New Keris/Keris baru

[Gustav]

The same question two weeks ago, with a correct answer:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=15541

[A. G. Maisey]

Actually Sukarno and Hatta declared Independence from Dutch overlordship on 17 August 1945.

Indonesians regard this as the gaining of freedom, or "merdeka".

The word "kamardikan" derives from "merdeka", so a kamardikan keris is one dating from the era of Merdeka, ie, after 1945.

It is a relatively recent term, coined to give a legitimate classification to recently produced keris.

[Jean]

And I would add that a kamardikan kris should normally be a good quality kris, so it does not include the fake or replica krisses
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Good quality?

Looks like we've come full circle.

Let me ask the question:-

What is a good keris?

Then we have the other two very obvious questions:-

What is a replica keris?

What is a fake keris?

There you are, three very nice questions sitting there awaiting answers. Should keep us going for the rest of this year.

At least.

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Good quality?

Looks like we've come full circle.

Let me ask the question:-

What is a good keris?

Then we have the other two very obvious questions:-

What is a replica keris?

What is a fake keris?

There you are, three very nice questions sitting there awaiting answers. Should keep us going for the rest of this year.

At least.

Well, i'm not going to jump on board just yet here, but would be interested to hear just what folks think a "replica" or "fake" keris is.

[Jussi M.]

Originally Posted by David

Well, i'm not going to jump on board just yet here, but would be interested to hear just what folks think a "replica" or "fake" keris is.

I´m game Now... I think that this is a way more complex a theme that one would first think of. First there is the underlying problem of semantics bested with the multiple of ways - viewpoints - one could use in trying to answer such a question. I´ll leave Mr. Maiseys first question regarding what constitutes a good keris aside and concentrate on the latter questions "replica" and "fake".

Replica in my opinion is something that could be found on the upper right hand corner of below matrix (which I "loaned" from a professor of marketing named Joseph Pine ). Thus a replica is "real real" - it is being treated openly as a replication of something that itself is not ("is what it says it is"), and it "is true to itself" as it is a truthful replica. If on the other hand we would think that in order to be true to itself an item has to be unique in its design (something a replica cannot be), we could think of replicas as "real fake", alike Disneyland is not really a magic land it portrays (being open about it) itself to be. Of course viewer discretion is yet advised, as just like with the keris, some people may take illusion as true despite it is not deliberately attempted (small children in Disneyland alike noobies in the kingdom of the keris cannot separate tale from truth). On the contrast - often times they, in their own minds, prolong the honest fantasy onto something that exceeds what was said, what happened etc. Call it imagination if you will

We are left with "fake fake" and "fake real". "Fake real" is an honest ripoff - a con if you will: somebody promotes something which has been purportedly design and manufactured to give an illusion that it "is not what it says it is", thus it "is true to itself". "Fake fake" is a bad fake, ie. a fake that can be recognized as one thus it cannot be "true to itself".

Easy, huh?

No. It gets more complicated now. - What about when you have, for example, a keris that has been honestly designed and executed as keris X following a Pakem Y, but the maker has not been able to follow the Pakem on precision needed for the keris to be classified by the court as yes, this is a "keris X according to Pakem Y"? This brings the issue of intent: what was the intent of the maker - did he act on good faith and failed because of ignorance? Did he himself thought that he had followed the Pakem, only to be corrected by some of more understanding? Thus is it not true that one mans "real-real" cannot but be another mans "fake-fake" and all the other variations on the matrix?

Replica and fake out of the way, a good keris obviously needs to be "real real", or does it? Cannot a good keris also be a "fake real" if it is honest to itself despite the fact that the observer in question does not know what he is looking at, say for example when someone is looking at a worn out piece of junk (in his mind) which an expert would cherish as something extraordinary. Why? Because he understands what that worn keris once was ("real real"). Time thus can alter perception via accumulation of damage to the point that the story the keris tells changes alike it´s appearance does, hence altering from "is what it says it is" to "is not what it says it is" (to most).

Anyway, I think it would be futile to prolong this further from my part. I tried to prove the point that things really are not so clear cut what comes to this theme of categorizing stuff as "good, bad or ugly"

Thanks,

J.

[Gustav]

Well, it sounds good as a theory. What, when we are using it on keris of Ismarsodo as example in praxis (if he allows us to do it), going in to the small details?

[sirek]

Originally Posted by Jussi M.

what was the intent of the maker - did he act on good faith and failed because of ignorance? Did he himself thought that he had followed the Pakem, only to be corrected by some of more understanding?

replica or fake is indeed not easy to define
if there is deviated from the traditional form, and we have to deal with the artistic spirit of the modern maker.
IMO its not a replica or a fake keris, but ? a modern impression?

[ariel]

I might approach this question indirectly: what criteria do we use in choosing an item for our collection of arms?

Keris, IMXO, is a thing apart. It had never been used as a weapon first and foremost. It was made, chosen and kept for its artistic value and for its mystical intangible aura: protecting the owner, bringing good luck, threatening enemies, communicating with the dead etc. The former requires good taste, money, skills and knowledge of decorating and forging techniques. The latter is a matter of personal beliefs. Thus, both can be achieved by a combination of superb contemporary mastery of the craft and superstitions of the owner. Old or new - they all are worthy and comparable to their 15th century brothers. This is what I think A.G. Maisey meant when he defended and extolled modern kerises.


Examples from other cultures are primarily concerned with the "weapon" dimension: shamshir, khyber, kindjal, yataghan,- you name it, - were weapons first and foremost. Their artistic component is important, but secondary to their fighting usage. In those swords we look for stories of battles, bloodshed ( real or not), famous military owners, etc. Thus, no modern replica would qualify for an object of interest, no matter how artistically-pretty or richly embellished. We are looking for history, not for the spiritual aspect. Keris criteria would be simply not applicable. It is either antique or junk. Would anyone here buy a contemporary Syrian-made pala, despite the fact that its modern steel alloy blade might be better than the original one from the 17th century and carries profuse golden inscriptions? Or a Cold Steel khyber that is mechanically better than the village-made old Afghani one?


Keris is first and foremost object of art and spirituality, and is therefore always real. The rest are objects of history. Therefore, new keris is perfectly fine, whereas new shashka is either a replica or a fake.

[David]

Sorry Ariel, but i completely disagree with your downplaying of the historical aspects of the keris. History is not simply a matter of the battle capability of a weapon or whether or not a weapon has drawn blood (though in some Indonesian cultures such as the Bugis the keris had a much greater use as an actual physical weapon. I also believe that the keris began as a true physical weapon, first and foremost and developed it's spiritual attributes as it evolved). A keris that is pusaka can hold the "history" of many generations. If i were to be the custodian of such a keris i would say that clearly the history of that blade is of utmost importance. At least it would be to me.
I would also say that contemporary keris are much more objects of art and much less objects of spirituality. The days of the Mpu is for the most part past and the magickal qualities that were once their providence to impart on the blades though fasting, prayer and magickal incantation are lacking in today's modern keris. Most keris are not made by Mpus anymore, only skilled (sometimes highly skilled) metal smiths who do not have the knowledge or priestly lineage to create such keris. I do not believe that is a reason to dismiss modern keris by any means, but i did want to correct your impression just a bit.
As an expression of high Indonesian art the keris is a living art form and though the keris does not hold quite the same cultural importance it once did it still has a place to fill in Indonesian culture. That is the difference that i see between it and the other weapons you mention and what i see as a real reason to encourage it's continued growth as an art form.
In my own collection i have mostly antique keris, but quite a few recent ones. I collect keris that i like, first and foremost. A blade need not be a master work to attract my attention, but it must hold some kind of character that attracts my attention. But with the antique keris that i have collected i am most certainly interested in that link to the past, that connection to history.
As for what is or is not a "fake", i would say that all depends on how it is presented. Artificial aging of blades is not a sign of forgery in and of itself. The look is a preference for many collectors within the culture. If, however, you age a blade and then try to pass it off as an ancient weapon, that is indeed fakery. As for the term replica, i am not sure how that applies to keris. Keris form is often set by certain pakem. So a keris that follows that pakem will, for the most part, look like any other keris that follow that pakem, regardless of when they were made. I can't see how that would make the newer blades "replicas", especially in a culture that still has a place for the keris in it's traditions and cultural practices.

[dbhmgb]

David, you make some excellent points. It was the spiritual aspect of the keris that first attracted and fascinated me. As I've learned more, I have a growing appreciation for the fact that it is also an art form. At first I bought every keris as a because of it's spiritual history (I bought the story, not the blade), now I find I'm looking for something that peaks my interest - unless it's dirt cheap on eBay. I still have a special affinity for the older kerises.

Now here's an example of what what may be considered a fake keris. It's the Bali Tourist Special. The hilt is kind of cool, but overall, I consider it a caricature of a keris and I don't even keep it with my others. Correct me if I'm wrong.