[Bob A]

“ . . .the values of collectors of keris are of less than no importance to the Javanese, but the Javanese are of immense importance to collectors of keris.”

An elegant and pithy statement which summarises the nature of the question of legitimacy regarding the keris, yet it still begs questions which the author had previously addressed, namely legitimate for what, when, and for whom.

It seems obvious that Mr Maisey’s definition of legitimacy is intimately bound to the culture and people whose iconic device is the center of this discussion, and he has presented his case thoroughly and with insight, to the extent that I feel it cannot be disputed, but it might still be refined, if that is the word I’m looking for, or perhaps expanded.

It seems therefore that legitimacy conferred on a keris would perhaps vary according to its chronological place in a cultural continuum. That is to say, a keris found legitimate in pre-Islamic Indonesia would have to remain legitimate in the eye of an outsider as well as a native Javanese; but would a keris made in the current millennium be seen as legitimate according to the lights of such a pre-Islamic Indonesian? Cultural perceptions shift, and my miniscule knowledge concerning Javanese culture leads me to suspect it is perhaps even more fluid than most.

It cannot be denied that the culture of Indonesia has been influenced by centuries of contact with the rest of the world. Can that influence be seen to be of importance to the values of the Javanese, and how might it influence their perception of the iconic nature of their keris?

While the concept of a “tourist keris” might seem, in the light of the relatively small numbers of tourists compared to the native population, tourists still number in the millions annually. The keris being obviously iconic to the culture, it is not unreasonable, although it might seem offensive to one intimate with that culture, to assume that at least some of these objects were made for purely financial reasons confined to the tourist trade. I speak as one who has never toured Indonesia, and who is nearly totally ignorant of the culture, so you may value my statement accordingly. But if it were so, I feel that this would impact on the concept of legitimacy.

“The values of collectors are of less than no importance to the Javanese” being taken as given, it seems that even the “tourist keris” would have some form of legitimacy, but it’s hard to say, as I’m unable to speak for the Javanese regarding their perception of the situation. If they confer legitimacy on such an object, who am I to object?

But I do not wish to focus on the tourist concept; the whole question is so open to consideration. Indeed, it is so open that ultimately there can be no answer such that it can be said to have been resolved to everyone’s satisfaction; or even, perhaps, to anyone’s satisfaction. As such, it is a delicious topic of exploration. Part of me wonders whether such a thing is reflective of an aspect of Javanese culture itself?

As a nearly virginal collector of keris myself, my few choices have been made on the flimsiest of bases; exposure to a large number of photographs of such objects, coupled with some reading regarding the keris and the Javanese culture. In very fact, the heaviest influence has been photographic. This permits me to hold forth in a forum of individuals who have been involved with this subject for a sum total of centuries, if not millennia; my opinions will doubtless be taken with an eye toward their intrinsic worth. Nevertheless, the level of exposure that a forum such as this, and the various sources of visual input such as auction sites, is unprecedented, and perhaps confers some small level of legitimacy to the development of an eye with which to judge the worthiness of a purchase.

It has been noted by Mr. Maisey that an ever-narrowing focus by a diminishing number of interested parties might not be a desideratum, which has prompted me to respond in these pages to his initial query; if it be considered too bold, I apologise; I have no wish to offend anyone’s sensibilities, nor do I feel that my insights are of major value to anyone beside myself.

That said, my few choices of keris to collect has been formed by a fair amount of visual input, and nearly no hands-on experience. The number of keris that one can find to handle in any major Western city is not high; in fact, the number approaches zero asymptotically. So how to decide whether, and with what, to begin a collection? My focus was on the blade, as I saw it to be the heart, if not the soul, of the keris. To my mind, older was better, as being more likely to have, yes, legitimacy. Additionally, attractive pamor or unusual appearance was of interest; something out of the ordinary might be a false trail, but just as easily might be worthy of interest for its own sake. Tuition in this sort of school must be paid, and negative information is still, after all, information.

I have no doubt that my study of the field has no chance of amounting to much, given the decades that will have been spent by others in their pursuit of knowledge of the subject, and the little time remaining to me to engage in such study. Despite that, I’m not yet deterred from further exploration.

I see that I have done little to address the subject of legitimacy; really there’s not a lot to be added to what has gone before in this thread, especially from one so far outside the subject. While I suppose it is a legitimate area of inquiry for a collector, I sense that it can only really be addressed by those within the culture being studied; even so, I’m not sure that those within said culture concern themselves with such matters. Do fish concern themselves with water? Only to the extent that the medium itself might force the matter.