When is a keris legitimate?

Rick · 28th December 2013, 10:50 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 · 28th December 2013, 11:27 PM

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 · 28th December 2013, 11:58 PM

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, 12:33 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, 01:37 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.

rasjid · 29th December 2013, 01:28 PM

Hi Alan,

When you say : what is a keris, the we are talking about Pakem. Keris can be called Keris if its follow certain rules/or known knowledge amongs the rulers, ie Kraton. It will be called work of arts or keris keris-an if its not flowing with the Pakem.
In short to call the keris is a legitimate keris, could be:
1. Follow the Pakem set by Kraton standard according to the era / tangguh of the Keris itself
2. A group of knowledgeable Keris seniors agreed about the Keris quality of workmanship and flow with the Tangguh.
( subject to neutral opinion... )

Another point, for newly made Keris, if acceptable by majority people and sold with High Price... can we call it a legitimate Keris?

Regards
Rasjid

VANDOO · 29th December 2013, 07:35 PM

THE FIRST TIME I SAW A DAGGER REFFERED TO AS A KRIS IT WAS A NEW POORLY MADE KNIFE WITH A WAVEY BLADE SAID TO BE A THROWING KNIFE. IT WAS A MONOSTEEL BLADE SHAPED WITH A POWER SAW WITH CRUDELY GROUND BLADE EDGES A CRUDE GAURD AND A WOOD HANDLE PAINTED BLACK WITH A GOLD PAINTED DRAGON DESIGN ON THE GRIP. A REAL PIECE OF JUNK

BUT IT HAD A WAVEY BLADE SOMETHING NOT SEEN OFTEN, I ASSUMED IF ALL WAVEY BLADES WERE EITHER A KERIS OR A FLAMBU (FLAME SHAPED BLADE).
I HAVE LEARNED MUCH SINCE THEN AND HAVE FOUND THE KERIS IS MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN JUST A WAVEY BLADE

. MANY YEARS LATER I FIND I MAY BE A NOVICE AT BEST, BECAUSE THERE IS SO MUCH TO LEARN ABOUT THE KERIS. I JUST DABBLE AND DON'T PUT IN THE NECESSARY TIME NEEDED TO ADVANCE AND OFTEN TEND TO FORGET WHAT I LEARN AS I DON'T STICK WITH IT AND HAVE TOO MANY OTHER IRONS IN THE FIRE.

I MOSTLY COLLECT WHAT I FIND ASCETICALY PLEASING TO ME AND DO ENJOY READING THE POSTS HERE THOUGH I DON'T HAVE THE KNOWLEGE TO ADD MUCH.
A FEW THOUGHTS. THE BLADE IS WHAT MAKES A KERIS A KERIS. 1. KERIS BLADES ARE DOUBLE EDGED AND HAVE A SEPARATE PART TO THE BLADE NEAR THE FORTE. (A SINGLE EDGE AND A ONE PART BLADE DOES NOT A KERIS MAKE)
2. THERE ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENT VARIATIONS IN SHAPE TO KERIS BLADES STRAIGHT AS WELL AS WAVEY.
3. THE MANY BLADE PATTERNS SHOW REGION , MASTERY OF FORGEING AND HAVE DIFFERENT MEANINGS OR DENOTE VARIOUS POWERS.

THIS IS JUST VERY BASIC AND I HOPE NOT INCORRECT OR MISLEADING THE MORE I WRITE THE MORE I FEEL I DO NOT KNOW MUCH SO WILL STOP HERE BEFORE I GOOF UP TOO BAD.

AND LEAVE IT TO THOSE MORE DEVOTED TO THE KERIS TO LAY THE INFORMATION OUT.

kai · 30th December 2013, 12:13 AM

Hello Alan,

Quote:

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.

I'm not sure both definitions can be seperated (unless you specify each for this discussion). Genuine, good (as in the ol' thread), traditional, real, you-name-it. All may have slightly different connotations to any of us collectors - not terribly different from our more or less ideosyncratic decisions/priorities what to include in our personal collections.

Even if limited to Orang Jawa in today's society of central Java, I'd posit that "legitimate" (or any of the other "definitions/descriptions") keris will mean very different things to different sectors of society and even individuals.

I'm not sure if this helps the discussion a lot. However, I have no problems to accept that some toy-like props serve as "legitimate" keris in societies of origin (even if falling way short of any academic definition of keris) and, arguably, may have a place in a comprehensive keris collection. Unless limiting the definition to Keraton pakem quality pieces (which would exclude some 99% of keris from discussion), there are also always lots of keris conforming to any less restrictive definition that most of us would agree being of crappy craftmanship (despite "traditionally" worked).

Regards,
Kai

kai · 30th December 2013, 12:54 AM

I, for one, feel quite happy in applying a sliding scale when deciding what to obtain for my collection and don't have any criteria written in stone that define what is IMHO legitimate, genuine, nice, untouched/complete, old, etc. and which need to be met by any new family member...

I'd be enthusiastic about any antique high-quality blade (even damaged and/or without any fittings) and may also be more than happy about an antique village keris of fairly crappy quality if deemed a "complete, original combination", from a rare origin, or, possibly, even special provenance. Heck, I may even go for a current era keris if it speaks to me...

From a practical POV, much more relevant than trying to define what makes a keris "legitimate" would be to ascertain that I don't fall prey of any misrepresentations that abound with things keris (from ol' myths/exaggerations like meteoric metal to downright lies and forgeries).

Regards,
Kai

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

28th December 2013, 10:50 PM	#1
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,436	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 .

28th December 2013, 11:58 PM	#3
drdavid Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 374	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, 12:33 AM	#4
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, 01:37 AM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,229	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.

29th December 2013, 01:28 PM	#6
rasjid Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Jakarta - Indonesia Posts: 114	Hi Alan, When you say : what is a keris, the we are talking about Pakem. Keris can be called Keris if its follow certain rules/or known knowledge amongs the rulers, ie Kraton. It will be called work of arts or keris keris-an if its not flowing with the Pakem. In short to call the keris is a legitimate keris, could be: 1. Follow the Pakem set by Kraton standard according to the era / tangguh of the Keris itself 2. A group of knowledgeable Keris seniors agreed about the Keris quality of workmanship and flow with the Tangguh. ( subject to neutral opinion... ) Another point, for newly made Keris, if acceptable by majority people and sold with High Price... can we call it a legitimate Keris? Regards Rasjid

29th December 2013, 07:35 PM	#7
VANDOO (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OKLAHOMA, USA Posts: 3,138	THE FIRST TIME I SAW A DAGGER REFFERED TO AS A KRIS IT WAS A NEW POORLY MADE KNIFE WITH A WAVEY BLADE SAID TO BE A THROWING KNIFE. IT WAS A MONOSTEEL BLADE SHAPED WITH A POWER SAW WITH CRUDELY GROUND BLADE EDGES A CRUDE GAURD AND A WOOD HANDLE PAINTED BLACK WITH A GOLD PAINTED DRAGON DESIGN ON THE GRIP. A REAL PIECE OF JUNK BUT IT HAD A WAVEY BLADE SOMETHING NOT SEEN OFTEN, I ASSUMED IF ALL WAVEY BLADES WERE EITHER A KERIS OR A FLAMBU (FLAME SHAPED BLADE). I HAVE LEARNED MUCH SINCE THEN AND HAVE FOUND THE KERIS IS MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN JUST A WAVEY BLADE . MANY YEARS LATER I FIND I MAY BE A NOVICE AT BEST, BECAUSE THERE IS SO MUCH TO LEARN ABOUT THE KERIS. I JUST DABBLE AND DON'T PUT IN THE NECESSARY TIME NEEDED TO ADVANCE AND OFTEN TEND TO FORGET WHAT I LEARN AS I DON'T STICK WITH IT AND HAVE TOO MANY OTHER IRONS IN THE FIRE. I MOSTLY COLLECT WHAT I FIND ASCETICALY PLEASING TO ME AND DO ENJOY READING THE POSTS HERE THOUGH I DON'T HAVE THE KNOWLEGE TO ADD MUCH. A FEW THOUGHTS. THE BLADE IS WHAT MAKES A KERIS A KERIS. 1. KERIS BLADES ARE DOUBLE EDGED AND HAVE A SEPARATE PART TO THE BLADE NEAR THE FORTE. (A SINGLE EDGE AND A ONE PART BLADE DOES NOT A KERIS MAKE) 2. THERE ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENT VARIATIONS IN SHAPE TO KERIS BLADES STRAIGHT AS WELL AS WAVEY. 3. THE MANY BLADE PATTERNS SHOW REGION , MASTERY OF FORGEING AND HAVE DIFFERENT MEANINGS OR DENOTE VARIOUS POWERS. THIS IS JUST VERY BASIC AND I HOPE NOT INCORRECT OR MISLEADING THE MORE I WRITE THE MORE I FEEL I DO NOT KNOW MUCH SO WILL STOP HERE BEFORE I GOOF UP TOO BAD. AND LEAVE IT TO THOSE MORE DEVOTED TO THE KERIS TO LAY THE INFORMATION OUT.

30th December 2013, 12:54 AM	#9
kai Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,255	I, for one, feel quite happy in applying a sliding scale when deciding what to obtain for my collection and don't have any criteria written in stone that define what is IMHO legitimate, genuine, nice, untouched/complete, old, etc. and which need to be met by any new family member... I'd be enthusiastic about any antique high-quality blade (even damaged and/or without any fittings) and may also be more than happy about an antique village keris of fairly crappy quality if deemed a "complete, original combination", from a rare origin, or, possibly, even special provenance. Heck, I may even go for a current era keris if it speaks to me... From a practical POV, much more relevant than trying to define what makes a keris "legitimate" would be to ascertain that I don't fall prey of any misrepresentations that abound with things keris (from ol' myths/exaggerations like meteoric metal to downright lies and forgeries). Regards, Kai