The basics of keris understanding?

[Jussi M.]

Greetings,

What I have to say may be taken negatively and if so, please accept my apologies as I do not intend to put a negative light on anything or try to appear as more knowledgeable than I truly am. - On the contrary – I just try to educate myself by raising the question of what is important and what is not important when one tries to educate himself on matters regarding the keris.

I will be more specific a bit later on with my actual question but please do note: I make no foolish assumption that there is going to be a consensus on ”what is important and what is not important regarding kerises”. I do not want this thread to become a futile argument on whos right and whos wrong as there is no such thing as a universal ”right or wrong” – everybody on their own minds think they have the right answer. And, in a way it is true as people have different motivations and different values. The absolute truth of an uninformed and ignorant man may not be the truth for a man with a better understanding of the phenomena in question. Truth therefore is more like the scenery on a path. - It changes yet remains the same depending on what path one has chosen, how does he travel it and how far has he gone. There are many paths to one end and not a single one is better than the next. It is all in the perception of the traveler in question.


With this introduction let me proceed. I am new and ignorant what comes to kerises. However, I do know that I dont know, and I do know, that I do not want to start from the wrong end of the pool so to speak. The keris is such a enigma that it is hard to get a firm grip of it. There is so much to learn, so many sides to it that I guess one can spent a lifetime studying it in, yet have nothing but pieces of detail information that in the end dont count to nothing that could really be deemed as valid understanding of the keris. Acknowledging this I know that I have two possibilities:

1) Study all possible information available and try to put the pieces together in order to form a synthesis as a work in progress.
2) Make drastic decisions regarding what to study and leave the rest alone.

The first option is in my opinion more or less doomed because there is so much information that one gets lost in it. It is like trying to study all leaves of a big tree one by one in isolation of the rest of what makes the tree a tree and try to guess what kind of a plant it might be from the hundreds of thousands of detailed pieces of information (leaves). On the second option you focus on the roots and – this I do believe – eventually, as you gain a better understanding of the roots and the ground they sprang from, you will eventually get a better understanding of the core of the plant in question even though you may not have all the detailed information that can be extracted from the core what come to the various branches, flowers and leaves (things such as styles, materials, pamors and so on).



I am drawn to the second method of learning but face a big problem: I do not know what the roots nor the core are and therefore don’t know where to begin. Granted, I have had the luxury of a expert assistance in choosing some books that I have yet to receive but I am not talking about the material from which to study. What I am asking gentlemen is this:

In your subjectively objective opinion what forms the core of the understanding of the keris? What areas should be addressed? - How, what, why?

I wish this discussion to evolve onto a fruitful one regarding the various ways one can see the keris and what is important and what is not important regarding them and their study?

As stated previously my intention in raising this question is to educate myself. I did not ask this question for trolling or to raise storms on a water glass. We all have our opinions and we are entitled to have them. Yet we all benefit from the occasional study of our motives, objectives and points of view as that opens the door for further development of knowledge, understanding and personal character.

I look forward to hear your thoughts

I thank you for your time and effort,

J

[A. G. Maisey]

Jussi, it surprises and disappoints me a little that this thread has not yet generated some very active discussion.

In my opinion, this is possibly the most pertinent and valuable thread that has been started in this discussion group in a very long time.

I think that it might assist further discussion if we were to break this "understanding" idea into the various areas of understanding.Thus, we could have understanding of the art of the keris, understanding of the technology of the keris, understanding of the technique of manufacture of the keris, understanding of the appraisal of the keris, understanding of the place within a culture of the keris, understanding of the maintenance and storage of a keris--- and so on, and so on.

Would anybody care to comment further on one or more of the various areas of understanding that I have identified, or perhaps add other areas of understanding which could be addressed?

Jussi has mentioned the "core" of understanding of the keris, but this core could vary for different people. For the person who pursues the ideals of Kejawen, the core could be quite different to the core of the anthropologist or ethnologist. These in turn could be very different to the core of the dealer or of the committed collector.

So, can we firstly identify which "core" we might like to look more closely at?

[Jussi M.]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Would anybody care to comment further on one or more of the various areas of understanding that I have identified, or perhaps add other areas of understanding which could be addressed?

Jussi has mentioned the "core" of understanding of the keris, but this core could vary for different people. For the person who pursues the ideals of Kejawen, the core could be quite different to the core of the anthropologist or ethnologist. These in turn could be very different to the core of the dealer or of the committed collector.

So, can we firstly identify which "core" we might like to look more closely at?

Thank you Mr. Maisey,

I may as well start as I began the thread in the first place. I think that one of the difficulties in getting a grasp of the keris lies in the fact that indeed even defining what is the core - point of view - that we are addressing the keris from may be perceived differently by different persons leading to confusion and perceived misinformation and/or misunderstanding, never mind the best of intentions. Therefore it might be feasible to first find a way to determine and define what are the reference points the study springs from.

One difficulty, or at least I perceive it as such, is the fact that the keris floats outside the grasp of such reference points. Please let me clarify this: usually it is so that the design of an artifact is mandated by the function it is designed for leading onto a specific form. - There is then a clear beginning (need = function) and a clear end (form mandated by the function it is designed for). It can also be vice versa, there first was a form that led onto a some-kind of a function. - This is so with many times regarding artifacts deemed as art.

Now in my uneducated opinion it seems that the keris does not belong purely to neither category. - It is a hybrid of both at the same time, and therefore it is difficult to get a hold of because one cannot choose neither point of view (from function to form or vice versa). Why? - because doing so would lead onto a situation where the reverse engineering would not show the "whole" as that whole must have been studied from a different perspective which is beyond our usual "this lead to this or vice versa" way of thinking.

What is unifying to all cores Mr Maisey mentioned is the fact that they can all be traced back to the design of the keris. - why is the keris like it is? This question can then be addressed from various, differently weighted, points of view depending on who is the person making the observation and for which reasons.

This is just my opinion. In short, I think one major area of study should concentrate on understanding why is the keris formed like it is and what kind of a synthesis between form and function have been present at the time it was born. - not likely something that can be ever found out but I guess this area of study or a core if you will would lead to a path worth traveling?

As a non-native english speaker I hope I have managed to make myself understandable. The subject is foreign to me and I do not know the right terminology nor how it is used. If I have understood what Mr Maisey ment wrong and written on a way that is not valid regarding his effort to further this dialogue I am sorry.

I thank you for your time and wish to hear your thoughts on this matter.

Thanks,

J

[kai]

Hello Jussi,

What is unifying to all cores Mr Maisey mentioned is the fact that they can all be traced back to the design of the keris. - why is the keris like it is? This question can then be addressed from various, differently weighted, points of view depending on who is the person making the observation and for which reasons.

It has already been stated that many questions regarding the keris can't be answered without intimate knowledge of the cultural environment at the very time of its production; some of this knowledge won't be accessible short of marrying into the correct family. Considering the hundreds of Muslim sultanates, Hindu kingdoms, and other local tribes all over Southeast Asia and the vast period of keris production, it seems save to assume that the very core of cultural information has either been lost or won't be accessible anytime soon. Of course, this is especially pertinent to most of the "Why?" questions...

While I try to gather an understanding of the cultures involved (including their respective keris traditions), my main approach to studying keris is more like that of an alien from outer space (which I actually am throughout the Southeast Asian archipelago!): By focusing on the information which can be gleaned from the blade (or scabbard, etc.), I'm trying to follow the evolution of the keris through time and space. Thus, I'm concentrating to compare keris with their ancestors or offspring (from the same culture) as well as keris from closely related cultures (from the same period).

Regards,
Kai

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Jussi has mentioned the "core" of understanding of the keris, but this core could vary for different people. For the person who pursues the ideals of Kejawen, the core could be quite different to the core of the anthropologist or ethnologist. These in turn could be very different to the core of the dealer or of the committed collector.

So, can we firstly identify which "core" we might like to look more closely at?

I completely agree Alan, this could, indeed, be a most important thread. Perhaps members are hesitant to start here due to what you have stated above. Hopeful once we identify what "core" we are discussing this conversation will take off.
For me i would have to say that one of the most important "core" values in understand the keris would be making an attempt to understand the culture. I do not believe that the keris can be grasped in a vacuum. I would recommend reading all you can find about it.

[A. G. Maisey]

Jussi, I don't think that there is any longer any doubt about the time and place from whence the keris originated.

Nor is there any doubt that in its pre-modern form, and in its modern form, it was first and foremost a weapon. Moreover, a weapon, the design of which, made it extremely well suited to close quarters use.

Probably the most unusual feature of keris design is the asymmetric base of the blade that is found in most blade forms. The rationale for this feature can be understood by tracking the development of the modern keris from its pre-modern form. In fact, form does follow function in the case of the keris, as it does with most things, however to understand this we need to go back to the point of origin and follow the development.

Because of the nature of the culture from which the keris arose, it was inevitable that over the extended period of its existence, it should gather around it the esoterica for which it is so well known.

So, "understanding the keris":- exactly what is it that we wish to understand?

I agree, if we look at all the information--- and misinformation--- that has been published on the keris, it is very, very difficult to find a direction to follow.

My perspective is this:-

about 1000 years ago a weapon was in use in Jawa that over a period of several hundred years became the keris as we know it today

the keris as we know it today was and is first and foremost a weapon

it can also be a work of art

it can also be a symbol of authority

it can also be a talisman

it can also be a fetish

it can also be regarded as the vessel for a unifying force

it can also be a store of wealth

There may be other things that the keris can "also be---"

However, whatever it may be, its being depends upon the time and place in which it is found. Time alters perception, thus the perception of a person raised in a western society in 2008 is different from the perception of a person raised in a Javanese-Hindu society in 1400. Similarly, the perception of that Javanese-Hindu person differs from the perception of a person raised as a good Muslim in 19th century Jawa--- and so on.

All things will alter perception.

Time, place, experience, perhaps even if its a nice day or not. So if we seek understanding of the keris, or of anything else for that matter, we need first to define very carefully what it is we wish to understand and then to admit the qualification that our understanding can only ever be one of a number of equally valid understandings.

If we can accept this proposition, may I suggest that we begin our attempt at understanding by looking at just one facet of the keris, that is, its persona as a work of art.

What are the factors that we should consider if we wish to appraise the artistic qualities of a keris, both blade and dress?

[drdavid]

What are the factors that we should consider if we wish to appraise the artistic qualities of a keris, both blade and dress?

Thanks Alan for giving us something to focus on initially. It probably represents one of the easier and more universal qualities to reflect on in an object like the keris.

If we are thinking about the artistic qualities of anything there are a number of issues that need to be addressed, some intrinsic to the object, some extrinsic. I have concentrated on generic qualities rather than specific features of the keris as I dont feel qualified to comment on those. My list is not particularly comprehensive but these are the things that I look for when I collect for artistic merit.

Does it have quality?
By quality I mean that characteristic of an artefact that makes us realise it was made by someone who cares about what they are doing and has the skills to execute what they are trying to achieve.

Does it have cultural integrity?
Here I am not referring particularly to its monetary value but rather does it reflect the society, social group or culture from which it springs. For example Australian aboriginal art is readily recognisable and relatively consistent in style but a well made piece that originates from an artist in New York will never have the cultural resonance of a piece made by an indigenous Australian artist who resides in the isolated Kimberley region of Australia. The home grown piece is in some way more genuine, although I can respect someone in another culture creating a piece that reflects their response to the original artefact.

Is it unique?
This is not an absolute, but the more unique a piece is the greater its potential merit. Sometimes unique equals badly conceived and some non-unique pieces, for example the original hundred or so copies made from a Japanese woodblock, have definite artistic merit.

Finally (and most importantly to me), do I have a response to the piece. Does the combination presented to me as a piece of art evoke something in me? If I don’t feel something about the piece I can only appreciate the other qualities I have mentioned, but if I feel something that is quite different.

All of these qualities can of course be challenged, particularly in a de-constructionist sense but they reflect my sensibilities. I would be very keen to hear what others think.

DrD

[A. G. Maisey]

I was once taken to ballet performance.
It was a big-name company---might have been the Russian ballet---anyway, one of my clients had been given some tickets, and she asked if I would care to accompany her.So I went to the ballet. By all accounts the dancers excelled themselves on that night.
I thought the whole thing sucked, and I gave very serious consideration to billing my client for the time I spent watching those people jumping around and adopting farcical poses.

On another occasion I attended a performance of dancers at the ASKI in Solo.They performed a number of traditional dances, most were pretty boring, but I had come to this performance with some considerable background in watching Javanese dancing, I knew what to expect, and I rather enjoyed the occasion---probably as much for the social aspects as for the dancing.

However, I made the mistake of giving my opinion on the performance of the bedoyo, which I thought was really excellent. I loved it.I gave this opinion to one of my neighbors who was a dance teacher. To put it mildly and politely, she strongly disagreed with me.

Now, from these two experiences I learnt at least one thing:- I know nothing about dancing. Of either the European or the Javanese variety.I probably learnt a couple of other things too, but I won't go there.

Why do I know nothing about dancing?

Because I have never been taught anything about dancing.

This is true of any art form:- we cannot presume to comment upon the excellence or otherwise of any art, unless we are qualified to pass an opinion on that art.

We can give a personal opinion on whether or not we find the particular example of art to our taste, but we cannot pass judgment upon the excellence or otherwise of the art object unless we understand the parameters within which that art must exist, and the objectives it seeks to achieve.

This is also true of the art of the keris.

The art of the Javanese keris is a Kraton art.

It is not folk art, and it is not an art of the common people. The rules that govern this art are descended from forms and standards that can be observed in other spheres under the influence, if not direct control of a kraton.Thus, if we wish to understand the art of the keris we need to look for guidance to a kraton. I was taught the keris by people who were and are attached to the Surakarta Kraton, and any remarks that I shall make in this context will be based upon these teachings.

Firstly, we need to understand that the keris itself is inarguably of indigenous Javanese origin, as a development from an Indian source. However, the standards that govern the art of the keris are as varied in origin as the influences that have created the environment of the Javanese kraton, as it was seen at end of its development , immediately prior to WWII, and prior to the effects upon it of Japanese occupation and the establishment of the Indonesian Nation.The art of the Javanese keris needs to be understood not as an unadulterated indigenous art form, but rather as an art form that has sprung from an indigenous foundation, but that has absorbed input from Middle Eastern, Chinese, and European sources.

Dr. David has identified several overarching factors that for him are essential components in the appraisal of art in general. The factors Dr. David has identified are:-

quality, cultural integrity, uniqueness, the impact upon the individual

With the Javanese keris, all of these factors can find a place in an appraisal, but perhaps not in the way in which we might ordinarily think of the meaning of these factors.

Quality is most certainly a very important factor in the appraisal of a keris, so, as a place to begin discussion, perhaps some of you may care to nominate those characteristics of a keris that for you speak of its quality.

[David]

Originally Posted by Jussi M.

I will be more specific a bit later on with my actual question but please do note: I make no foolish assumption that there is going to be a consensus on ”what is important and what is not important regarding kerises”.

OK, this analogy might be a bit of a stretch, but it is entertaining:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=J4oKXagF3IE
Like Kai i find myself a bit of an alien from space in the keris world. I am fascinated by it, and read and study and try to understand it, but being so outside of the culture as i am it is difficult to know whether or not i truly grasp the finer details of what i am studying. But like the pope in the Monty Python sketch, "i may not know art, but i know what i like". The only problem with this attitude is that in the context of keris culture what i like could well be absolutely wrong.
To answer Jussi's first question, for me the most important thing in regards to any keris is do i like it. A keris will either call to me or not, often before i have really had a chance to examine it's finer details. So it comes down to what i like (not the cultural parameters) about keris when i pick the next item to add to my collection. What i like is certainly based upon what i have seen and read on the subject, but i am sure that it must also be influenced by my own American upbringing, perhaps not in obvious ways, but certainly on more subtle levels. What i am personally trying to understand is what is "correct" for, say, a Jawa keris from the Javanese perspective or a Bali keris from the Balinese perspective and so forth. I would be more than happy to put forth a list of things that i find important or not about keris, but it will certainly be skewed towards my decidedly Western perspective. This could make for very interesting discussion, but i am not sure it is the information that Jussi is seeking.

[Jussi M.]

Originally Posted by David

OK, this analogy might be a bit of a stretch, but it is entertaining:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=J4oKXagF3IE
Like Kai i find myself a bit of an alien from space in the keris world. I am fascinated by it, and read and study and try to understand it, but being so outside of the culture as i am it is difficult to know whether or not i truly grasp the finer details of what i am studying. But like the pope in the Monty Python sketch, "i may not know art, but i know what i like". The only problem with this attitude is that in the context of keris culture what i like could well be absolutely wrong.

What i am personally trying to understand is what is "correct" for, say, a Jawa keris from the Javanese perspective or a Bali keris from the Balinese perspective and so forth. I would be more than happy to put forth a list of things that i find important or not about keris, but it will certainly be skewed towards my decidedly Western perspective. This could make for very interesting discussion, but i am not sure it is the information that Jussi is seeking.

The Pythons are awesome

To answer your question regarding the information I am seeking for, well, maybe we should first decide what we mean by "understanding" on this context? - I guess we all can lay down our personal reference points regarding how we judge something as a worthy keris or not for our own collections but that is just subjective opinion, "nothing" else. So, I guess I am looking for information that helps me to better understand "what is "correct" for, say, a Jawa keris from the Javanese perspective or a Bali keris from the Balinese perspective and so forth", as you put it. Alan has suggested that we could began from the perspective of art, I think that is as a good point to start as any?

Best,

J

[A. G. Maisey]

Kai, to a degree, you are correct in what you say, but there are many levels upon which we can understand the keris.

Similarly, the keris has many natures. In the old literary works we read about animals being krissed during a hunt. In historical accounts we read of a Madurese ruler getting a bit upset during a sea voyage on a Dutch vessel, and krissing a few people.In the babads we read of the people of Bali being overawed when shown a particular keris. It goes on. And on. And on.

Lots of different types and natures and characters of keris. Lots of things to understand about keris.

For a collector in the western world, David's approach of "do I like it" is probably more than sufficient to guide the building of a collection. After all, the collector is the person who needs to live with the keris, not somebody else, and if he doesn't like the keris, no matter how good some expert might tell him it is, then he's probably better to get rid of it.

However, when we push past that essentially personal approach, and we seek to come to terms with the way in which other people in other places and at other times may have thought about the keris, we have gone past the persona of a simple collector, and we have become a student.

No student can claim to be a student unless he is prepared to study.

Thus, the understanding of anything, including the keris needs to be rooted in study.

Lets move a little away from keris, and consider something a little bit more a part of our own world. Lets think about economics.

A 16 year old high school student might have some small understanding of economics, however, when he enters university and begins to study for his BA in economics, he finds that a whole new world has opened up to him. Now, this first or second year uni student is guided by a professor who completed his own Phd perhaps 20 years ago. The professor's knowledge and understanding of economics is formidable, and has gone past the level of simple mechanics and entered the sphere of philosophy.

Does this professor attempt to teach all of what he knows to the new student in his first year?

No, of course he does not, because the new student will not understand what he is being taught.

As the student advances with his study he will understand more and more, and his questions will indicate to his teachers the level of knowledge that he is ready to receive.

Eventually this student will perhaps complete his own Phd, and will have achieved a very high level of understanding of economics.

However, his understanding could well be a different understanding to the understanding of his professor when he first began his studies.

What I am saying here is that there is no easy way to achieve understanding, and no understanding can be universally accepted as the "correct" understanding. In order to achieve any level of understanding that understanding must be rooted in study.

In the case of the keris the study that must be carried out embraces the fields of culture, sociology, religion, history, art, literature, archeology, technology---just to mention the more obvious ones.

However, with all that said, it is still possible to achieve at least two things:-

1) an understanding of various facets of the keris as that understanding applies at this point in time

2) an understanding that other people, living in a different cultural context to our own, may have an understanding that varies from our own:- we may not be able to understand in the same way that these others do, but we can understand that they understand.

This subject definitely does not fall into the "too hard basket". But it does require some mental effort to explore it. If the mental effort is deemed not to be worth the potential result, then the obvious course of action is simply not to think.

On the other hand---

[Jussi M.]

Up!

Greetings. Thought of reviving this thread with the hope it would get more attention than it did last year. Mr. Maisey as well as some others have mentioned that both time and place are of great importance in understanding the keris. My question now is, is there a known lineage of designs that can be put onto a timeline of different Javanese kerises? Something like this:



I do not mean to reinvent the Tangguh system. What I am after is a simple timeline with the development of the major designs. Does this exist and if it doesnt, can it be formulated?

Thanks,

J

[Rick]

Jussi, I believe there is a timeline of sorts ; getting all to agree on when and where could be problematic though .

Where would we start ?
When should we start ?
Majahpahit ?
Candi Sukuh carvings ?
India ?

We will need what is called a 'Fog Knife' here in New England, to cut through the haze of time ..

[ganjawulung]

Originally Posted by Jussi M.

...My question now is, is there a known lineage of designs that can be put onto a timeline of different Javanese kerises? ...

I do not mean to reinvent the Tangguh system. What I am after is a simple timeline with the development of the major designs. Does this exist and if it doesnt, can it be formulated?

Dear Jussi,

(I try to respond this interesting question, in my limited ability in expressing English)
I hope, yes there is. But we must work hard to draw this timeline of the development of the major design in Javanese kerises, by ourselves..

Why workhard? Because sometimes we must draw more than two different major designs in one time frame. Tuban style -- for instance. Kerises which were made by Tuban keris makers, or empus (located around Surabaya now), they are (supposed to have) different styles depending on the location of the making and the time frame: Tuban Pajajaran (by Tuban empus in West Jawa, in Pajajaran era), Tuban Majapahit (in East Java, in Majapahit era), Tuban Mataram etc... Say it, Tuban keris makers migrated to certain centers of power at certain time frame to earn their lives...

So the timeline must be based on certain center of powers in the past, for instance -- timeline of design in Pajajaran (West Jawa -- before 13 century), or even Segaluh (older than Pajajaran). Timeline of Cirebon design in the north coast of West-Central Java (14-15th century), Banten Design in West Java, Demak design in the north coast of Central Java etc... Cirebon-Demak and then Banten, developped in almost one time frame -- Islamic era in the northern coast and west Java

Where do we begin the time line? I don't know. But maybe around 10th century, with the form of "keris budo" (believed to be oldest form of keris, although no pictured source on it...). But, I hope don't confuse it with the form of what mistakenly mentioned by certain Western writers as "keris majapahit" (although locally in Java, call them "keris sajen"...). Locally, Majapahit style (13th-15th century) regarded to be one of the best style in javanese keris, the golden era of Javanese keris making...

GANJAWULUNG