Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

David · 20th February 2019, 06:52 PM

Rick has pointed out one thread on the subject, though i think that if you search our site you will find this has been a frequent topic of discussion.
My quick 2 cent tour of the subject is this. Belief is a vital component in all "kerisology". I have learned some time ago that it serves little purpose to argue with unsubstantiated belief when it comes to the keris. What i do know, at least from what research i have managed to find is that there seems to be only one recorded meteorite fall in the Indonesian area that provided iron bearing material suitable for keris making during the timeframe when keris are being made. That is the Prambanan meteorite which according to this site was discovered in 1797 (though i have seen reports that a part of this meteorite was also taken to the keraton as early as 1784).
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=18884
What remains of this meteorite is still on display in the keraton in Surakarta. So the earliest this particular material could have been used in keris was the very end of the 18th Century. Could meteorite have been used from some other unrecorded source before this? Possibly, though AFAIK there was never any recording of such usage in court record or otherwise before this. You would think that something as "heavenly" as meteorite used in making such and important cultural artifact would have received some attention in records somewhere.
The vast majority of the Prambanan meteorite was reserved for use in important court tosan aji. It has been reported that empus received small amounts of extra material to do with as they pleased, so it is possible that it was used in some keris created outside of the keraton. Still, i believe we are talking about a very select few keris here.
So back to belief. I have heard it suggested by some that EVERY old keris contains at least some amount of meteoric ore. That seems a very large stretch to me, but it is that basis for some people's belief system. It has been shown, for instance, that many old keris that display pamor do not even contain terrestrial nickel, let alone "star stuff". That the patterns in some of these old keris is created by pamor material that contained different levels of ferric material that created the contrasts when the blade received warangan.
Still, belief is a vital element in the world of keris and sometimes flies in the face of science and evidence.
When shopping for keris you are likely to hear many stories that dealers use to try to sell a keris. Like anything in sales, keris are marketed to the consumer in ways that the dealer believe will give them the best return on their buck. I don't believe there is any real way to tell for sure that a keris contains meteoric material beyond destructive testing, so again, this comes down to a matter of belief. In the end i choose to buy the keris, not the story, if indeed it appeals to me. I may not, however, be willing to pay the extra premium attached to the supposition that a particular keris used meteorite in the making without some provenance to support that. Such proof can almost never be supplied, unless the keris is recent and it's construction is a known entity.

20th February 2019, 06:52 PM	#4
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,023	Rick has pointed out one thread on the subject, though i think that if you search our site you will find this has been a frequent topic of discussion. My quick 2 cent tour of the subject is this. Belief is a vital component in all "kerisology". I have learned some time ago that it serves little purpose to argue with unsubstantiated belief when it comes to the keris. What i do know, at least from what research i have managed to find is that there seems to be only one recorded meteorite fall in the Indonesian area that provided iron bearing material suitable for keris making during the timeframe when keris are being made. That is the Prambanan meteorite which according to this site was discovered in 1797 (though i have seen reports that a part of this meteorite was also taken to the keraton as early as 1784). https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=18884 What remains of this meteorite is still on display in the keraton in Surakarta. So the earliest this particular material could have been used in keris was the very end of the 18th Century. Could meteorite have been used from some other unrecorded source before this? Possibly, though AFAIK there was never any recording of such usage in court record or otherwise before this. You would think that something as "heavenly" as meteorite used in making such and important cultural artifact would have received some attention in records somewhere. The vast majority of the Prambanan meteorite was reserved for use in important court tosan aji. It has been reported that empus received small amounts of extra material to do with as they pleased, so it is possible that it was used in some keris created outside of the keraton. Still, i believe we are talking about a very select few keris here. So back to belief. I have heard it suggested by some that EVERY old keris contains at least some amount of meteoric ore. That seems a very large stretch to me, but it is that basis for some people's belief system. It has been shown, for instance, that many old keris that display pamor do not even contain terrestrial nickel, let alone "star stuff". That the patterns in some of these old keris is created by pamor material that contained different levels of ferric material that created the contrasts when the blade received warangan. Still, belief is a vital element in the world of keris and sometimes flies in the face of science and evidence. When shopping for keris you are likely to hear many stories that dealers use to try to sell a keris. Like anything in sales, keris are marketed to the consumer in ways that the dealer believe will give them the best return on their buck. I don't believe there is any real way to tell for sure that a keris contains meteoric material beyond destructive testing, so again, this comes down to a matter of belief. In the end i choose to buy the keris, not the story, if indeed it appeals to me. I may not, however, be willing to pay the extra premium attached to the supposition that a particular keris used meteorite in the making without some provenance to support that. Such proof can almost never be supplied, unless the keris is recent and it's construction is a known entity.