New edition Gardner's book

[Jean]

As a modest kris book author myself, I know very well how we are easily prone to mistakes even if we check and conter-check our descriptions.
I bought and carefully read Gardner's book and I found it interesting in spite of some mistakes or inaccuracies. He was serving in Malaysia so his knowledge of Javanese and Balinese krisses was probably less accurate than those from Malaysia and Sumatra.
Alan is asking to pinpoint some mistakes and I would indicate four of them in my opinion:
. In page 11 he shows 4 specimens of Balinese kris hilts of which one is obviously Madurese and the other most probably East Javanese.
. In pages 15 & 17, he shows a Jawa demam hilt from Sumatra which actually seems to be a burung hilt from Sulawesi or Riau.
. In page 17, he shows a Banjarmasin gilt copper hilt labelled as Javanese.
. In page 21, he shows a Bugis kris sheath which rather looks from Sumatra.
The pictures quality is poor by modern standards but this book remains a precious historical reference and was worth to be re-published in my opinion.
Jean

[Tim Simmons]

I assume it is a jazzed up cover of this 16th reprint 2003. I just cannot imagine why I bought it. The Edwardian schooled attitude to the book is rather quaint.
I have just found out he was one of those me first people, running around a fire naked as a toff is fun but if poor people do it, it's all rather vulgar.

[David]

Originally Posted by Tim Simmons

I assume it is a jazzed up cover of this 16th reprint 2003. I just cannot imagine why I bought it. The Edwardian schooled attitude to the book is rather quaint.
I have just found out he was one of those me first people, running around a fire naked as a toff is fun but if poor people do it, it's all rather vulgar.

Same title Tim, but a completely different book.
The book we are discussing is one which was solely penned by Gardner, not this compilation of essays by various writers.
I also own this one and it does have a few interesting pieces of information but is not a particularly good resource for accurate knowledge.

[David]

Originally Posted by Tim Simmons

I have just found out he was one of those me first people, running around a fire naked as a toff is fun but if poor people do it, it's all rather vulgar.

I am not quite sure what you mean by this Tim. Gardner is known as the father of modern Wicca, a resurgence of earth based religion which he cobbled together from a combination of old folk lore and what was, for him, a fairly contemporary practice of ritual lodge magick (Golden Dawn). Yes, he, as many neo-pagans since, advocated nudity during ritual (what is know as skyclad), but i don't understand, nor, i believe, want to understand you comment in relationship to poor people in this context. I would suggest that we try to keep our conversation here focussed on the keris and not other parts of Gardner's life which you may consider colorful, but has absolutely no bearing on this conversation.

[A. G. Maisey]

I strongly endorse your remarks, David.

Comments which denigrate personal spiritual belief have no part in discussion relating to keris, which is itself an icon with a high spiritual content.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks for your response on the "error" issue, Jean.

I note that all the inadequacies that you have identified are related to the graphic identification of keris components. Some of these I also noted, the Madura hilt is a stand-out, however, I personally do not place a great deal of importance on what could be considered to be relatively minor errors in identification or classification. There is other graphic error also, but its only names, and does not affect understanding.

My principal interest is in the information contained in the text, and there are inadequacies in this too. I'm not going to enumerate what I consider to be incorrect, because I am hoping that David Henckel will provide info on what he sees as incorrect, his criticism of Gardner is very much stronger than mine would be, so he obviously has seen some quite severe flaws that have the potential to affect basic understanding. Read in the context of the time, I cannot see these flaws, but my knowledge is limited to one area, David Henckel's knowledge covers a different area, so I feel it is important for him to identify for us these serious flaws in Gardner's work.

[DAHenkel]

Honestly, I'm not all that against the book - I simply pointed out that it is (liberally) salted with inaccuracies and mistakes and should be used with caution. Given the choice between seeing this source reprinted and a new - more accurate book I'd much rather have the latter. Gardner and his generation of colonial era gentleman scholars have played a key role in snatching the last dying embers of keris knowledge from the abyss and deserve a lot of credit for that. I just wanted to point out that they are far from perfect and cannot be taken as cannonical works uncritically.

[David]

Originally Posted by DAHenkel

I just wanted to point out that they are far from perfect and cannot be taken as cannonical works uncritically.

Thanks Dave, but you are still not being all that specific. And could you possibly name a keris book which is perfect and can be taken as a cannonical work uncritically. I can't think of any.