Ariel, I do agree that an argument can be mounted to support your opinion, however, if we were to apply this argument to the keris it would make every keris made after the Early Javanese Classical period a non-legitimate keris.
If we moderated our criteria just a little and took the stance that we were really only thinking in terms of the Modern Keris, that is, the keris in the form it gained in about the 14th century, then we would need to label as non-legitimate every keris that was made after Islam became the dominant religious system in Jawa.
If we were readers of Raffles "History of Java" we might decide that any keris that was made after about the mid-18th century in Jawa was indeed, non-legitimate.
Moving into the 20th century we could give due consideration to the methods of manufacture used by many current era makers and determine that since such methods were at variance with the methods of the pre-industrial world, keris produced by such methods were non-legitimate.
However, if we were to adopt any of the above points of view we would be placing our opinion above the opinion of the people of the culture that owns the keris.
It is a simple fact that the nature of the keris has changed over the +1000 years of its existence, but it is still today a cultural icon in the culture that gave it birth.
I do find that I can agree with the concept that as a collector who is not a part of the originating culture, we can all establish our own criteria for the addition of keris, or other objects, to our own collections.
However, we cannot take it upon ourselves to dictate the legitimacy or otherwise of a cultural icon to the people who are a part of that culture.
The keris as an art object is most certainly one of the facets of its character, but it is by no means the only facet, nor even the most important facet.
|