they refused to authenticate the painting. Without their approval this painting will never be fully accepted as a real Monet regardless of what any other expert has to say about it. You can read about the case here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bords_d...e_à_Argenteuil
I realize that this is an extreme case, but i think it illustrates that experts are often at odds with one another. In the end i think i still must conduct my collecting based upon my own personal likes and dislikes. This does, of course, need to be an educated perspective. The more i "know" the more i am capable of appreciating. The more i learn, the more my understanding and appreciation can grow. But for now i simply must collect with my "gut". As a certain Monty Python skit once pronounced, "I may not know art, but i know what i like!"

[Jussi M.]

Originally Posted by David

Jussi, Alan's remark above is the my reasoning for the art comparison that i presented. Certainly paintings are not the same as keris, but i still think the analogy is still an effective one. (...) In the end i think i still must conduct my collecting based upon my own personal likes and dislikes. This does, of course, need to be an educated perspective. The more i "know" the more i am capable of appreciating. The more i learn, the more my understanding and appreciation can grow. But for now i simply must collect with my "gut". As a certain Monty Python skit once pronounced, "I may not know art, but i know what i like!"

David - I am not in variance to what you are saying. It´s just that analogies can be a difficult means of communication as different people see and associate different things alike and vice versa, alike things differently. Now that I´ve read your answer above I see that I misunderstood what you meant. Possibly because I am handicapped at the English language as it is not my native language. It can, of course, also be that I simply look at things from a different perspective. This does not necessarily have anything to do with the way you presented your case; it´s on the other end where the interpretation is done. - Believe me, as a teacher I know how differently different people can interpret things said or written

[dbhmgb]

WOW - a fantastic thread for a new-comer to the keris! Thank you all for your contributions.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes David, all experts are not equal.

Brings to mind the old "oils ain't oils" ad.

Tangguh understanding is central to keris understanding, but even in Jawa many very highly respected people say "tangguh nggak sungguh" : "tangguh isn't real"

It doesn't matter if its real or not. It is a solid system of classification, and people of approximately equal knowledge will not vary very much in their assessments of an applicable tangguh, meaning that, for instance, a Surakarta keris from the 19th century will never be identified as a Pajajaran keris, or a Majapahit keris, or a Pajang keris. Whatever tangguh is agreed upon, that tangguh will give an indication of relative age. I stress "relative".

But at its foundation tangguh is about money. It is not about playing a game with keris to see who the smartest bloke in the room is.

It is also about keris of good quality.

At this point we enter the circle of reason, or put another way, circular reasoning.

We need to be able to identify quality in the absence of tangguh, and we do this by using the universals I've mentioned above, plus a few other indicators, such as cross section of sogokan, regularity and form of greneng, the nearness to mirror image of each face of the keris, the form and robustness of the gonjo --- etc. Little things that can tell us if this keris was really made by somebody with skill, or not.

If we decide that, yes, this is a nicely made keris, then we closely examine the indicators to try to place that keris into a legitimate classification, or tangguh, and tangguh is a system that was developed primarily to classify keris of quality. Investment property.

As I have said:- its all about money.

Salesmen will very, very frequently present a Koripan keris as Mataram, Sultan Agung. A Koripan keris has the same form as a Mataram SA, but it is marginally more coarse in some details, and it lacks "presence". The value of a Mataram SA is vastly more than a Koripan in equal condition.

The examples of misrepresentation go on and on. Gresik for Pajajaran, Tuban-Majapahit for Majapahit, Mataram-Matesih for Amangkurat --- and on, and on and on.

In Jawa, if you do not understand tangguh and you want to buy keris you are setting yourself up for not only considerable loss of money, but perhaps disappointment when you eventually discover the truth. In the Western World, this doesn't matter. You can go on believing that your Koripan is Mataram SA forever, and it is unlikely that you will ever be disillusioned. But in Jawa, sooner or later you will meet somebody with understanding and by then its too late to run back to the dealer. You've done your dough --- or you perpetuate the lie.

Keris collecting in the Western World, and in Jawa are very different entities. In the Western World we mostly do not outlay serious sums of money for keris. In Jawa the serious collector may outlay a sum of money equivalent to the cost of a house. Under these conditions it is imperative that there is some understanding of the system that sets the ground rules for value.

As for validation of an acquisition upon the basis of "I like it", I do exactly the same thing, a lot of my personal collection is comprised of "keris that I like". Not much value to anybody except me.

[Jean]

Truly excellent threads Alan, you said it all, thank you!

[David]

Originally Posted by Jean

....you said it all....

Somehow i doubt that, but it's a good start...

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks for the vote of confidence Jean, but as David has indicated, what I have written is a very long way from everything that there is to be known about this facet of keris understanding.

However, anybody who can absorb what I've written and who then uses it as a basis for increase of knowledge will be a long way along the road towards avoiding regrettable error.

[ariel]

I remember an anecdote from Gardner's book how he repeatedly switched the handles of kerises from different areas and showed them to the same indonesian experts. Needless to say, they faithfully attributed the same blade with different handles to the origin of the handle.

I am also puzzled by the fact that neither Frey's nor Ghiringhelli's books ever mention or even discuss the potential ages of the kerises presented there, - obviously, the most outstanding examples of the genre. Instead, they repeatedly mention purely esthetic features of particular kerises, including wood coloring, quality of carvings, elegance of jewelry etc.

Since as Mr. Maisey stipulated that it is all about money, one can recall that a heavily patinated and pockmarked authentic crusader's sword lacking original handle and scabbard would fetch infinitely more interest and money from professional collectors than an outstanding and complete 20th century rendition of the same.

Would it be correct to say that, unlike all other fields of weapon studies and in the absense of inscribed and authenticated dating and signature, the field of indonesian kerises is largely "art appreciation" rather than historical study of weapons? Is keris more in league with, say, netsuke rather than with katana?

Is it a naive question?

[A. G. Maisey]

Ariel you have raised some seemingly interesting questions here, and I'll do my best to respond. My responses are interpolated.


I remember an anecdote from Gardner's book how he repeatedly switched the handles of kerises from different areas and showed them to the same indonesian experts. Needless to say, they faithfully attributed the same blade with different handles to the origin of the handle.


Gardner did not claim that he showed the kerises concerned to experts, nor did he show them to Indonesians, he sought the opinion of a number of Malay people, logical, as he was working in old British Malaya during the colonial era. What he says is that these people seem to be guided by the shape of the hilt and the scabbard. The same thing would happen in Jawa if you only consulted ordinary people, and in fact to name a complete keris in accordance with its dress is the correct approach, for example, if we have a Javanese keris with Bugis blade, it is named as a Javanese keris, it is only when we draw the keris and begin the process of appraisal that we will designate the blade as Bugis.

In this matter, there is another factor:- Gardner was classifying blades as:-

Northern Malay or Patani, Rembau, Jawa, Bugis, Sumatra.

When we are dealing with the Javanese, or more properly the Surakarta system of blade classification that is known as tangguh, we are only dealing with blades made in the Land of Jawa. Blades made on the Island of Jawa, but outside the Land of Jawa, do not even get a mention, let alone blades from other locations.

Then there is another factor:-

the indigenous person and the white man.

Malay and Indonesian peoples will invariably give an answer that they believe the questioner expects, if that questioner is either an outsider, or a person of higher status. In these societies you do not get an honest answer until you are inside the society, and inside a family. This practice was even more widespread in colonial times than it is today. If Gardner presented a complete keris in Javanese dress, but with a Bugis blade, even if the person he asked recognised it for what it was, he would be very unlikely to provide an opinion that varied from the obvious, because on the face of it, it was a Javanese keris, and he would assume that his societal superior (Mr. Gardner) would be expecting to be told it was Javanese.



I am also puzzled by the fact that neither Frey's nor Ghiringhelli's books ever mention or even discuss the potential ages of the kerises presented there, - obviously, the most outstanding examples of the genre. Instead, they repeatedly mention purely esthetic features of particular kerises, including wood coloring, quality of carvings, elegance of jewelry etc.


The Frey and Ghiringelli books were written by people from western cultures, for people from western cultures. I corresponded with Edward Frey, and I can say with certainty that the keris was only one of his interests. He could not read nor speak Indonesian nor Javanese, he had only a very superficial understanding of the culture, and although he may (I am uncertain) have heard of tangguh, it is an absolute certainty that he did not have even the vaguest understanding of it. He wrote a good beginner's book for a western readership.

The First Invincible Keris book written by Vanna and Mario Ghiringelli is a good basic identification index, once again written for western collectors.

The second Invincible Keris book, written by Vanna Ghiringelli adopts a more in depth approach, which is indicative of the greater depth of knowledge in the western collecting community in 2007, as compared to 1991, but it is still a book that reflects a western collector's perspective, rather than a perspective that would be recognised by a Javanese ahli keris.

All these books have value to a collector, especially a new collector, but they do not even begin to impart a Javanese understanding, the understanding that is provided is an understanding for western collectors, which is fine, but what I am touching on in my writing is an understanding that is closer to the way the keris is understood in Jawa.

Since as Mr. Maisey stipulated that it is all about money,

Yes, it is all about money, and since I am writing about the Surakarta system of blade classification that is known as "tangguh", the "it" concerned is that system. The tangguh system of blade classification is all about money.

one can recall that a heavily patinated and pockmarked authentic crusader's sword lacking original handle and scabbard would fetch infinitely more interest and money from professional collectors than an outstanding and complete 20th century rendition of the same.

This analogy is not relevant. I am talking about a unique system of belief that only has any meaning within its originating society. This system has nothing at all to do with crusader's swords or the way in which collectors in the western world may regard those swords.


Would it be correct to say that, unlike all other fields of weapon studies and in the absense of inscribed and authenticated dating and signature, the field of indonesian kerises is largely "art appreciation" rather than historical study of weapons? Is keris more in league with, say, netsuke rather than with katana?

The study of the keris may appear to fit within the envelope of "weapon study", but in fact only a small part of keris study involves the weapon function. There are a number of facets that need to be addressed when one sets out to learn the keris, its place in history as a weapon is one of those facets, however, of far greater importance in coming to an understanding of the keris are the societal and cultural aspects. Art is one of these aspects.

For somebody new to the study of the keris perhaps the most useful approach is begin with a study of culture, history, language, society, before becoming too involved in trying to understand the keris, which is the blossom of a culture.If all one wishes to do is to collect the object, but without attempting to gain an understanding of it, that is an equally valid approach, but in this case it is possibly best not to try to do more than simply identify and catalogue.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

However, anybody who can absorb what I've written and who then uses it as a basis for increase of knowledge will be a long way along the road towards avoiding regrettable error.

Alan, this is exactly what I mean and what I need after having downgraded my original ambitions.
About acquiring a deep knowledge of the Javanese keris (understanding the tangguh system, etc) like you and the Solyom could do with strenuous efforts few decades ago, I tend to believe that this is a past opportunity as the ahli keris have become an endangered species....
Thank you again and best regards

[ariel]

"Ariel you have raised some seemingly interesting questions here, and I'll do my best to respond. My responses are interpolated."



Thanks for the explanations.
What I take out of it, is that real study of keris is essentially limited to the selective few individuals who made a conscious decision to immerse themselves into indonesian society in all its aspects, from language, customs, mode of interactions, religious and mystic beliefs etc, and only then start learning the specifics of keris as such, in all its technical, ethnic, artistic and evolutionary aspects. In short, to become a highly intelligent and educated native indonesian with deep knowledge of keris per se. The rest of us can only glimpse the superficial aspects..... Rather depressing....

Well, perhaps that explains and justifies my decision not to become a dedicated "kerisologist", but to concentrate on other weapon traditions.

With your permission, from time to time I shall still continue to ask naive keris-related question, and hope to get some snippets of education from the specialists.

With my highest respect and best wishes.

[dbhmgb]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

For somebody new to the study of the keris perhaps the most useful approach is begin with a study of culture, history, language, society, before becoming too involved in trying to understand the keris, which is the blossom of a culture.

This quotes sums it up quite well. This thought has been hovering in the back of my mind and now it's been clarified. The cultural aspect of the keris is what first attracted me and then I started focusing on the object as opposed all that goes into making keris what it is. This is no small undertaking, but I see how it can bring rewards beyond just an appreciation of the keris. Thank you, Alan.

[A. G. Maisey]

Ariel, I can understand your frustration, or disappointment in finding that keris are not quite as easy to get a handle on as perhaps all other forms of edged weaponry. Yes, it does take a lifetime of consistent pursuit of knowledge to come close to the core of keris understanding, but in this respect the keris is no different from any other field of study:- competent surgeons do not emerge from university with the necessary skills to carry out successful brain surgery; competent engineers cannot design massive bridges after 5 years of uni and a bachelors degree. It takes time to gather skill and knowledge. Keris study is not even in the same street as surgery or engineering, but it still takes time and commitment to reach a level where there is a degree of understanding --- and there are different levels of understanding.

I have an old friend who is now 91 and in a nursing home. He began collecting weaponry when he was still in his teens. He has been regarded as the doyen of Australian eastern edged weapon collectors for perhaps 40 or 50 years. He can no longer collect, and in fact his collection is in storage, but for about the last 30 years of his collecting life his principal focus was the keris. He loved them. He knew almost nothing about them, he could differentiate on the basis of major societies --- Javanese, Balinese, Bugis --- he could tell the difference between Solo dress and Jogja dress, but that was about all. He had complete access to whatever I might have known at any time, but he was simply not interested in learning any of that:- his focus was the object itself, not everything that that goes with it. He was an old fashioned collector, pure and simple. He didn't need the cultural approach. I felt that he deprived himself of a great experience because of his disinterest, but he traveled a different road to the one I was on. He went to Bali once. Hated it. Couldn't get home quick enough.

Its horses for courses Ariel. One can collect for the sake of collecting, and simply appreciate the object, or one can treat the object as the key to a broader understanding. No way is right, no way is wrong, its a matter of personal taste.

[ariel]

Thanks!
We are in complete agreement.

[Paul Duffy]

Alan, Ariel,
I also thank both of you for an interesting discussion.I came to collecting keris as a collector of weapons.My interest was in the skill of working with metals to produce a piece that was so interesting.The blade was the centre piece of the keris,but the sheath and handle also came together to produce a work of art.
After seeing many examples I am still fascinated by the skill involved in planning and making a keris.I think this has been part of my fascination, which has led me into studying the culture and history of Indonesia.There are many segements of the culture and their religion which draw me into looking for examples of keris.
This then leads to wanting more information on how the keris fitted in with the society of Java,and the islands in earlier times.
Alan,your example of the elderly collector here in Australia is perfect.A good man, and a wonderful collection of keris and edged weapons.He was also a willing mentor for young collectors, and I agree he wasn't interested in studying the culture.
I don't know if he saw his collection as comprising works of art,but neither did he appreciate the music of Bob Dylon or Bill Frisell.
I must practice loading photos onto the site,the illustrations and comments about fakes etc have been interesting.

[ariel]

Are Groneman's and Holstein's books a good source of education for a novice?

[David]

Originally Posted by ariel

Are Groneman's and Holstein's books a good source of education for a novice?

I am not familiar with the Holstein book, but i think Groneman's book (the latest re-issue) is well work acquiring. It is extremely well produced and illustrated. That is not to say that it is completely accurate, but i have yet to find any book about keris completely accurate.
It's starting to sound like you might be getting more serious about keris collecting Ariel.

[A. G. Maisey]

I've never seen Holstein so I cannot comment. Groneman I find interesting from a historical perspective.

For somebody with an interest in the culture of the keris I believe that the best book to begin with is Visible and Invisible Realms-Margaret J.Wiener.

For somebody more interested in the physical entity itself, The World of the Javanese Keris-Garrett and Bronwen Solyom, and The Kris-An Earthly Approach to a Cosmic Symbol-David van Duuren.

For somebody who wishes to explore the fields of knowledge which embrace the keris:- Krisses-A critical Bibliography-David van Duuren.

Here is a link to a reading list that is perhaps as good as anywhere to begin the accumulation of printed matter dealing with the keris:-

http://www.kerisattosanaji.com/kerisinformation.html

you will find publishing details of the books I mention in this list.

[ariel]

David:
"It's starting to sound like you might be getting more serious about kerns collecting Ariel."


I got 2 interesting ( I think) ones that I showed here, and 3 old ones, Javanese, that were tangguh-ed by somebody as being very old ( down to 14th century!), which may not impress you :-), and they were discussed here years ago, and.... who knows:-)

[David]

Originally Posted by ariel

David:
"It's starting to sound like you might be getting more serious about kerns collecting Ariel."


I got 2 interesting ( I think) ones that I showed here, and 3 old ones, Javanese, that were tangguh-ed by somebody as being very old ( down to 14th century!), which may not impress you :-), and they were discussed here years ago, and.... who knows:-)

....hmmm....does that mean i might be right?
(and boy do i hate this auto-correct spelling...thinks when i write "keris" that i mean "kerns" )

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

For somebody with an interest in the culture of the keris I believe that the best book to begin with is Visible and Invisible Realms-Margaret J.Wiener.
For somebody more interested in the physical entity itself, The World of the Javanese Keris-Garrett and Bronwen Solyom, and The Kris-An Earthly Approach to a Cosmic Symbol-David van Duuren.
For somebody who wishes to explore the fields of knowledge which embrace the keris:- Krisses-A critical Bibliography-David van Duuren.

From my own limited perspective, i concur...

[ariel]

David:

"....and boy do i hate this auto-correct spelling...thinks when i write "keris" that i mean "kerns"


Maybe it is the keris itself is trying to tell you something? You know, they have magical powers :-)

[ariel]

Originally Posted by David

....hmmm....does that mean i might be right?
(and boy do i hate this auto-correct spelling...thinks when i write "keris" that i mean "kerns" )

Maybe it is the keris itself that is trying to tell you something? You know, they have magical powers :-)

[rasdan]

Thank you Alan for the kind explanation on the importance of tangguh system in evaluating the quality of a Javanese keris.

[A. G. Maisey]

You're welcome Rasdan.