[A. G. Maisey]

Ariel you have raised some seemingly interesting questions here, and I'll do my best to respond. My responses are interpolated.


I remember an anecdote from Gardner's book how he repeatedly switched the handles of kerises from different areas and showed them to the same indonesian experts. Needless to say, they faithfully attributed the same blade with different handles to the origin of the handle.


Gardner did not claim that he showed the kerises concerned to experts, nor did he show them to Indonesians, he sought the opinion of a number of Malay people, logical, as he was working in old British Malaya during the colonial era. What he says is that these people seem to be guided by the shape of the hilt and the scabbard. The same thing would happen in Jawa if you only consulted ordinary people, and in fact to name a complete keris in accordance with its dress is the correct approach, for example, if we have a Javanese keris with Bugis blade, it is named as a Javanese keris, it is only when we draw the keris and begin the process of appraisal that we will designate the blade as Bugis.

In this matter, there is another factor:- Gardner was classifying blades as:-

Northern Malay or Patani, Rembau, Jawa, Bugis, Sumatra.

When we are dealing with the Javanese, or more properly the Surakarta system of blade classification that is known as tangguh, we are only dealing with blades made in the Land of Jawa. Blades made on the Island of Jawa, but outside the Land of Jawa, do not even get a mention, let alone blades from other locations.

Then there is another factor:-

the indigenous person and the white man.

Malay and Indonesian peoples will invariably give an answer that they believe the questioner expects, if that questioner is either an outsider, or a person of higher status. In these societies you do not get an honest answer until you are inside the society, and inside a family. This practice was even more widespread in colonial times than it is today. If Gardner presented a complete keris in Javanese dress, but with a Bugis blade, even if the person he asked recognised it for what it was, he would be very unlikely to provide an opinion that varied from the obvious, because on the face of it, it was a Javanese keris, and he would assume that his societal superior (Mr. Gardner) would be expecting to be told it was Javanese.



I am also puzzled by the fact that neither Frey's nor Ghiringhelli's books ever mention or even discuss the potential ages of the kerises presented there, - obviously, the most outstanding examples of the genre. Instead, they repeatedly mention purely esthetic features of particular kerises, including wood coloring, quality of carvings, elegance of jewelry etc.


The Frey and Ghiringelli books were written by people from western cultures, for people from western cultures. I corresponded with Edward Frey, and I can say with certainty that the keris was only one of his interests. He could not read nor speak Indonesian nor Javanese, he had only a very superficial understanding of the culture, and although he may (I am uncertain) have heard of tangguh, it is an absolute certainty that he did not have even the vaguest understanding of it. He wrote a good beginner's book for a western readership.

The First Invincible Keris book written by Vanna and Mario Ghiringelli is a good basic identification index, once again written for western collectors.

The second Invincible Keris book, written by Vanna Ghiringelli adopts a more in depth approach, which is indicative of the greater depth of knowledge in the western collecting community in 2007, as compared to 1991, but it is still a book that reflects a western collector's perspective, rather than a perspective that would be recognised by a Javanese ahli keris.

All these books have value to a collector, especially a new collector, but they do not even begin to impart a Javanese understanding, the understanding that is provided is an understanding for western collectors, which is fine, but what I am touching on in my writing is an understanding that is closer to the way the keris is understood in Jawa.

Since as Mr. Maisey stipulated that it is all about money,

Yes, it is all about money, and since I am writing about the Surakarta system of blade classification that is known as "tangguh", the "it" concerned is that system. The tangguh system of blade classification is all about money.

one can recall that a heavily patinated and pockmarked authentic crusader's sword lacking original handle and scabbard would fetch infinitely more interest and money from professional collectors than an outstanding and complete 20th century rendition of the same.

This analogy is not relevant. I am talking about a unique system of belief that only has any meaning within its originating society. This system has nothing at all to do with crusader's swords or the way in which collectors in the western world may regard those swords.


Would it be correct to say that, unlike all other fields of weapon studies and in the absense of inscribed and authenticated dating and signature, the field of indonesian kerises is largely "art appreciation" rather than historical study of weapons? Is keris more in league with, say, netsuke rather than with katana?

The study of the keris may appear to fit within the envelope of "weapon study", but in fact only a small part of keris study involves the weapon function. There are a number of facets that need to be addressed when one sets out to learn the keris, its place in history as a weapon is one of those facets, however, of far greater importance in coming to an understanding of the keris are the societal and cultural aspects. Art is one of these aspects.

For somebody new to the study of the keris perhaps the most useful approach is begin with a study of culture, history, language, society, before becoming too involved in trying to understand the keris, which is the blossom of a culture.If all one wishes to do is to collect the object, but without attempting to gain an understanding of it, that is an equally valid approach, but in this case it is possibly best not to try to do more than simply identify and catalogue.