[A. G. Maisey]

Analysis of the responses to date seems to indicate that most people here believe that the question of whether a keris can be considered to be legitimate or not can be decided by personal or group opinion and that the reasons that form this opinion of legitimacy can vary.

Amongst the reasons that can form a basis for a decision on legitimacy we can find:-

Physical form, functionality as a weapon, quality of workmanship, symbol of authority, point of origin.

Both the right to make a decision (group/personal determination), and the reasons that help form that opinion can be subjected to extensive analysis and argument, however, my intent in asking this question was not to generate debate where a show of hands would indicate the agreement or otherwise with any opinion. My intent was and is quite simply to gain a better understanding of how the people in our little group here regarded the matter of keris legitimacy. Since the question of keris legitimacy cannot be separated from an understanding of the nature of the keris, the answer to the question of legitimacy also provides an answer to the question of understanding.

It may be argued that only one concept of legitimacy is valid, and that concept is the one held by the owners of the keris, the people who own the culture which created the keris. It is possible to mount a convincing argument both for and against this point of view, but for the purpose of discussion here I feel that this restrictive point of view is best not pursued, as the intent of my question was to seek a broad range of opinions, not necessarily opinions that can be supported as being correct.

The keris is a multifaceted object that can be considered in many different ways:-

It is primarily a symbol of the masculine element (Nawanatya), extended to "the essence of the world" (Sukuh inscription +/-1437)

But it is a symbol in the form of a weapon, and it possesses a symbolic as well as a weapon function.

The symbolic function was extended beyond the masculine symbolism and incorporated elements that in their entirety could be read as cosmic symbolism:- the Gunungan, the Naga, the ties to ancestors, the tie of ruler to ruled, the binding of previous to present generations of a kin group, the symbol of authority binding a tributary ruler to his lord.

It is also a part of formal dress, and a store of wealth.

The keris originated within the framework of early Javanese society, and it fulfilled and developed its cultural function within that society. By the time other societies in Maritime South East Asia had adopted the keris it was already incorporated into Javanese Islamic society and it was received into these other societies as an object that was only partially understood in its original context by both the originating culture, and by those who adopted the keris.

Thus, if we wish to address the question of legitimacy we need firstly to specify the period of time, the place and the facet of the keris that we wish to declare to be either legitimate or illegitimate.

Additionally we must understand exactly what we mean by “legitimate”.

The word “legitimate” can be understood in a number of different ways, and each of these different ways can give legitimacy to a type of keris, or to anything that has a pretense to being any representation of the form of a keris. Thus, if we wish to declare that a keris is “legitimate”, or “not legitimate” we need to specify the parameters within which we wish to place that keris and declare its legitimacy.

As an example of this, a keris that could be regarded as a legitimate for use as an item of dress may not necessarily be regarded as legitimate as a store of wealth; similarly, a keris regarded as a legitimate store of wealth may not necessarily be regarded as legitimate for use as a weapon.

I would suggest that when we consider this question of keris legitimacy we need to answer these questions:-

“legitimate for what?”

“legitimate when?”

“legitimate for whom?”

Since the answers to these questions will cover a broad expanse of time, geographic location and cultural orientation, perhaps we should then consider if all opinions are equal, or does any opinion have its own relevance within the group that has given rise to that opinion?

Careful examination of the responses above seems to indicate that most people are at least sub-consciously aware that the idea of “keris legitimacy” is not as clear cut as it might appear to be. It is just not an easy question to answer, any attempt to answer this question does in my opinion need to be fairly carefully qualified.

This now brings me to the concept that gave rise to my question.

The concept of the notorious "Tourist Keris".

There seems to be a predisposition amongst many collectors to classify any keris that varies from a self-determined norm of quality to classify this variant keris as a "tourist keris".

We cannot deny that there are keris that have been prepared specifically for sale to tourists. In general terms such keris present with hilt and scabbard that do not conform to societal norms, and with blades that can vary from flat iron to fairly decent antique blades. In one case I can recall seeing a Bali Tourist keris that had no blade at all, only a dowel that projected from the top of the scabbard to accept a hilt.

I do not know of any endeavour amongst the makers of keris at any level to produce keris blades specifically for sale in the tourist markets of Indonesia. Yes, during the current era, as in times past, keris blades have been produced in various levels of quality, and the level of quality dictates the price. These keris blades are produced primarily for local consumption, and from my first hand observations, are purchased mainly by Indonesians, not by people from outside Indonesia. There is an ongoing need to supply keris as an item of dress, and as with any other item of dress in any society, people buy according to their means.

Just because a keris is of poor quality that does not make it a tourist keris.

Sales of keris at any level into the western world from Indonesia are only a drop in the bucket.

If keris makers focused their attention on the occasional tourist who buys a keris as a souvenir of his visit, they would all starve to death. Makers of keris are as pragmatic as any other people engaged in trade and manufacture:- they produce goods that have the widest possible market base.

The population of Indonesia exceeds 247 million people; during 2012 about 8 million tourists entered Indonesia.

Is it good economic strategy to pin one's hopes on a very small, fluctuating and uncertain market, when there is a massive local market with continuing demand?

I really would like to see the myth of the "Tourist Keris" buried with full honours.

It would be very nice if we could look at every keris presented for comment and give as accurate an appraisal as possible, without dubbing it a "Tourist Keris", a term that inevitably conveys very little information to the enquirer, but surely leaves him feeling a little less enthusiastic about our shared passion.

Do we wish to add to our numbers, or is it preferred that we remain a small niche group of enthusiasts, a group that will inevitably become smaller with passing time and eventually disappear?