Tactical keris

[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"...