Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

nechesh · 8th May 2006, 02:16 PM

Of course there are rational ways to measure the quality of old keris. A good thread for you to search for on this forum would be one titled "What makes a good keris" (i think that's the title). I'm sorry i don't have the link handy. You might find the search function here very useful infact and it will give you a better sense of the depth at which we have discussed the topic of the keris here in the past.
You ask how the spiritual and creative part of the mpu can be measured. Firstly, not all keris makers are mpus and i doubt very much that the keris under discussion was made by one. Apprentice and village work can be found in all manner of quality, some very good, some very bad. The creative quality can be easily measured by the look and feel of the blade, the mastery of pamor control, the skill of the carving of the ricikan, the general garap of the blade. Yes, the present physical condition of an old blade would also be something to take into account, but even a greatly mistreated blade can still show the mastery of it's maker if it's quality was high. The spiritual part, for me at least, would require a hands on experience.Even that is not necessarily a good judgement of the maker's spiritual skills since spiritual energy can easily leave a long mistreated blade.
You painters anology doesn't work for me. While certain aspects of keris have changed over the years it is not the same as the difference between, let's say, the classic realism of DaVinci and the abstract expressionism of Pollack.
A high quality 20thC blade could probably be examined by a 16thC Javanese and he would still understand the form and appreciate it's quality. This probably could not be said for the Pollack in DaVinci times.
Since no keris are "signed" we can not judge them based on some preconcieved quality for anything by DaVinci. Sometimes through either provenence or guesstimation we might assume a keris is the work of some great and famous mpu. You are correct, this blade ain't no DaVinci. Is it an interest artifact? Certainly. Is it highly collectible or desirable. Maybe to someone. Not to me. "Maybe not a "master", but who knows...."??? Please!

I would also argue your assertion that mpus centuries ago did not work with good iron, inspite of the "primative" condition under which they worked. Infact, old iron is highly prized as far as i know for a look and feel that newer keris tend not to have. You will, of course, find older keris made of poorer metals, but i don't think this is necessarily true of kraton pieces or other high quality work.

8th May 2006, 02:16 PM	#15
nechesh Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 940	Of course there are rational ways to measure the quality of old keris. A good thread for you to search for on this forum would be one titled "What makes a good keris" (i think that's the title). I'm sorry i don't have the link handy. You might find the search function here very useful infact and it will give you a better sense of the depth at which we have discussed the topic of the keris here in the past. You ask how the spiritual and creative part of the mpu can be measured. Firstly, not all keris makers are mpus and i doubt very much that the keris under discussion was made by one. Apprentice and village work can be found in all manner of quality, some very good, some very bad. The creative quality can be easily measured by the look and feel of the blade, the mastery of pamor control, the skill of the carving of the ricikan, the general garap of the blade. Yes, the present physical condition of an old blade would also be something to take into account, but even a greatly mistreated blade can still show the mastery of it's maker if it's quality was high. The spiritual part, for me at least, would require a hands on experience.Even that is not necessarily a good judgement of the maker's spiritual skills since spiritual energy can easily leave a long mistreated blade. You painters anology doesn't work for me. While certain aspects of keris have changed over the years it is not the same as the difference between, let's say, the classic realism of DaVinci and the abstract expressionism of Pollack. A high quality 20thC blade could probably be examined by a 16thC Javanese and he would still understand the form and appreciate it's quality. This probably could not be said for the Pollack in DaVinci times. Since no keris are "signed" we can not judge them based on some preconcieved quality for anything by DaVinci. Sometimes through either provenence or guesstimation we might assume a keris is the work of some great and famous mpu. You are correct, this blade ain't no DaVinci. Is it an interest artifact? Certainly. Is it highly collectible or desirable. Maybe to someone. Not to me. "Maybe not a "master", but who knows...."??? Please! I would also argue your assertion that mpus centuries ago did not work with good iron, inspite of the "primative" condition under which they worked. Infact, old iron is highly prized as far as i know for a look and feel that newer keris tend not to have. You will, of course, find older keris made of poorer metals, but i don't think this is necessarily true of kraton pieces or other high quality work.