When is a keris legitimate?

A. G. Maisey · 28th December 2013, 08:33 PM

This thread has been started at the suggestion of David, our moderator.

In another thread:-

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...d=1#post164584

I raised the question:-

exactly what is it that makes a keris a legitimate keris?

why can one keris be considered legitimate and another keris be considered to be not legitimate?

David suggested that a greater degree of participation in discussion might be generated by opening a new thread directed specifically at this question.

This is a genuine query.

It is not a set-up, I'm not digging holes and covering them with branches.

I am interested in trying to understand just what it is about a keris, any keris, that causes people to decide that it is a genuine, legitimate, real keris, and of course why they pass judgement on another keris and determine that it is not "real", or legitimate.

We're still in the middle of the festive season, New Year is just around the corner, but if we have a few sober members out there, perhaps they might care to comment.

Rick · 28th December 2013, 11:50 PM

Hi Alan, I'm thinking that we probably have at least two schools of thought on the subject; those of people living in keris bearing societies and everyone else on the outside of that culture .
I have a feeling there might be some difference in viewpoint to be found .

David · 29th December 2013, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

Hi Alan, I'm thinking that we probably have at least two schools of thought on the subject; those of people living in keris bearing societies and everyone else on the outside of that culture .
I have a feeling there might be some difference in viewpoint to be found .

Frankly Rick, i am very much expecting that difference in viewpoint. In fact, i encourage it, as long as we all play nice.

drdavid · 29th December 2013, 12:58 AM

The concept of legitimacy is a difficult one as to a great extent it is dependent on who is discussing the issue and what they decide legitimacy is. Please note that in my reply to Alan’s question I will only address the idea in relation to objects.

We have a number of layers to consider when we are looking at objects.

In some circumstances legitimacy of an object is conferred by the object being definitively signed by the maker, as in some art works. We can read the signature, accept that the object is made by a specific creator and have a concept of why it was created. Whether we actually understand why it was created may be debateable.

Of course there are those who would take advantage of that by producing objects ostensibly but not actually signed by the maker eg fake paintings by Vermeer, (see for instance http://www.essentialvermeer.com/misc/van_meegeren.html). When faced with this problem we turn to ‘experts’, that is to say those who have devoted time, energy and money to developing insight into a particular group of objects.

In this (the fake signature) and other circumstances we the public accept that certain people have developed sufficient expertise to differentiate one object from another by some other relatively concrete means even if we cannot do it ourselves. Perhaps they can read symbols in another language, for instance Japanese seals or they are able to interpret various makers marks for instance the silver and gold assay marks typical of English precious metal objects or perhaps they have just looked closely at the brush style of Vermeer. The problem here is that experts may be mistaken and if the mistake is not corrected it becomes ‘truth’ in the public domain. I have successfully discussed mis-attributions of art works in the British Museum and the Rijksmuseum with their curators. The curators are vastly more expert than the amateur but they still make mistakes.

Then we move into the area of non-marked or non-specifically marked objects. Here legitimacy is conferred in a number of ways (importantly we are no longer just talking about attributing an object to a specific maker).

1. Those who create the object determine that the object is legitimate for their purpose. The purpose may be singular or multifaceted ie it may have a specific function (carrying water) or it may have many (it carries water to the ceremonial place in order that the rains will arrive to ensure crops thrive) and it may change over time (it becomes part of the legitimate regalia of the ruler). An object may serve as a token for another object and still be regarded as legitimate (noting the paper keris may be a legitimate token for a metal one in one circumstance eg at a wedding but not in another circumstance eg trying to cut a throat in a dark alley). The creation group determines legitimacy.

2. Those who create the object do so for a purpose other than their own needs, but recognise it fulfils a need outside of their own group and provides the second group with a desirable object. The creation group do not necessarily benefit directly from the object but do benefit from the trade purpose of the object. The creation group may use a generic mark to show that it is legitimate eg by marking it ‘Toledo steel’ or ‘Made in Japan’. They may simply create a facsimile of an object they use themselves but in a manner that they would not chose to use, eg a plastic replica of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Most facsimile/souvenir items would fall into this group. The creation group creates an object that an external group accepts is a legitimate product of the creation group and the external group does not try and change the objects purpose.

3. Those who fetishize the object (for example the monk with the holy relic or the collectors with the only examples of a particular plastic object that is green) decide that this object is a legitimate example of the desired object. Desired is the key word. They may create a status ranking for objects based on ‘desirable features’ such as size, rarity, % content of elephant dung or even that most deceptive of beasts ‘provenance’. Their concept of legitimacy is often at odds with that of the originators’ of the objects concept. For example the original manufacturer of the green plastic object may have found that it was an unpopular colour and hence dropped it from the product line very quickly. It only becomes rare because of its unpopularity with the original audience but the later audience will fetishize it because of its rarity or because green has become fashionable. I say ‘fetishize’ because this group are generally providing another purpose for the original object to that of its original intent. (I would argue that this group also frequently fetishize signed and marked objects because they appreciate, use and rank them in manners not necessarily intended by their original makers and consumers). The fetishizing group determines that an object has a legitimate purpose independent of that of the creation group.

You will note that the definition of legitimate is a somewhat slippery one and changes over the course of this post. I am confident there are many holes and overlaps in the suggestions I have made, but having spent an hour or so on them I am comfortable with them being a starting point for one particular view. The key message is that the needs of the creation group are different to the needs of the fetishizing group and hence the determination of legitimacy lies with the group discussing the object.

Legitimizing an object is a long way from understanding an object.

DrD

jwkiernan · 29th December 2013, 01:33 AM

I originally posted this in the thread that spawned this thread.....

Here is my 2 cents on this topic...as a collector I focus on true antique weapons. I want them as original as possible (noting that variations/adaptations/additions added over the life of the weapon).
Now, with that said I know many folks that collect new pieces or recreations of old pieces (money concerns or personal preference for newer). Many of these pieces are made in the traditional manner using traditional means...I would therefore interject that a piece made with correct materials and made in a traditional manner would still be classified as a "true" albeit modern version.
Now where does that place blades that are produced for the souvenir or modern use trade? If using morphological standards alone and not material/manufacture as a means to define legitimacy of a weapon type then yes, they would be legitimate (note any wavy bladed knife, sword, or dagger being classified as a keris...same with barong, parang, bolo ect) albeit modern and not traditional.
I truly think that any weapon made with the correct materials should be referred to as at legitimate" but not antique. All others that fall into the correct morphological form and made of untraditional materials should just be classified as modern...most of these are made for the souvenir market, however many are being used by current practioners of traditional martial arts whom can not afford true antique weapons or do not want to chance damaging true artifacts...I refer to them as modern.
Technology has changed the process of how all things are made to one extent or another ie: the use of hand held grinders in keris making, air hammers for forging/folding ect.
Modern, modern/traditional, or antique, I think that is how they should be classified for what it's worth. May you all be blessed with a happy, healthy and prosperous 2014!
All my best,
John

A. G. Maisey · 29th December 2013, 02:37 AM

Thank you for your contributions gentlemen.

I do hope that others will see fit to share their thoughts with us.

I very much like what I am reading here. I gave a lot of thought to the way in which I posed this question. You're looking at what is probably something like draft 10 or 12 or maybe more of the question. The word "legitimate" was my final choice from a number of other words.

The idea of "in", and "out" of keris bearing society is one factor, but possibly there is more to it than that. Many people in the keris bearing societies that I know best do not hold particularly traditional sets of values, on the other hand some people in western post-industrial societies try in-so-far as they are able, to hold very traditional sets of values in respect of the keris.

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

I see the answers as only a contribution to our better understanding.

There is perhaps one factor that needs to be considered when formulating a response to my question, and that is the nature of the keris:- what is a keris?

I do not intend this as another question, merely as something we should ask ourselves before we decide what the word "legitimate" might mean.

28th December 2013, 08:33 PM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,893	When is a keris legitimate? This thread has been started at the suggestion of David, our moderator. In another thread:- http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...d=1#post164584 I raised the question:- exactly what is it that makes a keris a legitimate keris? why can one keris be considered legitimate and another keris be considered to be not legitimate? David suggested that a greater degree of participation in discussion might be generated by opening a new thread directed specifically at this question. This is a genuine query. It is not a set-up, I'm not digging holes and covering them with branches. I am interested in trying to understand just what it is about a keris, any keris, that causes people to decide that it is a genuine, legitimate, real keris, and of course why they pass judgement on another keris and determine that it is not "real", or legitimate. We're still in the middle of the festive season, New Year is just around the corner, but if we have a few sober members out there, perhaps they might care to comment.

28th December 2013, 11:50 PM	#2
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,293	Hi Alan, I'm thinking that we probably have at least two schools of thought on the subject; those of people living in keris bearing societies and everyone else on the outside of that culture . I have a feeling there might be some difference in viewpoint to be found .

29th December 2013, 12:58 AM	#4
drdavid Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 371	The concept of legitimacy is a difficult one as to a great extent it is dependent on who is discussing the issue and what they decide legitimacy is. Please note that in my reply to Alan’s question I will only address the idea in relation to objects. We have a number of layers to consider when we are looking at objects. In some circumstances legitimacy of an object is conferred by the object being definitively signed by the maker, as in some art works. We can read the signature, accept that the object is made by a specific creator and have a concept of why it was created. Whether we actually understand why it was created may be debateable. Of course there are those who would take advantage of that by producing objects ostensibly but not actually signed by the maker eg fake paintings by Vermeer, (see for instance http://www.essentialvermeer.com/misc/van_meegeren.html). When faced with this problem we turn to ‘experts’, that is to say those who have devoted time, energy and money to developing insight into a particular group of objects. In this (the fake signature) and other circumstances we the public accept that certain people have developed sufficient expertise to differentiate one object from another by some other relatively concrete means even if we cannot do it ourselves. Perhaps they can read symbols in another language, for instance Japanese seals or they are able to interpret various makers marks for instance the silver and gold assay marks typical of English precious metal objects or perhaps they have just looked closely at the brush style of Vermeer. The problem here is that experts may be mistaken and if the mistake is not corrected it becomes ‘truth’ in the public domain. I have successfully discussed mis-attributions of art works in the British Museum and the Rijksmuseum with their curators. The curators are vastly more expert than the amateur but they still make mistakes. Then we move into the area of non-marked or non-specifically marked objects. Here legitimacy is conferred in a number of ways (importantly we are no longer just talking about attributing an object to a specific maker). 1. Those who create the object determine that the object is legitimate for their purpose. The purpose may be singular or multifaceted ie it may have a specific function (carrying water) or it may have many (it carries water to the ceremonial place in order that the rains will arrive to ensure crops thrive) and it may change over time (it becomes part of the legitimate regalia of the ruler). An object may serve as a token for another object and still be regarded as legitimate (noting the paper keris may be a legitimate token for a metal one in one circumstance eg at a wedding but not in another circumstance eg trying to cut a throat in a dark alley). The creation group determines legitimacy. 2. Those who create the object do so for a purpose other than their own needs, but recognise it fulfils a need outside of their own group and provides the second group with a desirable object. The creation group do not necessarily benefit directly from the object but do benefit from the trade purpose of the object. The creation group may use a generic mark to show that it is legitimate eg by marking it ‘Toledo steel’ or ‘Made in Japan’. They may simply create a facsimile of an object they use themselves but in a manner that they would not chose to use, eg a plastic replica of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Most facsimile/souvenir items would fall into this group. The creation group creates an object that an external group accepts is a legitimate product of the creation group and the external group does not try and change the objects purpose. 3. Those who fetishize the object (for example the monk with the holy relic or the collectors with the only examples of a particular plastic object that is green) decide that this object is a legitimate example of the desired object. Desired is the key word. They may create a status ranking for objects based on ‘desirable features’ such as size, rarity, % content of elephant dung or even that most deceptive of beasts ‘provenance’. Their concept of legitimacy is often at odds with that of the originators’ of the objects concept. For example the original manufacturer of the green plastic object may have found that it was an unpopular colour and hence dropped it from the product line very quickly. It only becomes rare because of its unpopularity with the original audience but the later audience will fetishize it because of its rarity or because green has become fashionable. I say ‘fetishize’ because this group are generally providing another purpose for the original object to that of its original intent. (I would argue that this group also frequently fetishize signed and marked objects because they appreciate, use and rank them in manners not necessarily intended by their original makers and consumers). The fetishizing group determines that an object has a legitimate purpose independent of that of the creation group. You will note that the definition of legitimate is a somewhat slippery one and changes over the course of this post. I am confident there are many holes and overlaps in the suggestions I have made, but having spent an hour or so on them I am comfortable with them being a starting point for one particular view. The key message is that the needs of the creation group are different to the needs of the fetishizing group and hence the determination of legitimacy lies with the group discussing the object. Legitimizing an object is a long way from understanding an object. DrD

29th December 2013, 01:33 AM	#5
jwkiernan Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 37	I originally posted this in the thread that spawned this thread..... Here is my 2 cents on this topic...as a collector I focus on true antique weapons. I want them as original as possible (noting that variations/adaptations/additions added over the life of the weapon). Now, with that said I know many folks that collect new pieces or recreations of old pieces (money concerns or personal preference for newer). Many of these pieces are made in the traditional manner using traditional means...I would therefore interject that a piece made with correct materials and made in a traditional manner would still be classified as a "true" albeit modern version. Now where does that place blades that are produced for the souvenir or modern use trade? If using morphological standards alone and not material/manufacture as a means to define legitimacy of a weapon type then yes, they would be legitimate (note any wavy bladed knife, sword, or dagger being classified as a keris...same with barong, parang, bolo ect) albeit modern and not traditional. I truly think that any weapon made with the correct materials should be referred to as at legitimate" but not antique. All others that fall into the correct morphological form and made of untraditional materials should just be classified as modern...most of these are made for the souvenir market, however many are being used by current practioners of traditional martial arts whom can not afford true antique weapons or do not want to chance damaging true artifacts...I refer to them as modern. Technology has changed the process of how all things are made to one extent or another ie: the use of hand held grinders in keris making, air hammers for forging/folding ect. Modern, modern/traditional, or antique, I think that is how they should be classified for what it's worth. May you all be blessed with a happy, healthy and prosperous 2014! All my best, John

29th December 2013, 02:37 AM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,893	Thank you for your contributions gentlemen. I do hope that others will see fit to share their thoughts with us. I very much like what I am reading here. I gave a lot of thought to the way in which I posed this question. You're looking at what is probably something like draft 10 or 12 or maybe more of the question. The word "legitimate" was my final choice from a number of other words. The idea of "in", and "out" of keris bearing society is one factor, but possibly there is more to it than that. Many people in the keris bearing societies that I know best do not hold particularly traditional sets of values, on the other hand some people in western post-industrial societies try in-so-far as they are able, to hold very traditional sets of values in respect of the keris. I personally do not see any answers to this question as either right or wrong. I see the answers as only a contribution to our better understanding. There is perhaps one factor that needs to be considered when formulating a response to my question, and that is the nature of the keris:- what is a keris? I do not intend this as another question, merely as something we should ask ourselves before we decide what the word "legitimate" might mean.