Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

rasdan · 30th December 2013, 04:04 AM

G’day Alan,

I’ll try to give some insights on this. Haven’t done much research, but here’s my call on this subject. Many of the following are actually my quick guess. There are probably dozens of loopholes in it and can be quite sticky.

IMHO, a keris that is perceived as “legitimate” differs with time and culture and at current time, the definition is really up to our perception. In order to identify a “legitimate” keris , we first must define the physical characteristics of a keris then distinguish the functions and the development of the functions of a keris. The definition part we already passed in previous discussions –asymmetric etc.

The keris IMHO, initially have 2 primary functions; starting out primarily as a weapon (in buda form) with religious symbols. I would imagine that it is not an item that exclusively used in religious rituals since it is quite a normal practice at that time where most items will bear some sort of religious symbolism.

During this a “legitimate” keris is a keris that is a weapon that forms the unique physical characteristics of a keris. Only nobles have keris as it is still a luxury item.

As the keris developed into the modern keris, it is then accepted as a pusaka in a sense that it is a symbol of regency/office of a certain group of people where still, in this time, only nobles owns or were given a keris. During this time, a “legitimate” keris is probably a keris that was manufactured according to the official purpose and the status and of its owner- a keris that is a weapon AND a pusaka.

During this time also, the keris culture as a pusaka weapon spreads to other places and kingdoms. Keris can also be a gift from one regent to another and the particular keris is then regarded as a pusaka of the kingdom - a symbol of a bond/relation. This is why we normally found that a pusaka keris in many kingdoms outside of Jawa are actually of Javanese origin. As in any type of items that are related with power/authority, the manufacturing quality must be superior subjected to the time period and the artistic qualities/symbolism of this type of keris must be set according to the artistic and symbolic viewpoint of the authority that starts that culture. It is probably during this period also, other kingdoms such as Palembang started their own pusaka keris culture which really inspired by the Javanese culture. These locally made keris soon becomes a pusaka weapon of that particular kingdom and the concept of a pusaka keris soon flourishes in that kingdom.

Over time, as iron becomes common and more pande are able to forge keris and the economic conditions of the general public improves, the use of the keris as a weapon becomes widespread and the general public throughout the archipelago had started to have the means in acquiring a keris. It now had evolved into culture and also a functional item of dress. However, the keris owned by the general public at this time is nothing more than a weapon. While it can be considered a pusaka once it is being passed down to the next generations in a loose sense, but it is probably not a pusaka in a sense where it have the binding power of a regent/chief where it is a symbol of authority over a certain group of people. The symbols are still preserved on the blade, but the meaning of the symbols was changed to fit the belief of that time. The concept of a pusaka that binds/authority was also maintained.

During this time, depending on our perception, there are 2 types of “legitimate” keris. Keris that are a weapon AND a pusaka (from the previous and the current era – still being made by an empu) and also kerises that are just weapons from that current era made by smiths (pande). Both types of keris can be a functional item of dress. However, although some weapon grade keris have reached a reasonable quality it is not infrequent that these keris does not meet the requirement of a pusaka grade keris that was set by the authority which is the palace of that particular culture.

We now reach the current era, where a large number of pusaka grade keris and weapon grade keris of the previous ere were passed down to newer generations. The only way to distinguish the pusaka grade to the weapons grade keris is using tangguh knowledge (for Javanese culture) or to have some knowledge to identify a quality keris – as pusaka grade keris would rationally have a high quality. I am unsure if we say that a pusaka grade keris is still being made at this day. Weapon grade keris, however, are still being made to a large extent and the quality now are significantly higher than its predecessor and in some cases it meets the specification of the older pusaka keris as well. It had become a platform purely for displaying artistic skills while maintaining its features as a weapon and a cultural item.

However, in the current era the function of a keris as a weapon is greatly reduced. Now, a keris that is an item of dress does not have to be a functional weapon. This breeds a new type of keris, where it is very hard for it to be considered a weapon (where it does not have a steel cutting edge). These are what we normally call “tourist keris” - a keris that serves a non-functional item of a cultural dress.

Coming back to our original question, what is a legitimate keris? The answer to this question IMHO lies in our perception towards the function of the keris. Does a keris must be a pusaka weapon- a weapon symbolising power and/or office- a weapon that is manufactured according to the specification specified by the ruler, or do we only require it to be just a weapon made according (or not) to the specification, or whether we will accept it as a keris as long as it looks pretty much like a keris – doesn’t matter if it does not serve as a weapon, what more a pusaka.

The keris started out as a weapon. It later evolves to an item that serves two purposes, a weapon and a pusaka. These are the 2 basic functions of a keris. Although there is a concept of a pusaka keris is not a weapon, I’m not sure if it is possible for us to accept that. A keris that is made as a cultural item, serves only as an icon of a culture displayed as an item of dress. It does not satisfy the 2 basic functions of a keris. It is not a weapon and not a pusaka. Therefore IMHO, at a minimum, a legitimate keris should be a keris that at least satisfy at least one of its original purpose- that it’s to be a weapon. A weapon that bears the unique physical attributes that forms a keris.

Now we need to define keris that serves as a "legitimate weapon"..

30th December 2013, 04:04 AM	#13
rasdan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Kuala Lumpur Posts: 367	G’day Alan, I’ll try to give some insights on this. Haven’t done much research, but here’s my call on this subject. Many of the following are actually my quick guess. There are probably dozens of loopholes in it and can be quite sticky. IMHO, a keris that is perceived as “legitimate” differs with time and culture and at current time, the definition is really up to our perception. In order to identify a “legitimate” keris , we first must define the physical characteristics of a keris then distinguish the functions and the development of the functions of a keris. The definition part we already passed in previous discussions –asymmetric etc. The keris IMHO, initially have 2 primary functions; starting out primarily as a weapon (in buda form) with religious symbols. I would imagine that it is not an item that exclusively used in religious rituals since it is quite a normal practice at that time where most items will bear some sort of religious symbolism. During this a “legitimate” keris is a keris that is a weapon that forms the unique physical characteristics of a keris. Only nobles have keris as it is still a luxury item. As the keris developed into the modern keris, it is then accepted as a pusaka in a sense that it is a symbol of regency/office of a certain group of people where still, in this time, only nobles owns or were given a keris. During this time, a “legitimate” keris is probably a keris that was manufactured according to the official purpose and the status and of its owner- a keris that is a weapon AND a pusaka. During this time also, the keris culture as a pusaka weapon spreads to other places and kingdoms. Keris can also be a gift from one regent to another and the particular keris is then regarded as a pusaka of the kingdom - a symbol of a bond/relation. This is why we normally found that a pusaka keris in many kingdoms outside of Jawa are actually of Javanese origin. As in any type of items that are related with power/authority, the manufacturing quality must be superior subjected to the time period and the artistic qualities/symbolism of this type of keris must be set according to the artistic and symbolic viewpoint of the authority that starts that culture. It is probably during this period also, other kingdoms such as Palembang started their own pusaka keris culture which really inspired by the Javanese culture. These locally made keris soon becomes a pusaka weapon of that particular kingdom and the concept of a pusaka keris soon flourishes in that kingdom. Over time, as iron becomes common and more pande are able to forge keris and the economic conditions of the general public improves, the use of the keris as a weapon becomes widespread and the general public throughout the archipelago had started to have the means in acquiring a keris. It now had evolved into culture and also a functional item of dress. However, the keris owned by the general public at this time is nothing more than a weapon. While it can be considered a pusaka once it is being passed down to the next generations in a loose sense, but it is probably not a pusaka in a sense where it have the binding power of a regent/chief where it is a symbol of authority over a certain group of people. The symbols are still preserved on the blade, but the meaning of the symbols was changed to fit the belief of that time. The concept of a pusaka that binds/authority was also maintained. During this time, depending on our perception, there are 2 types of “legitimate” keris. Keris that are a weapon AND a pusaka (from the previous and the current era – still being made by an empu) and also kerises that are just weapons from that current era made by smiths (pande). Both types of keris can be a functional item of dress. However, although some weapon grade keris have reached a reasonable quality it is not infrequent that these keris does not meet the requirement of a pusaka grade keris that was set by the authority which is the palace of that particular culture. We now reach the current era, where a large number of pusaka grade keris and weapon grade keris of the previous ere were passed down to newer generations. The only way to distinguish the pusaka grade to the weapons grade keris is using tangguh knowledge (for Javanese culture) or to have some knowledge to identify a quality keris – as pusaka grade keris would rationally have a high quality. I am unsure if we say that a pusaka grade keris is still being made at this day. Weapon grade keris, however, are still being made to a large extent and the quality now are significantly higher than its predecessor and in some cases it meets the specification of the older pusaka keris as well. It had become a platform purely for displaying artistic skills while maintaining its features as a weapon and a cultural item. However, in the current era the function of a keris as a weapon is greatly reduced. Now, a keris that is an item of dress does not have to be a functional weapon. This breeds a new type of keris, where it is very hard for it to be considered a weapon (where it does not have a steel cutting edge). These are what we normally call “tourist keris” - a keris that serves a non-functional item of a cultural dress. Coming back to our original question, what is a legitimate keris? The answer to this question IMHO lies in our perception towards the function of the keris. Does a keris must be a pusaka weapon- a weapon symbolising power and/or office- a weapon that is manufactured according to the specification specified by the ruler, or do we only require it to be just a weapon made according (or not) to the specification, or whether we will accept it as a keris as long as it looks pretty much like a keris – doesn’t matter if it does not serve as a weapon, what more a pusaka. The keris started out as a weapon. It later evolves to an item that serves two purposes, a weapon and a pusaka. These are the 2 basic functions of a keris. Although there is a concept of a pusaka keris is not a weapon, I’m not sure if it is possible for us to accept that. A keris that is made as a cultural item, serves only as an icon of a culture displayed as an item of dress. It does not satisfy the 2 basic functions of a keris. It is not a weapon and not a pusaka. Therefore IMHO, at a minimum, a legitimate keris should be a keris that at least satisfy at least one of its original purpose- that it’s to be a weapon. A weapon that bears the unique physical attributes that forms a keris. Now we need to define keris that serves as a "legitimate weapon"..