Errors in Keris Literature

[A. G. Maisey]

I only want to comment on this in general terms. I don't want to get into the Mojo/sajen discussion. This one is so overworked that it really has lost all interest for me.

I see the major problem of "error" in keris literature as a matter of perception.

For instance, time and time and time again I see things identified as something in terms of dapur or pamor, or whatever, and the terms used are terms I am not familiar with. Or somebody will float an opinion about something that is not in accordance with my understanding. Mostly I say nothing and just let it ride.

Why?

Because I'm working from one base of knowledge and I am well aware that my base of knowledge is only the reflection of a very limited area of keris study. If I were so inclined I could get into an argument every day on this Forum. I am not so inclined, so I just let things slide.

When we say something is "wrong", then with keris we probably need to define exactly what we mean by "wrong".

It may be better to say that such and such is not so, in accordance with the belief held by people in a particular area, or at a particular time. But does that mean that such and such is indisputably wrong?

Maybe not. Maybe it only means that some people do not agree with it.Which could make it wrong in one time and place, but not in another.

Throughout history the keris has been different things to different people. Different groups of people have had different beliefs, and different names for the keris, and its parts.

Personally, I am much in favour of defining terms and beliefs in accordance with time and place, and even of quoting the source of information, if that is practical and possible. If one uses such a framework, one can never be wrong, per se. One can only be putting forward information with which others do not agree.

Does it really matter if others do not agree with an opinion which one may put forward? I think not.

However, when we do put forward an opinion that something is incorrect, then we really should provide a framework within which we can support our argument for incorrectness.

My attitude is that with the keris, almost anything can be correct, or incorrect, depending upon the time and place used for point of reference.

Maybe there are a number of things that we can find in print that we may disagree with, but maybe also, others do not agree with our point of view.Thus, if we level criticism at some of these writers, let us do so in an analytical way. If we disagree, let us clearly state the frame of reference for our disagreement:- time, place, source of information, or logical argument preferably supported with evidence.

[PenangsangII]

Dear kerislovers,

I think maybe there's no hard & fast rules in kerisology . If only the whole keris study is an exact science..........

Penangsang

[Alam Shah]

Hmmm... ok, let's proceeding with caution... discuss point by point.

Alan, the main reason for this thread is to analyse... not to criticise the authors, most had spent considerable amount of time, effort and passion to present us with good books, not perfect but worthy of reference. For that, I salute these authors.

However, there are parts that are not correct or in the 'grey' areas. These are the one I feel needs addressing... rather than just ignoring it, others might use it as reference and gets lost along the way... worse still if this distorted piece of information is presented as the truth.

Here, we can look at the matter from many perspective... at least we try to find out why the authors wrote it such, in what context... reason... based of fact, folklore, research findings... etc.

Since ganjawulung had brought these up, from MBRAS "The Keris and Other Malay Weapons" (1998), lets start with these...

[A. G. Maisey]

Alam Shah, without the smallest difficulty I can find things in any book on keris that do not agree with my understandings.

My understandings have in most cases come from people whom have been considered authorities in their own right.

Some of my understandings have come from my own observations or investigations.

Now, if I identify something in some author's work, and I say :- "Such and such is incorrect", then I feel that I really should qualify that statement by providing a framework to support my disagreement.I do not think it is good enough to simply say that something is wrong because we all believe it to be wrong at any particular time.

As far as getting lost along the way, I personally think we are all pretty much wandering like blind men in the wilderness. Occasionally one may stumble across something that is perhaps more or less true in some given context, but for the most part the true essence of the keris is possibly lost beyond recall.

If these instances of incorrectness that we supposedly need to address are simple things such as names, current usages, or beliefs current when something was written, well, that's fairly lightweight stuff, and can probably be handled by listing those things which some author may have presented and presenting alongside it our own belief, which may or may not be as incorrect as that of the author.

Thus, if we are to address these things point by point, how about putting up for discussion a single major "error" of some writer, and let us have a look at it. Please, no minor things:- I wrote a 14 page letter to one author on inaccuracies in his text that could have been avoided if he had only used a competent reviewer prior to publication. Lets look at hardcore misstatements of what we currently believe to be fact.