Comment?

[kai]

Hello Alan,

Each society that has adopted the keris as a part of that society's culture has given the keris an understanding that is somewhat at variance with other understandings of the keris.

However, each society owns its own understanding.

Sure, I'm not contesting that.

However, even within a single culture, there seem to be multiple understandings at work:
- keraton-level keris tanguh believes
- "tanguh" assertions for any subpar/average/decent keris (modern)
- ruler/keraton-level pusaka believes
- family-level pusaka believes
- power of pamor types believes
- dukun practises/believes
- folk-level believes
- etc.

Also even neighboring and closely related cultures exhibit differences in such understandings (Solo vs Yogya, etc.).

These understandings within a single culture may influence each other to some extend and get weaved into the fabric of this culture and possibly others as well. For a member of such a culture, any personal understanding (influenced by status, kingroup, social interactions and personal believes/knowledge) may be true and ultimate. However, there is not any singular, monolithic understanding regarding keris, much less any ultimate truth. Even more so for any outsiders.

We can study, and with time and dedication learn, the way in which any particular society may understand the keris, and since the keris is an integral part of any society where it exists, this societally based study is really the only valid way in which to approach keris study, if we wish to understand the keris as it is understood in the society where it exists.

Even if were to wish so, this could be next to impossible. Alan, you married into "the" culture and certainly stand a better chance than most of us. Moreover, if one wants to practise any craft/belief/etc., it certainly is paramount to go to the horses mouth and immerse oneself into the originating culture. Been there, done that, too. Still, it often is a thin line between genuinely and truly learning an art from any foreign culture vs mainly nurturing the silk road syndrome as you called it.

In case we happen to be interested in a period that ended more than a very few generations ago, we may only get some glimpse from extant cultures; we also need to accept that a culture from a past period is not directly accessible anymore today and details need to be carefully inferred from secondary/tertiary sources, if at all possible.

If we do not wish to understand the keris as it is understood by the people who bear it, but rather as an item that is divorced from its context, then the "scientific approach" could well have a place --- but then we need to ask ourselves just exactly what it is that we are studying.

A perfectly legitimate question, for sure. I'd posit that this isn't a black & white thing though. However, the art analogy we spoke of may be difficult to apply here.

Let's try a religous analogy: If I felt a desire to adopt any religoius faith (e. g. becoming a Roman catholic christian), I'd need to learn the basics and, especially, adopt/develop the corresponding beliefs/faith. Upon proving my sincerity and probably some more formalities, I may get baptized and continue my spiritual journey, especially by immersing myself into the pertinent religous practises/rituals/etc. Spiritual leaders (including an infallible Pope at the top of the hierarchy) will provide continued teaching as well as inspiration, hopefully. Certainly, this doesn't preclude me from discussing topics with lay members, too. I may even have doubts and pressing questions that may not get fully answered by the available clergy.

However, if I were to study the history of the Roman catholic faith or its impact on any societies of interest, I don't need to be of this faith. I'd be heavily dependant on catholic sources including archives and practitioners for sure - I'd also need to locate independent sources though. And I may choose to detach myself from the faith (as well as any detractors) to keep a "neutral" position; I may as well participate as a neutral observer; or I may try to gain additional experience by being a participating observer or even a believer. Obviously, the point of views at the start and even honestly obtained results might be pretty different depending on the approach taken. However, it might prove very valuable to critically discuss any different results/opinions and try to deduce more general "truths" which are not only "owned" by the originating faith/believe/culture but also more or less "valid" for the world at large.

The belief system that supports the keris in Jawa and in Bali is only one belief system amongst many others that constitute the fabric of these two societies. I have mentioned Jawa & Bali, because these two societies are the generative societies of the keris. If we are to ever understand the keris , it is here that we must begin, and we must begin with an understanding of these two societies. That understanding must incorporate a thorough understanding of the ways in which the people in these societies see the world around them.

We cannot ever hope to understand the keris as an item taken out of its society, we must recognise that the people of any society own the culture that governs that society, so the people of a society that has the keris as one of their cultural icons own the way in which that keris should be understood.

I'm with you on the level of spiritual believes, etc. However, you have posited that the tangguh system probably developed to assist male members of the nobility in the storage of wealth - a pretty mundane task (even if perfectly reasonable/legitimate). Its interpretation also varies among acknowleged experts - for the more traditional ones a blade with tangguh Majapahit was crafted during the Mojo era according to Mojo pakem while equally qualified proponents also might consider later production. You have shown that the tangguh system is based on circular reasoning; moreover, if only the perceived overall quality of craftsmanship is considered great enough, this belief may even be bent if the observations/features suggest otherwise. And we know that the tangguh system was modified into a caricature by influential circles within this very culture during modern times.

I respect all traditional knowledge and realize that there are many gems to be found if one keeps an open mind. And I also try to understand traditional believes as these have shaped the history of any society. However, trying to get an understanding does not always require one to learn and participate in a belief like the tangguh system. I can see good reasons why one would choose to do so; however, you've made it very clear that this is pretty much impossible for just about anyone participating here.

I see our role as students of the keris to understand the belief systems that are the weft of a keris bearing society, one of the strands of belief is the system or systems that provides the society with a way in which to understand the keris. We do not necessarily need to subscribe to that belief system, but we do need to understand it if we are ever going to understand the way in which the keris is understood by the people who own it.

Yes, I agree on trying to continually improve my understanding of the cultures/societies involved; and to show honest respect for their believes and achievements.

Rather than trying to strive for something which is realistically impossible for me, I feel that trying to contribute to keris knowledge with an admittedly non-traditional, possibly scientific approach might be more beneficial for interested people globally (and maybe also for members of keris-bearing cultures).

Regards,
Kai