keris hilts material

[A. G. Maisey]

Actually David, I tend to think of "criticism" in the sense of passing judgement upon something. I guess I do that because it is what I have done professionally for in excess of 50 years. True, when we undertake to pass judgement upon anything written about the keris, or opinions expressed about the keris, either verbally or in writing, we do very often criticise in a negative fashion; this weighting of criticism towards the negative is inherent in use of the word "criticise", as in British English the primary meaning given to the word incorporates the qualifiers of "especially unfavourable". On the other hand, a "critique" is usually more in the nature of a balanced judgement with no weighting.

Personally, I am not only reluctant to pass public judgement upon what others may write about the keris, but I am also reluctant to pass judgement upon the syntax of people who write in a language other than their own. I think I would be correct in saying that Marco A. Briccola is not a native speaker of the English language. Perhaps his writing style is a little bit more positive than it need be, but possibly his writing skills do not permit a more measured approach. I taught English to new migrants to Australia, as a community service, for about ten years, and my personal life has been interwoven with non-native speakers of English for virtually all of my life. What I have found is that quite often the verbally expressed idea will be a shade different to the written idea. In any case, I'm prepared to give Marco the benefit of the doubt in respect of the way he presents his information.

Insofar as the old meteoritic myth goes, well, that has been so often quoted as fact that I'm sick to the back teeth of reading it and hearing it. In fact only in the last few days I read something written by somebody with a lot more letters after their name than I guess Marco has, there was the old meteoritic thing again. Yes, agreed unconditionally, this meteoritic thing has been put to bed long ago.

But the funny thing is this:- in Jawa I can find any number of people who believe that many old keris contain meteorite. They cannot prove it, and once the material goes into a blade, nobody can prove where it actually came from. The meteorite thing is like a lot of keris "knowledge":- it is a matter of belief.

Personally I believe that the only keris that we can be relatively certain do contain meteoritic material are a very few that were made by Central Javanese mpus with kraton connections and after about 1820, as well as an even lesser number that have been made in recent times.

So, although we can be pretty certain about which keris do contain meteorite, we cannot be at all certain if we say that all other keris do not contain meteorite.

Its like a lot of things connected with the keris:- it comes down to opinion and belief:- you & I choose to believe one thing, others choose to believe something else. Let them believe, I'm not prepared to try to convince them otherwise.

This article is in David Atkinson's site, where he tells us that it is an unpublished manuscript. I sincerely doubt that we can classify Marco's unpublished manuscript as a piece of academic writing. I could be totally wrong on this, but I feel that it was written by an avid collector, rather than an academic. Academia is a very hard place to be, it is not particularly pleasant, it is populated with people seeking advancement and renown at the expense of those whose (figuratively) dead bodies they crawl over. Personally I will be very happy to not see any academic taint on our friendly little discussion group.

In respect of the usefulness of Marco's article to me, I'm sorry to say that it is no use whatsoever to me. Everything that Marco has written I have already heard, some things I agree with, some I do not agree with, but just as I have never taken apart the writing of other much, much better known writers on the keris, I will also not take Marco's writing apart.

Many years ago I did dissect the first edition of one keris writer's book. He had made one hell of a lot of silly statements, and in my own defence, I was much younger then than I am now. In any case, he published his second edition of this book and a lot of those silly things had disappeared. I could do the same exercise with just about everything that has been published on the keris, but I will not. There is no future in it, and mostly what this type of exercise comes down to is one person's opinion and belief measured against another person's opinion and belief. In fact, it is pointless, and at its best does nothing at all to advance the understanding of the keris. At its worst, it only generates animosity.

[David]

Well Alan, i've made no questions nor judgements of Marco's writing skills and other than a few spelling errors this article seems quite well written regardless of his language of origin. I don't quite see your point there.
As to the word "academic", it can be taken to many higher levels and extremes to be sure. But we have a well written and illustrated article that uses footnotes and references in it's writing (including a reference to your own writing). I don't know much about Marco, but it seems his approach was indeed an academic one even if Marco himself does not appear with a litany of letters after his name. He was not writing an opinion piece after all, but a well researched paper on the subject of keris hilts which, i am sure, he intended to be taken seriously.
As such (though of course i cannot know for sure) i do not sense that Marco was writing from a place of "belief" nor that he would feel animosity if any of his writing were to be brought into question. He is simply repeating things he has read or heard (as you have stated, there is nothing in this paper you have not heard before). Now i am speaking on assumption, a dangerous thing indeed, but given Marco's full name i reckon he is probably a Western collector or enthusiast, not member of any keris culture per se. So my sense is that he is not speaking from a place of "belief", but rather he is attempting to write a well researched and factual paper on the subject that will be informational, educational,interesting and, hopefully, correct. Yes, this "correct" thing can indeed be a spurious word, especially in the world of keris where many things are regarded simply as a matter of belief. However, i don't get the impression that he is necessarily culturally tied to a "belief" or series of beliefs when it comes to keris. Now, as you said yourself: "Insofar as the old meteoritic myth goes, well, that has been so often quoted as fact that I'm sick to the back teeth of reading it and hearing it. In fact only in the last few days I read something written by somebody with a lot more letters after their name than I guess Marco has, there was the old meteoritic thing again. Yes, agreed unconditionally, this meteoritic thing has been put to bed long ago."
And yet, it hasn't been put to bed, has it, because it keeps coming back again and again each time someone uses an old reference book that makes an unsubstantiated point of saying it is true. And the myth is extended and supported by its own weight.
If you feel it is useless to point out these questionable points of the keris mythos that is, of course, your own affair. However, i disagree that it does nothing to advance the understanding of the keris and would encourage further discussion on this very interesting article including honest and straightforward critique of its contents.

[A. G. Maisey]

You are undoubtedly correct David.

As with many things, its a matter of perspective.