Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

A. G. Maisey · 26th May 2010, 02:26 AM

I do agree that Gardner is somewhat dated in the way in which he presents information, and when I read David Henckel's remarks in his post # 8 my immediate reaction was a nod of agreement.

However, I've just done a quick review of the keris section of Gardner, a book I haven't opened in years. Gardner was in Malaya for 30 years. Much of the information that he put into his book was from Malay informants. The book was published in 1936.

There are some things that we could probably look askance at now, there are a few things that are simply wrong. But there is much that although it might need a little massaging in respect of spellings or unclear re-telling, is quite OK. If there is decidedly inaccurate information in Gardner, it is very probably a reflection of what he was told by his informants. Some of his theories are very definitely wrong, but theories are created to be disproved, and in 2010 we have the benefit of 70 more years of research that Gardner did not have access to.

But still, I'm looking at it from a base of Javanese knowledge, David Henckel is looking at it from a base of Malay knowledge, so, David, could you oblige and point out inclusions in this book that cause you to evaluate it as:- "---the single most important source for many of the misconceptions, strange theories and errors which continue to plague keris knowledge---".

Many of the people who read this will have Gardner, and some more will probably acquire this book, so if you could point out for us the major errors in Gardner's work you would be doing many people a very great favour.

We've had a plethora of keris books hit the market in recent years, and a number of people have carried out fairly serious research on the keris, so it is possible that our beliefs now might be a little more rooted in fact than was the case 80 years ago.

But then again, as David our moderator notes, "---just about all written sources are imperfect resources for the study of keris---".

When the second edition of Ensiklopedi was published there was a lot of criticism of it in Solo, because a lot of information in it, especially about people, was either straight out wrong, or had been "coloured", additionally a number of very highly regarded ahli keris commented that it seemed as if a lot of the names and descriptive terms had been invented.

Then we have other publications on the keris by noted Europeans that are so full of error and strange ideas that it becomes really difficult to sort the chaff from the wheat.

Edward Frey's first edition was so full of errors it took 14 double spaced hand written pages to list them all.

There are the many little short-run Indonesian publications, that almost invariably put forward the point of view of one man, or one keris study group, with no references, no argument, just little books full of often very peculiar assertions.

Even the historical greats cannot escape from criticism. Groneman was recently published in English, something I had been awaiting for many years. Regrettably Groneman either did not see the forging of a keris that he reported on, or he did not understand what he saw, or he made his notes later and forgot, or he was deliberately misled by the smith.

Empu Suparman would sometimes become quite vitriolic about keris books, and comment that it was a pity that the writers did not learn about keris before they wrote about them.

I cannot recall ever having met a Javanese person with a high level of keris knowledge who had much respect for most publications about the keris.

However, my position is different, I feel that we really need to read everything available on the keris. Yes, its all imperfect, some sources are worse than others, but by reading it all and continually carrying out a process of verification we can possibly come to a position where we might be able to establish a reasonably firm foundation for our beliefs.

In respect of Gardner's book, it is valuable for providing a historical perspective, if for no other reason.

26th May 2010, 02:26 AM	#13
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,704	I do agree that Gardner is somewhat dated in the way in which he presents information, and when I read David Henckel's remarks in his post # 8 my immediate reaction was a nod of agreement. However, I've just done a quick review of the keris section of Gardner, a book I haven't opened in years. Gardner was in Malaya for 30 years. Much of the information that he put into his book was from Malay informants. The book was published in 1936. There are some things that we could probably look askance at now, there are a few things that are simply wrong. But there is much that although it might need a little massaging in respect of spellings or unclear re-telling, is quite OK. If there is decidedly inaccurate information in Gardner, it is very probably a reflection of what he was told by his informants. Some of his theories are very definitely wrong, but theories are created to be disproved, and in 2010 we have the benefit of 70 more years of research that Gardner did not have access to. But still, I'm looking at it from a base of Javanese knowledge, David Henckel is looking at it from a base of Malay knowledge, so, David, could you oblige and point out inclusions in this book that cause you to evaluate it as:- "---the single most important source for many of the misconceptions, strange theories and errors which continue to plague keris knowledge---". Many of the people who read this will have Gardner, and some more will probably acquire this book, so if you could point out for us the major errors in Gardner's work you would be doing many people a very great favour. We've had a plethora of keris books hit the market in recent years, and a number of people have carried out fairly serious research on the keris, so it is possible that our beliefs now might be a little more rooted in fact than was the case 80 years ago. But then again, as David our moderator notes, "---just about all written sources are imperfect resources for the study of keris---". When the second edition of Ensiklopedi was published there was a lot of criticism of it in Solo, because a lot of information in it, especially about people, was either straight out wrong, or had been "coloured", additionally a number of very highly regarded ahli keris commented that it seemed as if a lot of the names and descriptive terms had been invented. Then we have other publications on the keris by noted Europeans that are so full of error and strange ideas that it becomes really difficult to sort the chaff from the wheat. Edward Frey's first edition was so full of errors it took 14 double spaced hand written pages to list them all. There are the many little short-run Indonesian publications, that almost invariably put forward the point of view of one man, or one keris study group, with no references, no argument, just little books full of often very peculiar assertions. Even the historical greats cannot escape from criticism. Groneman was recently published in English, something I had been awaiting for many years. Regrettably Groneman either did not see the forging of a keris that he reported on, or he did not understand what he saw, or he made his notes later and forgot, or he was deliberately misled by the smith. Empu Suparman would sometimes become quite vitriolic about keris books, and comment that it was a pity that the writers did not learn about keris before they wrote about them. I cannot recall ever having met a Javanese person with a high level of keris knowledge who had much respect for most publications about the keris. However, my position is different, I feel that we really need to read everything available on the keris. Yes, its all imperfect, some sources are worse than others, but by reading it all and continually carrying out a process of verification we can possibly come to a position where we might be able to establish a reasonably firm foundation for our beliefs. In respect of Gardner's book, it is valuable for providing a historical perspective, if for no other reason.