2 unknown keris

[Arjuna]

Hi everybody!

Maybe someone can help me identifying these 2 keris?
One has a kind of letters on the blade and seems to be old (bugis?),
the other one (Madura?) looks very recent to me, with a flying horse instead of a barong or naga.

Is this "tourist stuff" or something "real" ;-)

Thx for your answers.

[David]

Welcome to the forum Arjuna.
I am afraid that based upon what i can see in the photos i would have to vote "tourist" on both accounts.

[drdavid]

I would have to agree with David, they do look rather touristy. Could you post a better picture of the hilt of the first one.
cheers
DrD

[A. G. Maisey]

I have a very great dislike of the use of the word "tourist" to describe keris which fall outside the parameters of traditional production, and keris which have been produced during the current era.

The keris with a blade pattern that has been created by the use of acid and wax might perhaps be better described as a "souvenir". It has the form of a keris, so possibly it is legitimate to call it a "souvenir keris".

The other keris with the kinatah work I personally would accept as a legitimate keris produced during the current era. It appears to be a Madura production, but that in and of itself does not make it less of a keris. It possesses the essential elements to make it a keris and it could very easily serve the social function of a dress keris.

Now I come to think of it, the "souvenir" keris could also serve the social function of a dress keris, even though this type of blade was offered for sale in souvenir booths in Bali and Jogja in years past, I haven't actually seen many, if any, during recent years.

So let me ask a 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]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

The other keris with the kinatah work I personally would accept as a legitimate keris produced during the current era. It appears to be a Madura production, but that in and of itself does not make it less of a keris. It possesses the essential elements to make it a keris and it could very easily serve the social function of a dress keris.

Now I come to think of it, the "souvenir" keris could also serve the social function of a dress keris, even though this type of blade was offered for sale in souvenir booths in Bali and Jogja in years past, I haven't actually seen many, if any, during recent years.

I totally agree with you Alan which is why i chose to continue using the word "tourist" in quotations. I believe it was you who once saw a cardboard cutout serving as a keris in a dress function. But while it may not be exactly accurate on all counts, keris like the brass (i assume this is not gold) "kintanah" example are often enough offered up to the tourist market and can be found all over eBay. I don't think this necessarily means this is not a "legitimate" keris.
I am not so sure the same can be said of the acid and wax creation. We only have the one photo so there is not much to go on. Is this a forged blade or a cutout that has been patterned with acid and wax? It doesn't seem to have been created with a legitimate keris making method to me, but in hand it may show differently. I don't think poor quality makes the difference between "real" and "legitimate", but methodology does. You are also correct that in a pinch it could be used in a social dress situation. But then so could the cardboard cutout you once noted and i would have a hard time defending that as a "legitimate" keris even if it was used for a real indigenous social occasion.
So while "tourist keris" is a term that is not always exactly accurate i think most of us understand it as a qualifier of poor quality or of keris that are reproductions of classic form (i.e. naga sosro and/or heavy brass "kinatah" blades done in lesser quality and materials). These keris can and sometime are used in "legitimate" situations, but there are blades that are not what they allude to be.

[A. G. Maisey]

Everything you have said is true David.

But my question is intended to be very broad, not restricted to just these couple of keris shown here.

The purpose of the question is to attempt to understand the things that make a keris --- that is:- any keris --- legitimate or not in the eyes of the people who contribute to our discussions.

I'm trying to fathom just how much is understood.

[David]

It is certainly a good topic of discussion Alan. While i don't suspect that discussion on these two keris will evolve much further, i would suggest that perhaps it would be better to create a new thread for this new discussion as i think you would be more likely to attract attention and participation that way.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yep.

OK

[jwkiernan]

Here is my 2 cents on this topic...as a collector I focus on true antique weapons. Now, with that said I know many folks that collect new pieces or recreations of old pieces. 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 in a traditional manner would still be classifed 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 classifed 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 classifed 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...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.
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

[David]

Originally Posted by jwkiernan

Here is my 2 cents on this topic...as a collector I focus on true antique weapons. Now, with that said I know many folks that collect new pieces or recreations of old pieces. 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 in a traditional manner would still be classifed 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 classifed 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 classifed 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...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.
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

Hey John. Love hearing your take on this. If you haven't already would you mind repeating these comments in the new thread Alan started on this subject. Thanks.

[Arjuna]

Thank you for this interesting discussion.
There is a lot to learn for me ;-)

For your interest here s the pic of the hilt.

Happy New Year
Karl