The Kingdom.

[A. G. Maisey]

This is not a post about keris.

At least, it may not appear to be a post about keris.

When left school I went to work for a very large government organisation. It was an engineering based organisation with over twelve thousand people. This was the 1950's. In those days organisations such as the one I joined were structured like minor kingdoms. At the top we had the General Manager. The King. Gifted with infallibility, there for life, and with the power of life and death over everybody in his kingdom.

I gained employment as a junior clerk. This was one step up from the bottom. On the bottom rung of the organisation we had the "clearance kids", whose job it was to move from one office to another, the masses of documents that made the Kingdom function.

Eventually these documents finished up in the File Office where I, and other junior clerks like me, sorted and classified these documents, and placed them in pigeon holes and folders according to the classification of the document.

Actually, for a 16 year old, it was a pretty important and enthralling job. I got to handle all of the pieces of paper that made the organisation function. I was frequently and forcefully made aware of the fact that if I failed in my duties of correct classification and placement of one of those documents, I could bring the entire Kingdom to its knees. I think I probably believed that if I allowed this to happen I would be taken down into the basement and shot.

Well, I didn't screw up, I classified and placed all those documents correctly for a year or so, and over time I was given ever more responsible positions within the organisation.As I moved up through my organisation I came to learn about and understand the duties and functions of all of the other people who worked in this minor kingdom.

There were the senior clerks who busily shuffled documents all day long, and moved them from one tray on their desk to another. They didn't really understand what the documents were all about, but they knew how to identify and extract a piece of information from a document and put that piece of information somewhere else, where it could be used to produce even more documents.

There were the accountants. They sat at their desks all day looking worried, calculating interminably, and working out how much money the King had in his treasury, and how to increase that amount of money. The accountants were able to put a value on everything.

There were the Engineers. Everybody was very wary of the Engineers.

You never, ever addressed an Engineer by his first name:- you always gave him his full and correct title. You were overly respectful towards all Engineers, and if one happened to unexpectedly cross your path, you immediately fell to your knees and touched your forehead to the floor until he had passed.

You see, the General Manager, His Highness, The King, was selected from the ranks of the Engineers. Effectively the Engineers were Dukes, Earls and Barons. Offend an Engineer and there was no telling what might befall you. At the very least you could grow old and grey and never move from the desk at which you were currently situated.

Now, we all knew that the Engineers deserved this extreme respect, because the Engineers KNEW. They Knew everything, most especially they knew how things worked. The Engineers were the Creators. Every document that kept the Kingdom afloat on a sea of paper had at its source, an Engineer. It was simple:- no Engineers:- no documents. No documents:- no organisation. No organisation:- no job.

Hidden away in a dusty little office on the top floor there were some people that nobody spoke of. If it was absolutely necessary to say the name of these people you looked around to see that nobody was listening, then you whispered it as an abbreviation:- The IA.

I remember I had to go into that office once when I had only just started work. Piles and piles of documents. You couldn't see the people there---they were all hidden behind piles of documents. They all looked like either gangsters or policemen. These were not nice people.

Everybody in the organisation was very, very careful of what they said in front of these people. Even the Engineers were polite to them.

Most importantly, any document, any record, any report that existed anywhere in the organisation could be accessed by these people. Nobody could refuse them anything they asked for.

Only His Highness, the General Manager stood above these people, and even His Highness was not safe from them, because in some circumstances they could bypass the General Manager and go directly to the Premier of the State. God.

These people were the Internal Auditors.

They gained their power from the fact that they knew everything about everything within the organisation. Nothing was secret from them. They probed into every little nook and cranny and they asked questions about things that other people did not even know existed.
They spent their days probing, questioning, researching, thinking, recording and being incredibly difficult whenever they interviewed anybody.

Nobody loved the Internal Auditors. But the fact of the matter was that the Internal Auditors as a group knew more about the organisation than anybody else in the organisation. They even knew more than His Highness, the General Manager.

Most especially, they understood perfectly the documents that made the organisation function.

So, this organisation was made up of "clearance kids" who shifted documents from one place to another; junior clerks who classified and filed the documents; senior clerks who played with the documents; accountants who calculated what the documents were worth; Engineers who generated the documents; the General Manager who didn't seem to do too much of anything except go to lunches and be driven around in an expensive automobile; and the Internal Auditors who knew how to interpret the meaning of every document that held the organisation together.

Now, while I was lingering over breakfast this morning, seeing how long I could make my coffee last, and watching the pelicans paddling past my shoreline, it occurred to me that the world of keris collecting and study is very similar to the organisation that I used to work in. If this is so, perhaps we could ask ourselves where we would like to fit into that Kingdom of the Keris.

[Montino Bourbon]

I started my study of music in 1967, and there was "The Guru", who in this case was Ustad Ali Akbar Khan, considered then, as now, to be the greatest musician of India: Other teachers; The "Advanced Students", and lastly (VERY lastly) beginners such as myself.

I stayed in that organization studying, and later teaching, for twelve years, and it was an amazing experience. At one point Khan-Sahib, as AAK was addressed, was asked by his father, Ustad Allauddin Khan (Who also was the teacher of such luminaries as Nikhil Bannerjee, one of the greatest sitarists in the world, as well as the very well-known Pandit Ravi Shankar) if he had accepted any of us as initiated disciples, he replied in the affirmative. His father then told him, "Teach them EVERYTHING!"

A very interesting experience indeed. I am sure that the esoteric aspects of that course of study are as arcane as the study of keris, in which I consider myself a fairly well-informed beginner.

[David]

Well, i feel like a junior clerk most of the time, but when i grow up i think i would probably most like to be a...(looks around, drops voice...) an IA....
That is since the job of God is already taken...

[drdavid]

At this stage I think I qualify as a uni student with a holiday job helping the clearance kids
DrD

[Rick]

Personally speaking , I'm special needs .
Gotta go catch the short bus now ..

[A. G. Maisey]

Gentlemen, with the possible exception of David, I think that perhaps you may be missing the point I was trying to make.

As serious students and collectors of the keris, is it fitting that we devote so much of our discussion time to the classification of keris, and to the affixation of names to various design components?

If the study of the keris is limited to the compilation of an encyclopaedic list of motifs and names, what exactly has that list of words produced as an addition to knowledge?

Those of you who are well acquainted with me will have heard me railing against the "name game" on occasion.

Why?

Why am I so out of step with the bulk of collectors of keris---or anything else, for that matter?

Surely the naming and classification of those things we collect is at the very heart of our interest. Is it not?

Yes, of course it is. If we wish to retain the status of junior clerks forever:- classify it, give it a name, give it an origin, give it a collection number, record it, file it.

I ask you:- is that serious study of an object that is at the very heart of an entire culture?

However, if we wish to learn something about what it is that we have an interest in, if we wish to understand the nature of that which we have an interest in, then we need to extend our study into all of those areas of knowledge that can add to our knowledge of the thing in which we have an interest. If we do not wish to learn, then we might just as well collect postage stamps. Or better yet, Shrek memorabilia.

We have chosen to collect and to study an object that is perhaps the most complex cultural icon in existence.

Something that is worthy of the most intense study, research and mental effort that the human mind can bring to bear on it.

But if we review the content of posts to our discussion group, how often do we come across evidence that we are thinking beyond the mere classification of something?

I think that possibly only one time during the period I have taken an interest in this discussion group have I seen evidence that somebody was really thinking outside the square. I've forgotten the name of the person involved, and I think it was prior to the Warung opening up for business, a thinker put forth the proposition that the ron dha really represented the Hindu "OM". Brilliant thought process. At the moment I do not agree with him, but the thought process that produced this idea is exactly what we need to see more of.

The names of various design motifs, be they forms of the naga, be they dapurs, be they pamors, are only of value if accompanied by attribution of source and time, and even then they are only descriptors. In some of the older forms these descriptors may be able to be subjected to analysis in attempts to extract origin and possible original meaning of the name applied, but for the most part, even that approach could be like chasing rainbows.

The choice is ours:- accumulate objects that we do not understand, or try to gain some understanding of the forces that have produced an icon that can incorporate the highest societal, religious, and artistic ideals of a culture.

[ferrylaki]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Gentlemen, with the possible exception of David, I think that perhaps you may be missing the point I was trying to make.

As serious students and collectors of the keris, is it fitting that we devote so much of our discussion time to the classification of keris, and to the affixation of names to various design components?

If the study of the keris is limited to the compilation of an encyclopaedic list of motifs and names, what exactly has that list of words produced as an addition to knowledge?

Those of you who are well acquainted with me will have heard me railing against the "name game" on occasion.

Why?

Why am I so out of step with the bulk of collectors of keris---or anything else, for that matter?

Surely the naming and classification of those things we collect is at the very heart of our interest. Is it not?

Yes, of course it is. If we wish to retain the status of junior clerks forever:- classify it, give it a name, give it an origin, give it a collection number, record it, file it.

I ask you:- is that serious study of an object that is at the very heart of an entire culture?

However, if we wish to learn something about what it is that we have an interest in, if we wish to understand the nature of that which we have an interest in, then we need to extend our study into all of those areas of knowledge that can add to our knowledge of the thing in which we have an interest. If we do not wish to learn, then we might just as well collect postage stamps. Or better yet, Shrek memorabilia.

We have chosen to collect and to study an object that is perhaps the most complex cultural icon in existence.

Something that is worthy of the most intense study, research and mental effort that the human mind can bring to bear on it.

But if we review the content of posts to our discussion group, how often do we come across evidence that we are thinking beyond the mere classification of something?

I think that possibly only one time during the period I have taken an interest in this discussion group have I seen evidence that somebody was really thinking outside the square. I've forgotten the name of the person involved, and I think it was prior to the Warung opening up for business, a thinker put forth the proposition that the ron dha really represented the Hindu "OM". Brilliant thought process. At the moment I do not agree with him, but the thought process that produced this idea is exactly what we need to see more of.

The names of various design motifs, be they forms of the naga, be they dapurs, be they pamors, are only of value if accompanied by attribution of source and time, and even then they are only descriptors. In some of the older forms these descriptors may be able to be subjected to analysis in attempts to extract origin and possible original meaning of the name applied, but for the most part, even that approach could be like chasing rainbows.

The choice is ours:- accumulate objects that we do not understand, or try to gain some understanding of the forces that have produced an icon that can incorporate the highest societal, religious, and artistic ideals of a culture.

It is always a pleasure to read your threat Alan. For me as a javanese, collecting kerises is like an efford to realize that " I am A Javanese".
though in my 27 years old I still consider my self as a clearance kid. Trying to understand about dapur, pamor, warangka, etc....and after a while I will consider my self as a junior clerk..and move on to the next level.

I was once forgoten to be a Javanese, since my family doesn't seem to teach me about javanese tradition, all I understand is, I was born in Solo central Java and my parents are a common civilian came from Demak Central Java.

One day my grandfaher died, and he inheritaged a spear and a keris to his sons and doughters, then the story told me that one of my uncle try to sell the keris to anyone interrested on it. Since he doesn't know anything about keris, then he found him self confuse with no direction to make. from demak to other city and then end up in Solo to my mother. My mom gave him 20.000 rupiah as a mahar and told my uncle to go home. about the spear, my mom just bring it back from Demak.

I was never ever tuoch the keris until I was 25 years old. When I first time tuoch it, unshealth it, smell it's sandallwood aroma. looked at the detail of the keris and spear...then I found that I'm not a complete Javanese without having a keris, further I'm not a complete Javanese without knowing about keris. the metal, the technique of keris making, the tradition, ang the filosofy within the keris.

I found that old javanese people I used to talk with were very polite, honest, low profile . They knew exactly where to put them self in any situation. those wise words came out of their mouth came to my ears as melody and just went through my brain and my heart. I was so amazed.

You've been living in Solo for a very long time Alan. You know exactly what I mean. I miss the old Java that you told me about. when the road are still empty, when the market not so crouwded. when the people are not obsessed with materiality.

Then now I feel more better, after I bought my first and second kerises then a bought the book ' ensiklopedia keris' and ' keris antara mistik dan nalar'
then I still look for other book to read and other keris to learn about,l collect another keris and sword...I found my self happy with it.

thanks guys ...

[BluErf]

Which is why esteemed members like youself, Alan, and pak Ganjawulung, Boedhi Adhitya and others whose names may have slipped my increasingly forgetful mind, are especially valuable to and honoured in this forum.

[David]

Alan, the forumite that you refer to with the OM/ron dha theory is Pusaka and he does still post here from time to time. Though we were sometimes at odds theoretically, i would like to see more of him. I agree that the thought process was indeed brilliant, though i also did not exactly agree with his conclusions. Still, this is exactly the type of thinhking that i would like to encourage here on the forum. There will always be disagreement in such discussion and frankly i believe that is a good thing, forcing us to think outside the box.
I think we can only go so far as a "show-and-tell" venue and while i like to know names and classification i agree that at the end of the day they really tell us next to nothing about the true nature of the keris.

[A. G. Maisey]

Ferrylaki, it seems to me that times in the past always seem to be better when we remember them.
We tend to give those times a value that maybe they didn't have.

I can remember when I was a kid I could wander around the area where I lived with a rifle dangling from one hand, or slung over my shoulder. I could walk into the local general store and buy an ice cream, or some acid drops with my rifle in my hand. I could walk out of the general store, cross the road, and take a shot at something. Nobody noticed. No Men in Black dropping out of helicopters. No tactical response police. Just dusty roads and a barefoot kid with a .22.

In 1955 I could ride a pushbike along a major highway for 12 hours and when I got where I was going I could announce that I'd counted a hundred or so cars that had passed me during the day.At that time only three people we knew owned motor vehicles.

But in 1950 my father earnt somewhere around the equivalent of $10 per week. There were no refrigerators, we used iceboxes.No washing machines. If your family owned a radio you were doing OK. If you owned a windup gramaphone (record player) you were considered to be fairly well off. Milk was bought in a billycan from a man who brought it to the door. Shoes were for special occasions, and never worn during wet weather. Christmas time and birthdays you got clothes and books. In coinage there were pennies and half-pennies, and they did have value.You sold old newspapers to the butcher for one penny per pound.

I bought my first bicycle at age twelve from money earnt doing jobs for neighbours. Took me about two years to save up for it. It cost twelve pounds, present day coinage, about $24. This was roughly equivalent to two weeks pay for a qualified tradesman.

This was working class Australia circa 1950.It was not some developing country.

If people were not materialistic it was because they did not have anything to be materialistic about. Going to bed warm and with a full belly meant you were doing pretty good. But that did not mean that we did not know the value of money.

I suggest that all memories of the past are distorted by time:- I remember that I could walk around the neighbourhood taking shots at birds and rabbits : I forget that I went barefoot and was invariably and constantly cold in winter.

If you have a longing for Solo during the late 1960's and early 1970's, I suggest that perhaps you might give a little thought to some of the slightly less desireable aspects of life in Indonesia at that time. There were many, and if you think 1998-2000 was bad, have a talk to somebody about the mid 1960's.

[Michel]

Quote from Alan "Surely the naming and classification of those things we collect is at the very heart of our interest. Is it not?

Yes, of course it is. If we wish to retain the status of junior clerks forever:- classify it, give it a name, give it an origin, give it a collection number, record it, file it.

I ask you:- is that serious study of an object that is at the very heart of an entire culture?

However, if we wish to learn something about what it is that we have an interest in, if we wish to understand the nature of that which we have an interest in, then we need to extend our study into all of those areas of knowledge that can add to our knowledge of the thing in which we have an interest. If we do not wish to learn, then we might just as well collect postage stamps. Or better yet, Shrek memorabilia.

We have chosen to collect and to study an object that is perhaps the most complex cultural icon in existence. " Unquote

Alan,
I think you are bit harsh on us beginners. To reach the point "where we understand the nature of that which we have an interest in, then we need to extend our study into all of those areas of knowledge that can add to our knowledge of the thing in which we have an interest. " we need to learn the basic : the letter of this new alphabet, then the words, then understand the sentences. Once we will have reached your level of knowledge, you will not have to push us to look at the heart of the matter.
I have seen that in many other area of knowledge (from sailing a boat to climbing mountains, from leaning a language to studying a religion), until you are familiar with a certain number of words and expressions and have understood them, you cannot really approach the heart of the field you are interest in. With our classification, we are learning the alphabet (and may be a few words) of kerisology !
Thank you for your patience so far. I hope you can bear with us for a little more time because we need time.(or at least I need time! after a certain age, new words and ideas may come in your brain fast but they run out even faster !)
Take care,
Michel

[A. G. Maisey]

Michel, it grieves me that you regard my remarks as harsh. I my feeling was that I was providing a gentle prompt that might cause a few people to begin to think about things other than the names that might be applicable to any particular form or design motif, if indeed the object under discussion was in fact of that form.

What I can see is a lot of people doing something that I myself once did, that I now consider to have been largely a waste of time.

However, this does depend upon what one's objective is in taking an interest in the keris.

If the objective is to accumulate a large number of keris of various forms, carrying various pamor motifs, with various iconic representations depicted in the blade carving, and from diverse areas of SE Asia, then the ability to affix names to each of those keris and to provide an approximation of age and point of origin is a worthwhile and necessary part of that person's interest.

However, if the objective is to create a collection of excellence, rather than a collection of diversity, then names and points of origin are really only of secondary interest. Possibly the collector who seeks excellence would serve his interests better by attempting to gain an understanding of the elements of quality in craft and artistic expression, as those concepts apply to the keris.

It may be that the interest of the person involved lays in attempting to gain an understanding of the origin and nature of the keris. If this is the case, then such a person needs to attempt to extend his learning and investigation into areas that may not seem to relate directly to the keris.

Ultimately the direction that one takes in pursuit of one's interest is one's own choice, and a reflection of one's own nature.

The person who wants a large, diverse collection is no more worthy of respect, nor of contempt, than the person who wants a collection which enshrines artistic excellence, and neither of these people are any more worthy of respect, nor of contempt, than the person who does not own a single keris, but who has an in depth understanding of the keris in Jawa during the 14th. Century.

In fact, the separate interests of each of these people supports the interest of each of the others. If the World of the Keris is viewed as a large organisation, an organisation that now has a multi-national nature, each person in our Keris World has a role to play. The person who is the pure collector is no less important than the person who is the pure researcher. Probably most of us combine several functions relating to keris interest, but have a tendency to favour one over another.

Imagine for a moment that in our World of the Keris there were no pure collectors. None to accumulate, name, record and file. If these people did not exist, how could the pure researcher function? In fact, he could not, as he would have nothing to research.

No Michel, I was not being harsh. I was trying to very gently cause those of us with an interest in the keris to ask themselves if perhaps there might be more to be gained from that interest if they altered only a little, their orientation to the subject.

Consider this:- if I were to come across a puzzling carving on a blade that depicted a singa barong wearing a tophat, what would be the most valuable information, the name of a keris with such a carving, or its meaning? What did its original owner call it---if indeed he called it anything---or why did its original owner order its production? Perhaps its production was not ordered at all, so why did its maker invest time and money in its production?

When we attempt to come to an understanding, on any level, of the keris, there are many questions that can be asked.

Sometimes it can be more difficult to construct an adequate question, than it is to provide an adequate answer to a question.

My remarks were not intended to be harsh:- they were intended to prompt thought.

[Michel]

Alan, your posts are always interesting,they achieve their objectives and they force us to think.
I reacted essentially because of your sentence : I think that possibly only one time during the period I have taken an interest in this discussion group have I seen evidence that somebody was really thinking outside the square, followed by David information, that that question was "the OM/ron dha theory".

I have not understood the question but translated it for myself with about the same meaning as: if I were to come across a puzzling carving on a blade that depicted a singa barong wearing a tophat, what would be the most valuable information, the name of a keris with such a carving, or its meaning?

In a brutal summary, this meant that the few thousands posts of warung kopi were almost wasted and that we were, with a few exceptions, a happy bunch of brainless junior clerks concentrating on a wrong approach to the keris. I am convince that that was not what you meant to say, but that is what I understood.

The difference of level between your knowledge about Indonesia, the keris, its symbolism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, the geography of Indonesia and the related local cultures and my culture on the same subjects is so large that words may not carry the same messages and meaning. The question of
"the OM/ron dha theory" is a good exemple. It was meaningless for me.

Secondly if you and a few others are really studying and making research on the keris, it is certainly not the case of many members who are just trying to understand what is a keris, why is it so important, why isn't it a weapon only (or at all), why is it so decorated, complicated to produce, why so many pamor, dapur, areng, etc.

As you have said in your last post, there are many ways of being a keris collector, each one of us looks for something different and excellence may not be the criteria of selection that can be afforded !

Finally Alan and David, (as I think David understood you better than most) if we do it wrong, can you help us, guide us, on the right way ? But please remember that there is a large gap of knowledge between your knowledges and mine (and may be of others) and if the complete Mahabharata has to be read and understood to be able to raise a question as the "singa barong with a tophat"(!) I at least will need some time!
I remember Dietrich Drescher : there are many many more questions about keris, than answers.
I think that your remarks achieved your objective: provoke thoughts.
Thank you Alan.
Kind and respectful regards
Michel

[A. G. Maisey]

Michel, as I have already said, my intention was not to be harsh, not to be hypercritical, and certainly not to dismiss all posts except the one about the ron dha/OM theory as childish.

However, if we were to go back through all the posts that have ever put up in our warung, or in the old forum, how many times would we come across evidence of a new idea?

We can find plenty of basic questions, the answers to most of which are covered somewhere in the published literature. We can find plenty of questions in the nature of "what is it, and where does it come from?" I have no criticism of this type of thing, especially so as I realise only too well that the vast bulk of people who read and contribute to this discussion group are not really all that interested in what the Hindu priests of Majapahit had for breakfast.

All these questions I think we can consider as being "in the square", that is, they are the normal, standard type of fare for general discussion amongst a group of people with a shared interest.

However, consider this:- for how much longer can this discussion group survive by repetition of the same questions in different phrasing?

We could become a "show and tell" group. Probably not too bad a thing for some of us, although I personally have reservations about this type of content.

Or we can try taking a slightly more in depth approach to the subject of the keris.

The two people whom I regard as my most important teachers of the keris never actually "taught" me anything. They would only answer a question if I raised that question. Once I asked one of them why he would not sit down and tell me everything he considered that I needed to know. He responded that when I had sufficient knowledge to ask the right questions the answers would come. I now consider this to be the best and most useful way in which to gain knowledge about the keris. I can align this approach to that used in my own profession, and I find that --- except for the window dressing--- it is the same.

Imagine for a moment that this discussion group were to be centered around drag cars, or mountain bikes, or even fishing. Discussion about these subjects, and other subjects like these subjects, seems to consistently throw up ideas on how to improve something. The contributors to the discussion are actively thinking about the subject of discussion. Yes there is a basic difference between drag cars and keris:- one is an active subject, the other is passive. However, questions can be generated by both, once we take the point of view that the keris is not simply an object divorced from its origin and environment, and frozen in time.

Michel, you have very clearly identified a number of questions that could be raised for discussion; a couple of these questions could be considered as "big questions", questions that may not have an answer that we can uncover. These would make wonderful questions to be raised for discussion.

Keris discussion has been going on in this site for a number of years. A little while ago the Warung began as a specialist place for keris discussion. I think that we can now say that we are well established as the place to come to for those people who want to talk about the keris in the English language. The dues have been paid.If we are to move to the next level it I suggest that perhaps the time is ripe for some slightly more thought provoking questions to be raised.

[Michel]

Alan, thanks a lot for your kind answer.
The subject of this thread, is related to the basic question of acquisition of knowledge and more specifically on knowledge about keris.
To do that, three elements are required :
1) information
2) experience
3) intelligence
You have the three, I have big gaps in the 2 first and may be am I boasting but I hope to have enough of the third.
Various ways exist to complete my lack of 1 and 2.
Good questioning is one way that enables to increase both 1 & 2.
But good questioning is difficult, in particular when you are short on N°1 and 2.
Before asking a question we then should ask ourselve :
Is this a content question ?
Is this question useful for the warung Kopi members or just for me ?
Is this question necessary or can the warung kopi members live without it?
Will this question bring results to the warung kopi members ?

I guess that this procedure would raise the level of questions but also probably reduce their number.

You said : Quote :"Once I asked one of them why he would not sit down and tell me everything he considered that I needed to know. He responded that when I had sufficient knowledge to ask the right questions the answers would come. I now consider this to be the best and most useful way in which to gain knowledge about the keris" unquote
I like very much the answer of your teacher (who did not teach) but made you think. I will try next time to raise the level of my questions !
Kind regards
Michel

[A. G. Maisey]

Michel I would suggest that all that is necessary for a question to be raised is that an answer be required. I don't really think that it is necessary for us to examine the quality of the question, nor the necessity of its answer to other people. But I do think that as well as the classification type questions, some other matters dealing with historic, socio /cultural implications, or technical considerations could be opened.

[David]

Thanks Alan. I couldn't agree with you more. Hopefully this thread will serve as a catalyst for exactly this type of indepth discussion.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em gentleman. Bring your questioning mind forth.

[Jussi M.]

A bump for a worthy thread.

[Moshah]

You have the point there, Alan.

But as you said initially, those "clearence kid" and junior clerks are the people who make the kingdom running. Without them, no documents are properly distributed and placed, henceforth the engineers will have trouble in their work, sooner or later.

And who is going to put so much documents in the tables of those IAs?

By then, I believe that all those mundane jobs of naming and classification is the brick and mortar of this forum. For people of your experience and knowledge, this definitely means a chores too bland and boring, but I believe we have many newcomers who thrilled to know the very basic thing (names, classification, dhapur, etc) of their newly beloved acquired hobby.

And that is the level of junior clerk.

We can't have everybody to come into the kingdom and be the engineer, for instance. So those junior collectors will learn from naming and categorising keris, dhapur recognition, pamor works, besi types and perhaps even tangguh. When they have possess enough knowledge, they will get mature and start addressing more challenging questions as they do. And by that time also they will start to produce quality theory and discussion.

If all the forumers started to produce challenging threads with complex discussions, then we will start seeing less newcomers and shun away younger people from keris world.

Let the junior clerk do what they need to do, and encourage them to do more than that, so that they can move up to senior clerk, and above, step by step.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes, you're right Moshah.

You understand my point exactly.

I started this thread three years ago, and what prompted me to start it was the seemingly unending threads that were all about the name of this that and the other, and where it might have come from. At that time I felt that the Warung was in danger of becoming less than what it was capable of becoming.

The keris is an icon of a culture.

One cannot understand a cultural icon in the absence of an understanding of the culture.

This is particularly true of the keris, as it is an icon that is central to a culture.


What I wanted to see was more thought put into questions.

Framing a good question is often vastly more difficult than providing a good answer.

How did the piles of documents on the desks in the IA office get there?

Generally speaking these people obtain their own documents from source. The job is not usually entrusted to junior staff.

[Jussi M.]

It all makes sense.

However, can one also not work as a janitor or a cleaner having access to more or less everywhere and being thus able to form a fuzzy form of an understanding of how the company functions as a whole even though one is not aware of the specifics of any given level or hierarchy that compromise the company in question?

There must exist ways to pass the hierarchical structure if one is willing to break, bend, redirect or pass the rules that the structure uses for showing and exercising rank. Who knows the company better - the clerk with a limited view or the janitor with a 360 degree access to all over the place?

It is all about positioning your effort.

No?

[Rick]

Uhm, Jussi .....

That's my job here .

[Jussi M.]

Originally Posted by Rick

Uhm, Jussi .....

That's my job here .

Me, I have positioned myself on another floor

[A. G. Maisey]

Jussi, does the mouse see a tree in the same way as an elephant?

[Amuk Murugul]

Hullo everybody!

Many decades have taught me that generally speaking, in the real world, absolute truths are very hard to come by. More readily available are belief systems. As one has a limited lifespan... and indeed a very limited amount of time to research every detail to its primary source ( if still available), one tends to adopt a belief system to compensate.
Humans have a tendency to behave like sheep. It is easier to follow and extrapolate someone else's work than to do one's own. Oh for the availability of more GOATS!
There are many different truths about the same thing, depending on perspective. So it is with belief systems. In some cases, even absolute truths have been rejected through lack of belief/faith in it, to be replaced by more acceptable, concocted myths.
From my perspective, it's a distinct advantage to be part of IA. However, even in IA one musn't shy away from the process of reiterative investigation. It is a lot easier if, even within IA, one identifies/establishes others who can serve as reliable secondary/tertiary/etc. sources (to save continual duplication of effort).
To totally understand an icon from a culture, one needs to understand the culture which produced that icon. One should not evaluate the icon according to the value/belief system of another culture. Aspects may be missed and indeed, misunderstood altogether.
To be able to ask the 'right' questions during the various stages of an investigation I have found EMPATHY to be most invaluable, followed by the sights: sight, hindsight, foresight and insight.

Best,

[A. G. Maisey]

I have a confession to make.

After a few years of bouncing around as a paper shuffler in my organisation , I went over to the dark side.

I bought a grey pinstripe suit, a pair of rimless glasses, got a short haircut and joined the ranks of the IA.

The reason for my slide into infamy was totally pecuniary. These people got paid unbelieveably well. Probably because not many people were prepared to be universally hated. I didn't mind being hated provided I got paid well enough for it.

What Amuk has said about truth, belief and the nature of man I agree with wholeheartedly.

What he has said about the search for truth I will add to, not because I disagree in even the slightest degree with what he has said, but because what he has said is precisely correct and I believe can be expanded to permit a more complete comprehension.

Modern IA depends heavily upon the analysis of systems.

Anything at all can be regarded as a system. It may be a chaotic system, or it may be an ordered system, but no matter what kind of system it is, it can still be broken into the parts that cause it to exist.

Once the parameters of the system have been identified, that system can be analysed.

Typically the process used to understand the system will consist of identifying inputs to the system, outputs from the system and the internal mechanics of the system.

The identification is accomplished through the gathering of information.

Once the information required to analyse the system has been gathered, analysis can proceed.

Part of the process of analysis is the testing of the system in order to ensure that the conclusions drawn during the analysis are able to be supported in fact. Testing relies upon statistical results extrapolated to represent the entire population of entities which comprise the system.

Upon completion of the analytical process, conclusions can be drawn.

People who are expert in the techniques of IA claim to be able to apply this broadly described process to anything at all, even to entities and processes of which they themselves have little or no knowledge. They achieve this by employing the knowledge of recognised experts in the particular field which they wish to address and which they do not understand.

We could well ask what all this waffling on about systems and analysis has to do with the keris and an understanding of the keris.

If we consider keris culture as a sub-system contained within the broad pattern of a society, or of a dominant culture, then we can apply exactly the same tools of information gathering, analysis and testing to the job of understanding the culture of the keris as we would apply to the understanding of any other system.

There is one particular difficulty in using this approach with the keris, and that is that any understanding which we may reach needs to be constrained within a matrixical description that takes account of time. Thus, if we wish to understand the keris as it is today, it is sufficient to apply our techniques to a chosen window of time encompassing the very near past. We set the limits of our system and we proceed upon that basis.

However, if we wish to understand the keris as it was at some time in the distant past, we need to largely disregard any information gathered that can be attributed to a later period. In this case the matrix would spread as a physical object in the present, and as a percieved object in the past, both past and present being encompassed by the limitations of the three dimensional matrix.

In the gathering of some information, empathy can be regarded as useful tool, but there are other tools in the toolbox, and some are no less valuable than empathy.Like any tool set, it is a matter of choosing the correct tool for the job in hand.

To apply this process to understanding the culture of the keris we begin with gathering information, in order to first identify the limits of the system that we wish to understand, and then to provide material for analysis of the internal mechanics of that system.

As Amuk has said:- To totally understand an icon from a culture, one needs to understand the culture which produced that icon.

The result can be expected to be that upon completion of analysis we might be able to understand the how and the why of understanding within that culture, but we are very unlikely to be able to understand in the same way that members of that cultural group do.

For those of us who do wish to come to an understanding of the keris, no matter within whatever parameters, I would most sincerely suggest that the understanding must grow from an understanding of the parent culture. We should not try to begin study of the keris, and then just bolt on a few snippets of Javanese or Balinese cultural knowledge, rather, we should come at the problem from the other direction:- gain an understanding of the parent culture and then use that as the foundation for attaining an understanding of the keris.

In IA terms, complete the information gathering and testing before trying to draw conclusions.

[drdavid]

Fascinating discussion, thank you to everyone contributing.

For me Alan's comments regarding time and cultural context are the nub of this keris thing

There is one particular difficulty in using this approach with the keris, and that is that any understanding which we may reach needs to be constrained within a matrixical description that takes account of time.

The difficulties here are about gathering information that is moderately accurate, and having sufficient cultural insight to weave that information into an acceptable semblence of a story. The information available to me about the past of this region seems biased by external cultural nuance be it Western or Islamic, or semi-mythological local tradition which is overlaid with the mists of time (a little like Excalibur and the Arthurian tradition).

I appreciate I know nothing of keris. I also know very little about IA however if modern IA techniques require detailed analysis of a system by gathering information about the system and adding expert commentary I struggle to see how they can be applied effectively to traditional keris culture. In the first instance the information sources are biased or folkloric or not truly getting to the heart of the system (for example I dont think classification systems tell us much about keris in their original cultural context). On the second count although we have current experts we have little or no information that I am aware of that stems from experts "in the time of keris".

This is not to say we should not ask the questions, however it does appear that many of our answers will remain speculative unless some unusual trick of fate reveals sources not previously known.

cheers
David

[A. G. Maisey]

When I started this thread I chose the path of using a business organisation as a model for a loose organisation of a group of people who were interested in a particular subject. That subject was the keris.

As a group, some of the contributors to this thread have maintained this line of thought and have presented their comments couched in terms that echo the idea of a business organisation. In my most recent post I have continued to play this game, in the belief that this type of scene painting was managing to reach a number of people.

David has just shown me that rather than using the business model to try to convey my thoughts, I perhaps need to be a little more direct and stop trying to be mildly amusing.

I will state this as simply and as directly as I am able:-

I am not recommending that the specific techniques of IA be applied to all avenues of investigation of the keris, rather I am stating my belief that the philosophy of information gathering, analysis and the drawing of conclusions should proceed in an ordered fashion for each individual aspect of keris culture.

Keris culture can be identified as a system containing many units within that system for example, manufacture, maintenance, practical use, societal practice, use as an item of dress, character as a store of wealth, nature as an heirloom, nature as a kin group symbol --- and so on. Each of these units is something that can be looked at as a separate entity, but one that is related to the other units. For example, if we look at manufacture the output from that unit is into commerce,so then we can examine the trade in keris as a unit. The output from the trade unit could be into societal usage, so then that can be examined as a unit.

Once the unit we wish to study has been identified we then gather information relevant to that unit.

When the information has been gathered tests can be devised to try to verify the information.

When the information has been verified it can be analysed and supportable conclusions can be drawn.

All of this is simply the application of logic.

I am not saying that any of this is easy. Its not. I've been working at the questions intermittently in this way for a very long time, and it involves countless hours of extremely boring reading and even more time in trying to understand what early Javanese writers are really trying to tell the reader.

But the information is there. As David has pointed out, it is based in myth and folklore, and in many respects it is biased, but if the objective is to understand the unit we are investigating in Javanese terms, rather than in the terms of modern man, then this is no impediment.Once understanding in Javanese terms has been acquired, then it may be possible to translate that understanding into a framework that is acceptable to a 21st century western mind.

Or it may not. The same, or similar terms of reference may not exist in that western mind.

Something does not need to be true to us, we need to understand that it is, or was, true to the people to which this cultural artifact belongs.

David has mentioned the "original cultural context" of the keris.

To address this question we first need to decide exactly what we mean by "keris", and again, exactly when that "keris" was original.

Was it in the Middle Jawa period circa 800AD?

Or was it in East Jawa with the appearance of the modern keris around the 14th century?

In the one case we need to rely on monumental evidence and logical analysis, in the other case we can use texts to supplement our enquiries.

Nothing is going to be spelt out for us. It will not laid in our laps. But if we wish to look at the unit of keris culture which encapsulates "original cultural context", there is probably sufficient evidence in existance to build a reasonable hypothesis.

It must not be forgotten that it is not simply the keris and its culture that needs to be examined. Although we may be dividing that big, spongy mass of unapproachable mystery into little bite sized units that we can comfortably examine, in order to examine that little bite sized unit we need to go outside the unit, outside the sub-culture of the keris, and thoroughly examine the parent culture. Only then will we have a foundation upon which to build.

What I am attempting to do here is to get people interested in the concept of looking logically and analytically at the keris.

Throw aside the big mysterious too hard idea of THE KERIS.
If we do not identify the specific unit of keris culture that we wish to examine, and go after information within the bounds of that unit, the whole question simply becomes too hard.

If we want to understand the technology this is now a very, very simple matter. All the work has been done and there are no more mysteries. It is just a matter of getting active and digging out the information.

If we wish to examine the current beliefs surrounding the keris, this is also easy:- its just a matter of reading , and perhaps talking to a few people.

Investigation of the keris through time is much more difficult, but the information is there to allow construction of solid supportable ideas. However, gathering that information is not easy and it is very time consuming.

The task of understanding only becomes insurmountable when we do not think clearly, logically, and in an analytical fashion. Then we are in danger of getting lost in a mist of bovine excreta.

If the question that interests us is the place of the keris in Javanese society in the distant past a good starting point for information gathering could well be Pigeaud's 5 volume "Java in the Fourteenth Century". There are no translations of works by 14th century Javanese ahli keris in this work, but there is a wealth of information on Javanese society and a little bit of information that relates directly to the keris.

But that work is only a starting point. You will need to read the accounts of early travellers, history texts, court babads, myths, folk stories, legends. You will need to study Javanese art, anthropology, sociology, philosophy. And when you have done all of that you will need to learn the way in which Javanese thought and world view differs from that of modern western man. And don't forget Bali. If we are talking "original" Islam has contributed to much of how the keris is now understood in Jawa.

The job can be done. But it is not an easy one, and probably not one for a single person.

[Jussi M.]

We now have a pretty streamlined pathway presented on this thread.

Thank you

J