New edition Gardner's book

PenangsangII · 3rd June 2010, 03:47 AM

"Since you can identify these errors so easily, I feel you would be doing the community here a service if you spell out exactly what the errors are.

Thank you for your consideration."

I think the gravest mistake in Gardner's is his assertion that keris was probably originated in Malaysia (whatever that means) - quite surprising considering "Malaysia" was formed in 1963.

Keris terminology used are often mixed up between Malay and Jawanese.

I can go on and on pointing out mistakes made 70 years ago, but we all know that most of the mistakes were corrected by other writers....

A. G. Maisey · 3rd June 2010, 04:13 AM

Thank you for your response, Penangsang.

As I said in an earlier post:-

"There are some things that we could probably look askance at now, there are a few things that are simply wrong. But there is much that although it might need a little massaging in respect of spellings or unclear re-telling, is quite OK. If there is decidedly inaccurate information in Gardner, it is very probably a reflection of what he was told by his informants. Some of his theories are very definitely wrong, but theories are created to be disproved, and in 2010 we have the benefit of 70 more years of research that Gardner did not have access to."

Yes, of course his origin ideas are wrong, and there is other error, as I have already stated. However, I was hoping for either you or David Henckel to be able identify some really material errors.

I don't know how much of the keris literature you may have read from say, pre-1970, but if we go back to any time before 2000 the subject of the origin of the keris was enough to generate heated discussion amongst any group of students of the keris.Back in the 1930's there was a lot of discussion going on, and it not infrequently seemed to generate some pretty vitriolic comments.

Here in 2010 we have a slightly different set of beliefs concerning the keris , than applied back in the 1930's --- and make no mistake about it, most of what we believe about the keris at this point in time is quite likely to be disproven at some time in the future. We're talking belief here, not fact that is graven in stone.

I personally do not consider theories that were held in the past and that have now been disproven, as error, nor as misleading. Anybody with a genuine interest has already updated his beliefs, and those who have not don't really matter, because the interest is obviously not genuine.

I also do not consider errors in classification according to point of geographic origin to be of any real importance.

Mixture of terminology from differing localities reflects what Gardner himself was told by his informants. Does anybody know precisely what terminolgy was in vogue in Malaya 90 years ago?

In some of the stories Gardner relates, I can recognise the germ of well known stories and legends, and in Gardner's re-telling, the stories come through in a garbled way, but probably that reflects the way in which he got them from his informants.

Yes, I agree, there are many inadequacies in Gardner's work when we judge it in terms of 2010, however, any time up to perhaps about 1970 or 1980, what he wrote was still accepted as valid by most people.

Gardner's greatest value is in provision of historic perspective.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

3rd June 2010, 03:47 AM	#1
PenangsangII Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 401	"Since you can identify these errors so easily, I feel you would be doing the community here a service if you spell out exactly what the errors are. Thank you for your consideration." I think the gravest mistake in Gardner's is his assertion that keris was probably originated in Malaysia (whatever that means) - quite surprising considering "Malaysia" was formed in 1963. Keris terminology used are often mixed up between Malay and Jawanese. I can go on and on pointing out mistakes made 70 years ago, but we all know that most of the mistakes were corrected by other writers....

3rd June 2010, 04:13 AM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	Thank you for your response, Penangsang. As I said in an earlier post:- "There are some things that we could probably look askance at now, there are a few things that are simply wrong. But there is much that although it might need a little massaging in respect of spellings or unclear re-telling, is quite OK. If there is decidedly inaccurate information in Gardner, it is very probably a reflection of what he was told by his informants. Some of his theories are very definitely wrong, but theories are created to be disproved, and in 2010 we have the benefit of 70 more years of research that Gardner did not have access to." Yes, of course his origin ideas are wrong, and there is other error, as I have already stated. However, I was hoping for either you or David Henckel to be able identify some really material errors. I don't know how much of the keris literature you may have read from say, pre-1970, but if we go back to any time before 2000 the subject of the origin of the keris was enough to generate heated discussion amongst any group of students of the keris.Back in the 1930's there was a lot of discussion going on, and it not infrequently seemed to generate some pretty vitriolic comments. Here in 2010 we have a slightly different set of beliefs concerning the keris , than applied back in the 1930's --- and make no mistake about it, most of what we believe about the keris at this point in time is quite likely to be disproven at some time in the future. We're talking belief here, not fact that is graven in stone. I personally do not consider theories that were held in the past and that have now been disproven, as error, nor as misleading. Anybody with a genuine interest has already updated his beliefs, and those who have not don't really matter, because the interest is obviously not genuine. I also do not consider errors in classification according to point of geographic origin to be of any real importance. Mixture of terminology from differing localities reflects what Gardner himself was told by his informants. Does anybody know precisely what terminolgy was in vogue in Malaya 90 years ago? In some of the stories Gardner relates, I can recognise the germ of well known stories and legends, and in Gardner's re-telling, the stories come through in a garbled way, but probably that reflects the way in which he got them from his informants. Yes, I agree, there are many inadequacies in Gardner's work when we judge it in terms of 2010, however, any time up to perhaps about 1970 or 1980, what he wrote was still accepted as valid by most people. Gardner's greatest value is in provision of historic perspective.