New edition Gardner's book

[David]

Originally Posted by DAHenkel

A reminder to all that while a classic of the literature - this book should be taken with a fair pinch of salt. Gardner was a very interesting man but a bit of a crank with some rather dubious ideas about keris, history, magic and so forth. The book is perhaps the single most important source for many of the misconceptions, strange theories and errors which continue to plague keris knowledge - particularly in the Malay world. Buy the book but remember...it is an imperfect resource.

Seems to me that just about all written sources are imperfect resources for the study of keris Dave. I am well aware that Gardner's book is perhaps even less perfect than others.I think i also made the "grain of salt" reference in my previous post. I would not, however, go so far as to refer to him as a "crank" and while i don't know much about his views on history i don't find his views on magic to be all that dubious.

[DAHenkel]

Well if you want to be post-modern about it sure - but Gardner is particularly egregious in this regard...

...just sayin.

[t_c]

Wish I had waited to find a copy, paid a pretty penny for a 70's edition not too long ago...
I'm interested in how the pictures came out though, even the publisher had some concerns. I'd be curious to hear your opinions when you get your copies in hand. The current price is nice for a book that appears in so many bibliographies (pinch of salt accounted for ).

[Alam Shah]

Originally Posted by t_c

I'm interested in how the pictures came out though, even the publisher had some concerns. I'd be curious to hear your opinions when you get your copies in hand. The current price is nice for a book that appears in so many bibliographies (pinch of salt accounted for ).

I've got a copy of the 1936 edition. There are good info found in it, but there are misleading info as well. The problem is when later authors (do not verify) simply use it entirely without scrutinising it, assuming that it's correct. Well, we know what assume can do..

[A. G. Maisey]

I do agree that Gardner is somewhat dated in the way in which he presents information, and when I read David Henckel's remarks in his post # 8 my immediate reaction was a nod of agreement.

However, I've just done a quick review of the keris section of Gardner, a book I haven't opened in years. Gardner was in Malaya for 30 years. Much of the information that he put into his book was from Malay informants. The book was published in 1936.

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.

But still, I'm looking at it from a base of Javanese knowledge, David Henckel is looking at it from a base of Malay knowledge, so, David, could you oblige and point out inclusions in this book that cause you to evaluate it as:- "---the single most important source for many of the misconceptions, strange theories and errors which continue to plague keris knowledge---".

Many of the people who read this will have Gardner, and some more will probably acquire this book, so if you could point out for us the major errors in Gardner's work you would be doing many people a very great favour.



We've had a plethora of keris books hit the market in recent years, and a number of people have carried out fairly serious research on the keris, so it is possible that our beliefs now might be a little more rooted in fact than was the case 80 years ago.

But then again, as David our moderator notes, "---just about all written sources are imperfect resources for the study of keris---".

When the second edition of Ensiklopedi was published there was a lot of criticism of it in Solo, because a lot of information in it, especially about people, was either straight out wrong, or had been "coloured", additionally a number of very highly regarded ahli keris commented that it seemed as if a lot of the names and descriptive terms had been invented.

Then we have other publications on the keris by noted Europeans that are so full of error and strange ideas that it becomes really difficult to sort the chaff from the wheat.

Edward Frey's first edition was so full of errors it took 14 double spaced hand written pages to list them all.

There are the many little short-run Indonesian publications, that almost invariably put forward the point of view of one man, or one keris study group, with no references, no argument, just little books full of often very peculiar assertions.

Even the historical greats cannot escape from criticism. Groneman was recently published in English, something I had been awaiting for many years. Regrettably Groneman either did not see the forging of a keris that he reported on, or he did not understand what he saw, or he made his notes later and forgot, or he was deliberately misled by the smith.

Empu Suparman would sometimes become quite vitriolic about keris books, and comment that it was a pity that the writers did not learn about keris before they wrote about them.

I cannot recall ever having met a Javanese person with a high level of keris knowledge who had much respect for most publications about the keris.

However, my position is different, I feel that we really need to read everything available on the keris. Yes, its all imperfect, some sources are worse than others, but by reading it all and continually carrying out a process of verification we can possibly come to a position where we might be able to establish a reasonably firm foundation for our beliefs.

In respect of Gardner's book, it is valuable for providing a historical perspective, if for no other reason.

[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.