I have a very great dislike of the use of the word "tourist" to describe keris which fall outside the parameters of traditional production, and keris which have been produced during the current era.
The keris with a blade pattern that has been created by the use of acid and wax might perhaps be better described as a "souvenir". It has the form of a keris, so possibly it is legitimate to call it a "souvenir keris".
The other keris with the kinatah work I personally would accept as a legitimate keris produced during the current era. It appears to be a Madura production, but that in and of itself does not make it less of a keris. It possesses the essential elements to make it a keris and it could very easily serve the social function of a dress keris.
Now I come to think of it, the "souvenir" keris could also serve the social function of a dress keris, even though this type of blade was offered for sale in souvenir booths in Bali and Jogja in years past, I haven't actually seen many, if any, during recent years.
So let me ask a question:-
exactly what is it that makes a keris a legitimate keris?
why can one keris be considered legitimate and another keris be considered to be not legitimate?
|