Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

nechesh · 15th March 2005, 10:07 PM

Yes Kai Wee, i own "Spirit of Wood". Of course there is spirit and power in the wood. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "the way you talk about sheaths and handles almost suggests that a well-made sheath and handle can be gotten easily. I hope you appreciate the pains and efforts that the miranggi/wood carver puts into acquiring the wood, curing it, selecting the best piece, and of course, actually carving it into a beautiful piece of artwork."
I don't believe there is anything that i said that suggests i think that. Sheaths can be great works of art and beauty on to themselves. My ONLY point was that the iron is the MOST important part. Now it has been brought to my attention, and rightfully so, i believe, that we are in a sense both right, but coming from different perspectives. Certainly, to the collector a sheath can be as highly prized as the blade itself, perhaps more so in some cases. But from the cultural perspective, the blade will always be the most highly prized part. I guess it all depends on which side of the mountain you are approaching from.
Dave, likewise your points are well taken. But my problem with using dress as a method for classification is in some ways linked to the "FrakenKeris" example which you have shown. There are, of course, many good reasons why, for instance, a Javanese keris might end up in a Peninsula dress. Good cultural reasons. But these days we see more and more combos (many much more subtle and attractive than the one you show) that are merely some dealers way of making a keris more saleable with a nice fancy dress. I am sure that there are many examples on the market that we will never be able to determine for sure whether it was cross dressed to suit the local customs of an indigenious owner or to make it more attractive to a western buyer. So, for me, to use the manner of dress as a means of keris classification can be meaningless if the cultural history it implies is incorrect or nonexistent.
I do concede that the entire ensemble of blade and dress is rightfully referred to as "the keris". But also it is true that the blade itself is rightfully referred to as "the keris". However, a sheath and hilt, standing alone, without a blade, regardless of how beautiful and spirit-filled it may be would never be referred to as "the keris".

15th March 2005, 10:07 PM	#18
nechesh Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 940	Yes Kai Wee, i own "Spirit of Wood". Of course there is spirit and power in the wood. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "the way you talk about sheaths and handles almost suggests that a well-made sheath and handle can be gotten easily. I hope you appreciate the pains and efforts that the miranggi/wood carver puts into acquiring the wood, curing it, selecting the best piece, and of course, actually carving it into a beautiful piece of artwork." I don't believe there is anything that i said that suggests i think that. Sheaths can be great works of art and beauty on to themselves. My ONLY point was that the iron is the MOST important part. Now it has been brought to my attention, and rightfully so, i believe, that we are in a sense both right, but coming from different perspectives. Certainly, to the collector a sheath can be as highly prized as the blade itself, perhaps more so in some cases. But from the cultural perspective, the blade will always be the most highly prized part. I guess it all depends on which side of the mountain you are approaching from. Dave, likewise your points are well taken. But my problem with using dress as a method for classification is in some ways linked to the "FrakenKeris" example which you have shown. There are, of course, many good reasons why, for instance, a Javanese keris might end up in a Peninsula dress. Good cultural reasons. But these days we see more and more combos (many much more subtle and attractive than the one you show) that are merely some dealers way of making a keris more saleable with a nice fancy dress. I am sure that there are many examples on the market that we will never be able to determine for sure whether it was cross dressed to suit the local customs of an indigenious owner or to make it more attractive to a western buyer. So, for me, to use the manner of dress as a means of keris classification can be meaningless if the cultural history it implies is incorrect or nonexistent. I do concede that the entire ensemble of blade and dress is rightfully referred to as "the keris". But also it is true that the blade itself is rightfully referred to as "the keris". However, a sheath and hilt, standing alone, without a blade, regardless of how beautiful and spirit-filled it may be would never be referred to as "the keris".