New edition Gardner's book

A. G. Maisey · 26th May 2010, 02:26 AM

I do agree that Gardner is somewhat dated in the way in which he presents information, and when I read David Henckel's remarks in his post # 8 my immediate reaction was a nod of agreement.

However, I've just done a quick review of the keris section of Gardner, a book I haven't opened in years. Gardner was in Malaya for 30 years. Much of the information that he put into his book was from Malay informants. The book was published in 1936.

There are some things that we could probably look askance at now, there are a few things that are simply wrong. But there is much that although it might need a little massaging in respect of spellings or unclear re-telling, is quite OK. If there is decidedly inaccurate information in Gardner, it is very probably a reflection of what he was told by his informants. Some of his theories are very definitely wrong, but theories are created to be disproved, and in 2010 we have the benefit of 70 more years of research that Gardner did not have access to.

But still, I'm looking at it from a base of Javanese knowledge, David Henckel is looking at it from a base of Malay knowledge, so, David, could you oblige and point out inclusions in this book that cause you to evaluate it as:- "---the single most important source for many of the misconceptions, strange theories and errors which continue to plague keris knowledge---".

Many of the people who read this will have Gardner, and some more will probably acquire this book, so if you could point out for us the major errors in Gardner's work you would be doing many people a very great favour.

We've had a plethora of keris books hit the market in recent years, and a number of people have carried out fairly serious research on the keris, so it is possible that our beliefs now might be a little more rooted in fact than was the case 80 years ago.

But then again, as David our moderator notes, "---just about all written sources are imperfect resources for the study of keris---".

When the second edition of Ensiklopedi was published there was a lot of criticism of it in Solo, because a lot of information in it, especially about people, was either straight out wrong, or had been "coloured", additionally a number of very highly regarded ahli keris commented that it seemed as if a lot of the names and descriptive terms had been invented.

Then we have other publications on the keris by noted Europeans that are so full of error and strange ideas that it becomes really difficult to sort the chaff from the wheat.

Edward Frey's first edition was so full of errors it took 14 double spaced hand written pages to list them all.

There are the many little short-run Indonesian publications, that almost invariably put forward the point of view of one man, or one keris study group, with no references, no argument, just little books full of often very peculiar assertions.

Even the historical greats cannot escape from criticism. Groneman was recently published in English, something I had been awaiting for many years. Regrettably Groneman either did not see the forging of a keris that he reported on, or he did not understand what he saw, or he made his notes later and forgot, or he was deliberately misled by the smith.

Empu Suparman would sometimes become quite vitriolic about keris books, and comment that it was a pity that the writers did not learn about keris before they wrote about them.

I cannot recall ever having met a Javanese person with a high level of keris knowledge who had much respect for most publications about the keris.

However, my position is different, I feel that we really need to read everything available on the keris. Yes, its all imperfect, some sources are worse than others, but by reading it all and continually carrying out a process of verification we can possibly come to a position where we might be able to establish a reasonably firm foundation for our beliefs.

In respect of Gardner's book, it is valuable for providing a historical perspective, if for no other reason.

Jean · 27th May 2010, 02:37 PM

As a modest kris book author myself, I know very well how we are easily prone to mistakes even if we check and conter-check our descriptions.
I bought and carefully read Gardner's book and I found it interesting in spite of some mistakes or inaccuracies. He was serving in Malaysia so his knowledge of Javanese and Balinese krisses was probably less accurate than those from Malaysia and Sumatra.
Alan is asking to pinpoint some mistakes and I would indicate four of them in my opinion:
. In page 11 he shows 4 specimens of Balinese kris hilts of which one is obviously Madurese and the other most probably East Javanese.
. In pages 15 & 17, he shows a Jawa demam hilt from Sumatra which actually seems to be a burung hilt from Sulawesi or Riau.
. In page 17, he shows a Banjarmasin gilt copper hilt labelled as Javanese.
. In page 21, he shows a Bugis kris sheath which rather looks from Sumatra.
The pictures quality is poor by modern standards but this book remains a precious historical reference and was worth to be re-published in my opinion.
Jean

Tim Simmons · 27th May 2010, 08:39 PM

I assume it is a jazzed up cover of this 16th reprint 2003. I just cannot imagine why I bought it. The Edwardian schooled attitude to the book is rather quaint.
I have just found out he was one of those me first people, running around a fire naked as a toff is fun but if poor people do it, it's all rather vulgar.

David · 27th May 2010, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Simmons

I assume it is a jazzed up cover of this 16th reprint 2003. I just cannot imagine why I bought it. The Edwardian schooled attitude to the book is rather quaint.
I have just found out he was one of those me first people, running around a fire naked as a toff is fun but if poor people do it, it's all rather vulgar.

Same title Tim, but a completely different book.
The book we are discussing is one which was solely penned by Gardner, not this compilation of essays by various writers.
I also own this one and it does have a few interesting pieces of information but is not a particularly good resource for accurate knowledge.

David · 27th May 2010, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Simmons

I have just found out he was one of those me first people, running around a fire naked as a toff is fun but if poor people do it, it's all rather vulgar.

I am not quite sure what you mean by this Tim. Gardner is known as the father of modern Wicca, a resurgence of earth based religion which he cobbled together from a combination of old folk lore and what was, for him, a fairly contemporary practice of ritual lodge magick (Golden Dawn). Yes, he, as many neo-pagans since, advocated nudity during ritual (what is know as skyclad), but i don't understand, nor, i believe, want to understand you comment in relationship to poor people in this context. I would suggest that we try to keep our conversation here focussed on the keris and not other parts of Gardner's life which you may consider colorful, but has absolutely no bearing on this conversation.

A. G. Maisey · 27th May 2010, 11:10 PM

I strongly endorse your remarks, David.

Comments which denigrate personal spiritual belief have no part in discussion relating to keris, which is itself an icon with a high spiritual content.

A. G. Maisey · 27th May 2010, 11:28 PM

Thanks for your response on the "error" issue, Jean.

I note that all the inadequacies that you have identified are related to the graphic identification of keris components. Some of these I also noted, the Madura hilt is a stand-out, however, I personally do not place a great deal of importance on what could be considered to be relatively minor errors in identification or classification. There is other graphic error also, but its only names, and does not affect understanding.

My principal interest is in the information contained in the text, and there are inadequacies in this too. I'm not going to enumerate what I consider to be incorrect, because I am hoping that David Henckel will provide info on what he sees as incorrect, his criticism of Gardner is very much stronger than mine would be, so he obviously has seen some quite severe flaws that have the potential to affect basic understanding. Read in the context of the time, I cannot see these flaws, but my knowledge is limited to one area, David Henckel's knowledge covers a different area, so I feel it is important for him to identify for us these serious flaws in Gardner's work.

DAHenkel · 1st June 2010, 12:56 AM

Honestly, I'm not all that against the book - I simply pointed out that it is (liberally) salted with inaccuracies and mistakes and should be used with caution. Given the choice between seeing this source reprinted and a new - more accurate book I'd much rather have the latter. Gardner and his generation of colonial era gentleman scholars have played a key role in snatching the last dying embers of keris knowledge from the abyss and deserve a lot of credit for that. I just wanted to point out that they are far from perfect and cannot be taken as cannonical works uncritically.

27th May 2010, 08:39 PM	#3
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,854	I assume it is a jazzed up cover of this 16th reprint 2003. I just cannot imagine why I bought it. The Edwardian schooled attitude to the book is rather quaint. I have just found out he was one of those me first people, running around a fire naked as a toff is fun but if poor people do it, it's all rather vulgar. Attached Images Last edited by Tim Simmons; 27th May 2010 at 08:57 PM.

26th May 2010, 02:26 AM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,015	I do agree that Gardner is somewhat dated in the way in which he presents information, and when I read David Henckel's remarks in his post # 8 my immediate reaction was a nod of agreement. However, I've just done a quick review of the keris section of Gardner, a book I haven't opened in years. Gardner was in Malaya for 30 years. Much of the information that he put into his book was from Malay informants. The book was published in 1936. There are some things that we could probably look askance at now, there are a few things that are simply wrong. But there is much that although it might need a little massaging in respect of spellings or unclear re-telling, is quite OK. If there is decidedly inaccurate information in Gardner, it is very probably a reflection of what he was told by his informants. Some of his theories are very definitely wrong, but theories are created to be disproved, and in 2010 we have the benefit of 70 more years of research that Gardner did not have access to. But still, I'm looking at it from a base of Javanese knowledge, David Henckel is looking at it from a base of Malay knowledge, so, David, could you oblige and point out inclusions in this book that cause you to evaluate it as:- "---the single most important source for many of the misconceptions, strange theories and errors which continue to plague keris knowledge---". Many of the people who read this will have Gardner, and some more will probably acquire this book, so if you could point out for us the major errors in Gardner's work you would be doing many people a very great favour. We've had a plethora of keris books hit the market in recent years, and a number of people have carried out fairly serious research on the keris, so it is possible that our beliefs now might be a little more rooted in fact than was the case 80 years ago. But then again, as David our moderator notes, "---just about all written sources are imperfect resources for the study of keris---". When the second edition of Ensiklopedi was published there was a lot of criticism of it in Solo, because a lot of information in it, especially about people, was either straight out wrong, or had been "coloured", additionally a number of very highly regarded ahli keris commented that it seemed as if a lot of the names and descriptive terms had been invented. Then we have other publications on the keris by noted Europeans that are so full of error and strange ideas that it becomes really difficult to sort the chaff from the wheat. Edward Frey's first edition was so full of errors it took 14 double spaced hand written pages to list them all. There are the many little short-run Indonesian publications, that almost invariably put forward the point of view of one man, or one keris study group, with no references, no argument, just little books full of often very peculiar assertions. Even the historical greats cannot escape from criticism. Groneman was recently published in English, something I had been awaiting for many years. Regrettably Groneman either did not see the forging of a keris that he reported on, or he did not understand what he saw, or he made his notes later and forgot, or he was deliberately misled by the smith. Empu Suparman would sometimes become quite vitriolic about keris books, and comment that it was a pity that the writers did not learn about keris before they wrote about them. I cannot recall ever having met a Javanese person with a high level of keris knowledge who had much respect for most publications about the keris. However, my position is different, I feel that we really need to read everything available on the keris. Yes, its all imperfect, some sources are worse than others, but by reading it all and continually carrying out a process of verification we can possibly come to a position where we might be able to establish a reasonably firm foundation for our beliefs. In respect of Gardner's book, it is valuable for providing a historical perspective, if for no other reason.

27th May 2010, 02:37 PM	#2
Jean Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,740	As a modest kris book author myself, I know very well how we are easily prone to mistakes even if we check and conter-check our descriptions. I bought and carefully read Gardner's book and I found it interesting in spite of some mistakes or inaccuracies. He was serving in Malaysia so his knowledge of Javanese and Balinese krisses was probably less accurate than those from Malaysia and Sumatra. Alan is asking to pinpoint some mistakes and I would indicate four of them in my opinion: . In page 11 he shows 4 specimens of Balinese kris hilts of which one is obviously Madurese and the other most probably East Javanese. . In pages 15 & 17, he shows a Jawa demam hilt from Sumatra which actually seems to be a burung hilt from Sulawesi or Riau. . In page 17, he shows a Banjarmasin gilt copper hilt labelled as Javanese. . In page 21, he shows a Bugis kris sheath which rather looks from Sumatra. The pictures quality is poor by modern standards but this book remains a precious historical reference and was worth to be re-published in my opinion. Jean

27th May 2010, 11:10 PM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,015	I strongly endorse your remarks, David. Comments which denigrate personal spiritual belief have no part in discussion relating to keris, which is itself an icon with a high spiritual content.

27th May 2010, 11:28 PM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,015	Thanks for your response on the "error" issue, Jean. I note that all the inadequacies that you have identified are related to the graphic identification of keris components. Some of these I also noted, the Madura hilt is a stand-out, however, I personally do not place a great deal of importance on what could be considered to be relatively minor errors in identification or classification. There is other graphic error also, but its only names, and does not affect understanding. My principal interest is in the information contained in the text, and there are inadequacies in this too. I'm not going to enumerate what I consider to be incorrect, because I am hoping that David Henckel will provide info on what he sees as incorrect, his criticism of Gardner is very much stronger than mine would be, so he obviously has seen some quite severe flaws that have the potential to affect basic understanding. Read in the context of the time, I cannot see these flaws, but my knowledge is limited to one area, David Henckel's knowledge covers a different area, so I feel it is important for him to identify for us these serious flaws in Gardner's work.

1st June 2010, 12:56 AM	#8
DAHenkel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 125	Honestly, I'm not all that against the book - I simply pointed out that it is (liberally) salted with inaccuracies and mistakes and should be used with caution. Given the choice between seeing this source reprinted and a new - more accurate book I'd much rather have the latter. Gardner and his generation of colonial era gentleman scholars have played a key role in snatching the last dying embers of keris knowledge from the abyss and deserve a lot of credit for that. I just wanted to point out that they are far from perfect and cannot be taken as cannonical works uncritically.