The basics of keris understanding?

[Jussi M.]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Would anybody care to comment further on one or more of the various areas of understanding that I have identified, or perhaps add other areas of understanding which could be addressed?

Jussi has mentioned the "core" of understanding of the keris, but this core could vary for different people. For the person who pursues the ideals of Kejawen, the core could be quite different to the core of the anthropologist or ethnologist. These in turn could be very different to the core of the dealer or of the committed collector.

So, can we firstly identify which "core" we might like to look more closely at?

Thank you Mr. Maisey,

I may as well start as I began the thread in the first place. I think that one of the difficulties in getting a grasp of the keris lies in the fact that indeed even defining what is the core - point of view - that we are addressing the keris from may be perceived differently by different persons leading to confusion and perceived misinformation and/or misunderstanding, never mind the best of intentions. Therefore it might be feasible to first find a way to determine and define what are the reference points the study springs from.

One difficulty, or at least I perceive it as such, is the fact that the keris floats outside the grasp of such reference points. Please let me clarify this: usually it is so that the design of an artifact is mandated by the function it is designed for leading onto a specific form. - There is then a clear beginning (need = function) and a clear end (form mandated by the function it is designed for). It can also be vice versa, there first was a form that led onto a some-kind of a function. - This is so with many times regarding artifacts deemed as art.

Now in my uneducated opinion it seems that the keris does not belong purely to neither category. - It is a hybrid of both at the same time, and therefore it is difficult to get a hold of because one cannot choose neither point of view (from function to form or vice versa). Why? - because doing so would lead onto a situation where the reverse engineering would not show the "whole" as that whole must have been studied from a different perspective which is beyond our usual "this lead to this or vice versa" way of thinking.

What is unifying to all cores Mr Maisey mentioned is the fact that they can all be traced back to the design of the keris. - why is the keris like it is? This question can then be addressed from various, differently weighted, points of view depending on who is the person making the observation and for which reasons.

This is just my opinion. In short, I think one major area of study should concentrate on understanding why is the keris formed like it is and what kind of a synthesis between form and function have been present at the time it was born. - not likely something that can be ever found out but I guess this area of study or a core if you will would lead to a path worth traveling?

As a non-native english speaker I hope I have managed to make myself understandable. The subject is foreign to me and I do not know the right terminology nor how it is used. If I have understood what Mr Maisey ment wrong and written on a way that is not valid regarding his effort to further this dialogue I am sorry.

I thank you for your time and wish to hear your thoughts on this matter.

Thanks,

J