Tactical keris

[Jussi M.]

Here´s something that´ll make you spill your coffee onto the keyboard!

I am not going to say what I think of this but it sure is, well, ummm... different





More info here

Thanks,

J

[David]

Well, it may be a lot of things, but it certainly ain't a keris.

[Jussi M.]

Originally Posted by David

Well, it may be a lot of things, but it certainly ain't a keris.

What you mean David? - it says so in the description!

Best,

J

[Rick]

Looks like six waves .








Pass the eye bleach ............

[Jussi M.]

Originally Posted by Rick

Looks like six waves .








Pass the eye bleach ............

[BluErf]

Ugly!!!

Maybe it works by baffling opponents with the thought of what that ugly piece of metal is... and then the wielder can take the opportunity and move in for the kill... haha

[Henk]

Just an ugly dagger with a wavy blade. Not practical at all.

Doesn't belong here!!!

[Alam Shah]

I wouldn't term it as tactical blade either... the kydex is tactical, but with a gleaming shiny blade like that... arghhh! my eyes... it's a giveaway when unsheathed.

[A. G. Maisey]

Art is in the eye of the beholder.

I personally think this is an enormously ugly piece of metal, but having been tied up with the custom knifemaking movement in Australia some years ago, I can understand how some people would consider this to be a wonderful representation of skill.

Western makers who attempt the keris form nearly always get it wrong because they do not understand what they are supposed to achieve. The first keris that I made, I made in Australia, after being involved with keris for better than 25 years, and before I was accepted by Empu Suparman as his pupil.

I did not understand what I was supposed to achieve. I made something that vaguely resembled a keris, but was lacking in many elements.

Here are some pics of what the Sheffield makers Joseph Beal, and Joseph Rogers thought a keris should look like.

None of these things are keris, but knowing they exist helps us to come a little closer to an understanding of just what a keris is.

[asomotif]

It has a wonderful pamor pattern in the HANDLE

[Newsteel]

That dagger is not attractive at all. What eye sore!!!

Again, how would one define a keris? In another words, what makes keris to be called a keris? By the wavy or straight blade? Or by having pamor or not? Imagine if the dagger is a straight blade, would the maker call it keris? Why don't he put it as keris-like dagger...

[sjors]

Believe me, it allways can be worse!

Here's a "9 luk kerissword"
I think its pamor is called "Pamor rust banyak"

It must be a stage prop or something like that because I can't imagine that someone wants this hanging on a wall of a livingroom (but like Alan said: Art is in the eye of the beholder.)

[Alam Shah]

Originally Posted by sjors

Believe me, it allways can be worse!

Here's a "9 luk kerissword"
I think its pamor is called "Pamor rust banyak"

It must be a stage prop or something like that because I can't imagine that someone wants this hanging on a wall of a livingroom (but like Alan said: Art is in the eye of the beholder.)

Ouch! my eyes...
Ah yes, also known as "pamor berkarat"

Perhaps...

[Jussi M.]

Originally Posted by Newsteel

Again, how would one define a keris? In another words, what makes keris to be called a keris?

I think this is actually a very good question to which, unfortunately, I dont have an answer

We could say - as I have read on other threads - that a keris is whatever a Karaton decides it to be, but what then are the things a keris should have in order to become a keris? - What is the criteria and is that criteria general guidelines (principles), or is it too complex to be be drawn as a set of principles that govern what is a keris and what is not? - I gather there must be some basic principles - otherwise there would be chaos which cannot be.

The "tactical" keris I pictured is, bluntly said, unique on its hideousness (IMO). Not all "keris" like objects however are "bad" though they cannot be seen a proper "kerises". Some stuff actually is pretty neat though it is of course arguable what is neat and what is not. I very much like the aesthetics of this modern variation which, on a way, has some roots to an actual culture that used bladed weapons with such a blade form:



Newsteels´s question...

Originally Posted by Newsteel

Again, how would one define a keris? In another words, what makes keris to be called a keris?

...is in my opinion indeed an excellent question which deserves a worthy answer

Best,

J

[Rick]

I think this question has been answered .

If we throw out the standards of Jawa I fear keris chaos .

[asomotif]

And what about the medieval two handers ? Luk ? lots of Luk

[David]

A lot of this discussion seems to focus around the wavy blade. I think that we are all aware that a wavy blade does not make a keris, that in fact most keris have straight blades and that the wavy blade neither began in Jawa nor will end there. European flamboyant swords were not attempting to be keris, they were simply using a wavy blade form. Many knife makers have taken, for what ever reason, to calling all knives with wavy blades a keris. I don't think that necessarily makes them bad knives, just misnamed ones. Also, not all knife makers who make a wavy blade ever intend on it being a keris.
BTW, that's a beautiful butterfy knife (with a wavy blade), Jussi.

[A. G. Maisey]

There have been a number of attempts over the years to provide a clear, valid, and usable definition for the physical form of the keris. However, there is a major problem, in that there are keris types which do not conform to the broadly accepted definitions which call for an asymmetric base, a gandik, and a ganja.

The definition that any of us could use, could vary from time to time, place to place and in accordance with the degree of formality that we wished to apply. Such definitions could encompass the relaxed layman's attitude that if it looks like a keris, it is a keris, the hard-core connoisseur's attitude that it is not a keris unless made in accordance with correctly carried out due ceremony, and in strict accordance with the guidelines of dhapur and pamor, and every variation of these two extremes.

Richard Burton is recognised as one of the great historical authorities on the sword---yes, I know it is currently fashionable to decry his knowledge and attitudes, but although the world has moved on from Burton's time, he does remain as one of the founders of weapons study. In Burton's "Book of the Sword": he devotes a chapter to trying to provide a definition of the sword. Finally he throws his hands up in the air and essentially says:- "When you see one, you'll recognise it".

Probably much the same is true of the keris.

[Jussi M.]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

In Burton's "Book of the Sword": he devotes a chapter to trying to provide a definition of the sword. Finally he throws his hands up in the air and essentially says:- "When you see one, you'll recognise it".

Probably much the same is true of the keris.

This definition I like!

[sjors]

When you see one, you'll recognise it

very true...
And still I'm wondering; what about the pasarkeris?
I own a few touristic kerises; not the kind made out of sheet metal sold nowadays to tourists for 5 dollars but the kind sold to tourists sixty or seventy years ago.
The "woodwork" is "cheap" but the (rude) wilah itself is made with "real" pamor, pamor mlumah. I know, the main intention to make these keris was selling them to Dutch tourists and later on Dutch soldiers but (in mine opinion) we are we still talking about keris if we consider the way they were "fabricated"...

[Rick]

Originally Posted by sjors

very true...
And still I'm wondering; what about the pasarkeris?
I own a few touristic kerises; not the kind made out of sheet metal sold nowadays to tourists for 5 dollars but the kind sold to tourists sixty or seventy years ago.
The "woodwork" is "cheap" but the (rude) wilah itself is made with "real" pamor, pamor mlumah. I know, the main intention to make these keris was selling them to Dutch tourists and later on Dutch soldiers but (in mine opinion) we are we still talking about keris if we consider the way they were "fabricated"...

Like this example Sjors ?
No Gonjo (missing), old worn blade ?
IMO definitely keris .

[sjors]

Like this example Sjors ?

I'm afraid so, I included another "example of fine art"
OK, we all agree they are cheap and ugly but are they cheap and ugly keris or just cheap and ugly pieces of junk (or both)?

[Rick]

Hi Sjors, I guess beauty is in the eye of the Beholder.

The example I have shown is rarely seen nowadays .

Your example I have no idea about; but (using your criteria) they are keris IMO (some are better than others), junky or not .
The dress here is Gabilan (IMO) in both circumstances; a recognised Maduran form .
Being such it is a part of keris history and culture .

Also, who is to say these were not sometimes owned by poorer local people who still wanted a keris ?

[fearn]

Ya know, there's this wonderful expression from where I grew up that perfectly describes this (cough cough) tactical (cough) kris:

duuuuuude.

Too bad I can't put in the umlauts to show proper pronunciation.

On a more proper note, I'll be interested to see where you folk draw the line between the world's ugliest proper keris and the world's best looking keris-shaped piece of junk. Does it depend on whether it was made by someone trained by an empu, or is it what the object looks like? Inquiring minds want to know.

my 0.00000000000000002 centimes,

F

[Rick]

Dude ....... ; I know that term from the beach Fearn; never call me that ok? .

There are Pandais and Empus .
Both make keris .
Not all can be great; but both can fulfill a need for a cultural icon .

[A. G. Maisey]

In my earlier post I wrote this:-


The definition that any of us could use, could vary from time to time, place to place and in accordance with the degree of formality that we wished to apply.


This "degree of formality" approach is probably critical to the entire question of "what is a keris".

Let's look at it this way:- we all move within a broad community. Taking myself as an example, the people I normally speak to and interact with will run through a range of different people, from the kid who comes to clean my gutters to a professor of anatomy---and above and below these stations.

Now both the kid who does the gutters, and the anatomist may have a similar level of understanding in respect of the keris, so if they saw , let us say , just for example, Semar's keris, and they asked me what it was, I would tell them it was a keris, and maybe give a short explanation of what a keris is. They do not need to know more than this, nor want to know more than this. If some people do not yet know their keris ABC, these two people do not yet even know where the kindergarten is. But is doesn't make them any less excellent in their chosen pursuits of anatomy or gutter cleaning, so we don't talk down to them, we don't use terms they obviously will not understand, we don't pretend that we are the fount of all wisdom. In short, we do not behave like intellectual snobs.

However, let us say I was in conversation with a friend in Solo who is a maker, and who has an extremely high level of keris knowledge, and we were considering this same keris of Semar's. I could not envisage that there would be any discussion of dhapur, or tangguh, or period, or origin, or anything else. I would think the discussion would be something like:- gee, that's weird, isn't it?I wonder what the maker was trying to do?

But, if by some error of judgement on my part I became involved in a discussion of this same keris with an ethusiastic collector--- or even worse, one of the intellectual snobs who seem to gravitate to some parts of the world of the Javanese Keris--- and who knew all the correct terminology, had a good smattering of the philosophy and who regarded the keris as a vehicle for his personal advancement as a man of respect and influence, then I would undoubtedly be forced to become very formal and call on this pakem and that pakem, and use all the correct vocabulary---simply to show that I had learnt it--- and take the position that Semar's keris was not really a keris because it failed to follow the parameters of form.

So, we can be either quite formal in the way we look at a keris, or we can be more or less relaxed. Relaxation does not suit rigid, academic nor prestige seeking discussion.

Intellectual snobbery does not suit friendly, relaxed conversation.

Perhaps our real difficulty comes in determining the nature of any particular exchange.

Now, if we look at Sjor's keris, and Rick's most recent posting, I think we can be a bit relaxed. Both are keris, but they're not good keris. Not being good keris, they would not be the subject of any serious academic discussion, nor of a discussion where the objective was to raise one's level of prestige.

On the subject of "Good Keris", I think volumes may have already been written.

[sjors]

Gentlemen, thank you for your detailed answers,

It was certainly not my intention to start a discussion about the question: "What is good or bad, art or not or what is beautifull" because simply I'm not in the position to judge them but rather the question: "Can we still consider this kind as a real keris or simply as tourist stuff or can they be both?" (It was really puzzling me)

This kind of keris are offered very regular in the Netherlands (concidering our history: most of them were souvenirs brought home by Dutch soldiers in the late forties, early fifties)) and I was wondering about the combination of these roughly made wrangka and ukiran with old (maybe worn) but real blades.

Another question is why there are offered so many of these "Madurese" type kerisses in the Netherlands, considering the fact that most soldiers were stationed on the island of Java?

[Newsteel]

Nice keris Jussi. Especially the ricikan (perabot).

[Marcokeris]

Originally Posted by sjors

I'm afraid so, I included another "example of fine art"
OK, we all agree they are cheap and ugly but are they cheap and ugly keris or just cheap and ugly pieces of junk (or both)?

Sjors
from your photo sarong and ukiran seem to me to be nice and well made. About blade: i cannot see well but it seems not so good

[A. G. Maisey]

Sjors, I think I have already answered your question in my earlier post, however, put simply, the answer to your question depends upon the standard being applied.

I do appreciate that English is not your first language, and I may have been insufficiently direct in my earlier post, however, the question comes down to what standards one wishes to apply.

There is no doubt at all that your keris is of the correct form and construction to be called a keris.

However, as whether it is a "real" keris or not, well that depends on the standard being applied.

If one is inclined to snobbishness, then I'm sorry, your keris fails as a "real" keris for any number of reasons.

If one is not inclined to snobbishness, then yes, it is most definitely a real keris, and a fair example of its type.