Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

A. G. Maisey · 3rd March 2014, 06:43 AM

I can understand how this subject of keris understanding might seem a little bit confusing, Bob, but its not nearly as bad as you may think. Yes, there are probably a few people wandering around in a fog wondering what the whole thing is all about, but any collector, or student of the keris, who has been at the game for a little while, and given only cursory attention to the plethora of information that is available, has probably got a pretty good idea of the basics that he needs.

There probably is no "touchstone", in the sense of one single rule of thumb that can be universally applied to help a beginning collector make decisions, but as has come through in the discussion to date, people decide what is legitimate in accordance with their own area of interest or attraction.

If we care to consider the way in which collectors who are a part of Indonesian society frame their parameters, we can most certainly identify the standards of value that they apply when deciding whether any particular keris is a worthwhile addition for their own collection.

They may collect on the basis of tangguh, which is Solo-centric classification system that seeks to classify on the basis of point of origin in terms of place and time. They may collect on the basis of art. They may collect on the basis of the isi, or "content" of the blade in spiritual terms. They may collect only keris from a particular geographic location, or from only a specific designated maker or time. Or they may collect on a number of other bases.

There are very many ways in which a collection can be structured, but however one seeks to structure one's own collection, the parameters applied should take account of the collector's own interests and tastes. It is simply not possible to lay down a set of universally applicable rules and standards that could be used by everybody as a guide to the way in which their collection should be structured.

This then brings us back to the purpose of this thread:- an endeavour to identify how various people think of the concept of legitimacy when applied to the keris.

When somebody has a newly awakened interest in the keris, I personally feel that it is always a valuable use of time to read some of the hardcopy material that is available. There's a lot of information available on the keris, and on keris cultures, but it is mostly found in hardcopy form, rather than on the net.

3rd March 2014, 06:43 AM	#36
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,703	I can understand how this subject of keris understanding might seem a little bit confusing, Bob, but its not nearly as bad as you may think. Yes, there are probably a few people wandering around in a fog wondering what the whole thing is all about, but any collector, or student of the keris, who has been at the game for a little while, and given only cursory attention to the plethora of information that is available, has probably got a pretty good idea of the basics that he needs. There probably is no "touchstone", in the sense of one single rule of thumb that can be universally applied to help a beginning collector make decisions, but as has come through in the discussion to date, people decide what is legitimate in accordance with their own area of interest or attraction. If we care to consider the way in which collectors who are a part of Indonesian society frame their parameters, we can most certainly identify the standards of value that they apply when deciding whether any particular keris is a worthwhile addition for their own collection. They may collect on the basis of tangguh, which is Solo-centric classification system that seeks to classify on the basis of point of origin in terms of place and time. They may collect on the basis of art. They may collect on the basis of the isi, or "content" of the blade in spiritual terms. They may collect only keris from a particular geographic location, or from only a specific designated maker or time. Or they may collect on a number of other bases. There are very many ways in which a collection can be structured, but however one seeks to structure one's own collection, the parameters applied should take account of the collector's own interests and tastes. It is simply not possible to lay down a set of universally applicable rules and standards that could be used by everybody as a guide to the way in which their collection should be structured. This then brings us back to the purpose of this thread:- an endeavour to identify how various people think of the concept of legitimacy when applied to the keris. When somebody has a newly awakened interest in the keris, I personally feel that it is always a valuable use of time to read some of the hardcopy material that is available. There's a lot of information available on the keris, and on keris cultures, but it is mostly found in hardcopy form, rather than on the net.