Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

ariel · 24th May 2012, 01:49 AM

I might approach this question indirectly: what criteria do we use in choosing an item for our collection of arms?

Keris, IMXO, is a thing apart. It had never been used as a weapon first and foremost. It was made, chosen and kept for its artistic value and for its mystical intangible aura: protecting the owner, bringing good luck, threatening enemies, communicating with the dead etc. The former requires good taste, money, skills and knowledge of decorating and forging techniques. The latter is a matter of personal beliefs. Thus, both can be achieved by a combination of superb contemporary mastery of the craft and superstitions of the owner. Old or new - they all are worthy and comparable to their 15th century brothers. This is what I think A.G. Maisey meant when he defended and extolled modern kerises.

Examples from other cultures are primarily concerned with the "weapon" dimension: shamshir, khyber, kindjal, yataghan,- you name it, - were weapons first and foremost. Their artistic component is important, but secondary to their fighting usage. In those swords we look for stories of battles, bloodshed ( real or not), famous military owners, etc. Thus, no modern replica would qualify for an object of interest, no matter how artistically-pretty or richly embellished. We are looking for history, not for the spiritual aspect. Keris criteria would be simply not applicable. It is either antique or junk. Would anyone here buy a contemporary Syrian-made pala, despite the fact that its modern steel alloy blade might be better than the original one from the 17th century and carries profuse golden inscriptions? Or a Cold Steel khyber that is mechanically better than the village-made old Afghani one?

Keris is first and foremost object of art and spirituality, and is therefore always real. The rest are objects of history. Therefore, new keris is perfectly fine, whereas new shashka is either a replica or a fake.

24th May 2012, 01:49 AM	#16
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I might approach this question indirectly: what criteria do we use in choosing an item for our collection of arms? Keris, IMXO, is a thing apart. It had never been used as a weapon first and foremost. It was made, chosen and kept for its artistic value and for its mystical intangible aura: protecting the owner, bringing good luck, threatening enemies, communicating with the dead etc. The former requires good taste, money, skills and knowledge of decorating and forging techniques. The latter is a matter of personal beliefs. Thus, both can be achieved by a combination of superb contemporary mastery of the craft and superstitions of the owner. Old or new - they all are worthy and comparable to their 15th century brothers. This is what I think A.G. Maisey meant when he defended and extolled modern kerises. Examples from other cultures are primarily concerned with the "weapon" dimension: shamshir, khyber, kindjal, yataghan,- you name it, - were weapons first and foremost. Their artistic component is important, but secondary to their fighting usage. In those swords we look for stories of battles, bloodshed ( real or not), famous military owners, etc. Thus, no modern replica would qualify for an object of interest, no matter how artistically-pretty or richly embellished. We are looking for history, not for the spiritual aspect. Keris criteria would be simply not applicable. It is either antique or junk. Would anyone here buy a contemporary Syrian-made pala, despite the fact that its modern steel alloy blade might be better than the original one from the 17th century and carries profuse golden inscriptions? Or a Cold Steel khyber that is mechanically better than the village-made old Afghani one? Keris is first and foremost object of art and spirituality, and is therefore always real. The rest are objects of history. Therefore, new keris is perfectly fine, whereas new shashka is either a replica or a fake.