[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks for sharing your ideas Kai, it is always valuable for any of us to gain a slightly different perspective.

I've got a fairly old fashioned approach to learning. It is certainly at variance with what I can understand of modern educational methods. My belief is that knowledge is not about "knowing", but rather about "understanding".

For example, an educational trend of a few years ago, and one that is still supported by some sectors of the educational community, is that reading can be taught be recognition of complete words. Yes, this approach can work, for the purpose of teaching somebody to read, but what it misses on is that reading is not an end in itself, reading is only a tool that permits access to other tools, and in the absence of the foundation blocks of the learnt ability to read, some, if not most, of those other tools cannot be adequately accessed. This could be likened to building a house in the absence of footings. Yes, the house will be built, but as time passes the brickwork will crack and eventually fail.

I submit that the same thing will happen in any field of knowledge. Knowledge by itself is useless in the absence of understanding :
understanding is unlikely to exist in the absence of a foundation upon which to place the knowledge.

I would suggest that there are at least two ways in which to approach any field of learning. One can take the superficial approach and target examination results, or one can take the longer, slower route and attempt a deeper understanding, and that deeper understanding may, or may not produce excellent examination results. I think that many of us have probably encountered the show pony who has a couple of PhD's and more minor degrees and diplomas than we have had hot breakfasts, but who is an abject failure when he is actually asked to do something associated with his academic qualifications.

So, if we then consider where keris learning should begin, and if we adopt my preferred approach of moving towards understanding, rather accumulating a series of words and pictures, in simple terms, my recommendation is to first learn the ABC of the keris. With this in mind, my recommendations for early learning associated with the keris remain at my previous recommendations.

When we have mastered that ABC, we can then advance our knowledge by the asking of questions. These questions do not need to be asked of a person, but can be formulated in our own minds and the answers sought from all available sources, which might be printed matter, or from people who have a little more experience than ourselves. When we have the answers , those answers can be tested.

Finally we will reach the point where the answers to our questions are no longer easily obtained, and that is when we need to move that one step further and undertake independent research, rather than to rely upon the repetition of shared opinions. In other words, at that pint we need to move out of the comfort zone of having people agree with us and move into an area where we can support our own opinions in the absence of group agreement.

All of this can only begin with the very basic learning of the keris ABC.

If I were to recommend a single book for the first book of a budding student of the keris it would be Solyom.

Now I can hear somebody telling me that yes, that's fine, but Solyom is very deficient as a keris text because it does not deal with any other than the Javanese keris.

Let us not forget that my objective is understanding of the keris, that is to say understanding of a cultural artifact. My objective is not the acquisition of the superficial knowledge of classification and terminology across the broad expanse of keris distribution. Since it is only within the Jawa-Bali nexus that the keris functioned in its original intended role my position is that it is simply not possible to gain a true understanding of the keris within any society in the absence of an understanding of the keris within the society which gave it birth.

So Kai, I most certainly do agree with you that my mention of sociology and anthropology were very much divorced from the original thrust of providing some published resources for a newcomer to the world of the keris, however, those mentions were for my own benefit, and were completely divorced from the recommendations I had already made in response to Yuuzan's apparent needs. I know you to be a serious man, and an experienced collector, and I had hoped that perhaps your own independent research had unearthed something which could be of interest to me. As it happens, this is so, for I had never previously heard of the Aceh library. It is probably not likely that there will be much in this library that I will find of interest, its very existence demands that I acquaint myself with its contents. I thank you for providing me with this opportunity.

Again, I agree with you that if one is to understand the nature of the ocean, one needs more than a bucketful of sea water, however, the beginning is still the ABC of the keris, and for that only a very few references are necessary.