Actually, I'm afraid I don't think it is possible to come up with a "stylistic classification system" for dealing with the kerises of the "Malay World" (which I more narrowly define for the purposes of this discussion as, kerises of the Peninsula, Sumatra and parts of the Northern and Western coast of Borneo). At least not one that would be of any real use. There are simply too many variables and even more unknowns for it to be effective.
First off, Pak Boedhi hits the nail squarely on the head when he notes that:
1. The keris maker must conform to the agreed 'special characteristic' norms.
Alas, for the area under discussion these norms seem not to have existed in any concrete fashion. This is not to deny that there were not certain 'ideas' about what these norms constituted, simply that they varied according to any number of caprices including, but hardly limited to, personal preference, availability of materials and knowledge/skills etc.
As in Java, what norms as there were probably existed most clearly in the "court". Even there though, outside the court, the rules appear to rapidly break down. In the case of Java the more clearly defined structure of the norms probably meant that there was greater conformity but at some point fuzziness begins to occur. Better by far that we should acknowledge this than to insist that there is some clearly definable 'norm'.
As I have already noted, the fluidity of the Malay World and the mobility of groups and individuals within that world (to name just one example - and there are many - the infamous Raja Ismail of Siak and his followers were settled at different times in Siak, Palembang, Terengganu and Pulau Tujuh during a career which spanned the second half of the 18th century) not to mention the very kerises themselves, means that given the available evidence, even attempting to systematize the resulting mess becomes a suspect exercise.
To complete the logic of Pak Boedi's insight:
2. The assessor (must) understand the(se) norm(s).
However, we cannot understand such norms based simply upon the available evidence, which consists almost wholly extant examples of kerises, the vast majority of which have been divorced from their place and time of origin.
In my opinion, the only way forward, as imperfect as it is, is an historical - ethnological approach which takes into account whatever verifiable evidence is available and extrapolates based on comparisons with what is known of other similar examples.
What this most requires is evidence. The more evidence one has the better one is able to assess. Or to put it more plainly one must see, and hopefully handle, as many examples as possible. The more one does this, the better they will get at achieving some (admittedly imperfect) understanding.
The first Pattani keris I saw seemed very weird to eyes accustomed to Javanese norms. After seeing thousands of examples however, I feel fairly confident in being able to spot a Pattani keris and even to differentiate their individual qualities. That said, things still surprise me and what I know now is not what I knew even a few short years ago. Many Kelantanese keris are so close to Pattani 'norms' that it is sometimes impossible to be certain (a matter much complicated by the fact that many Pattani keris migrated with their owners to Kelantan after the Siamese annexation). However some provenanced examples of Kelantanese keris conform to more Terengganu 'norms' and can thus be excluded from an 'idea' of, if you will, "Pattani-ness".
The ethnological approach requires a certain amount of honesty and clarity of explication. You can't speak definitively of something which is not definitely so and you have to be able to change your opinion in the light of subsequent evidence.
It also means that we cannot entirely divorce the blade from its dress as the dress is the most tangible evidence we have about the origins and history of a keris. This is consistent with the ethnological concept that an object can be "adopted" by the host culture. Even when the host may acknowledge the foreign origins of a piece, this does not diminish the fact that the object has become theirs. Thus a Javanese blade dressed in Terengganu style becomes, in a sense, a Terengganu keris.
In short a systematic approach is not a viable option here because first off, there is no system per-se and secondly the waters of evidence which we do have are so muddied we rarely can see things entirely clearly. What we have then is not necessarily a systematic understanding but a broader and richer picture of the reality, which is something in my opinion, of greater value anyway.
|