When is a keris legitimate?

drdavid · 28th December 2013, 11:58 PM

The concept of legitimacy is a difficult one as to a great extent it is dependent on who is discussing the issue and what they decide legitimacy is. Please note that in my reply to Alan’s question I will only address the idea in relation to objects.

We have a number of layers to consider when we are looking at objects.

In some circumstances legitimacy of an object is conferred by the object being definitively signed by the maker, as in some art works. We can read the signature, accept that the object is made by a specific creator and have a concept of why it was created. Whether we actually understand why it was created may be debateable.

Of course there are those who would take advantage of that by producing objects ostensibly but not actually signed by the maker eg fake paintings by Vermeer, (see for instance http://www.essentialvermeer.com/misc/van_meegeren.html). When faced with this problem we turn to ‘experts’, that is to say those who have devoted time, energy and money to developing insight into a particular group of objects.

In this (the fake signature) and other circumstances we the public accept that certain people have developed sufficient expertise to differentiate one object from another by some other relatively concrete means even if we cannot do it ourselves. Perhaps they can read symbols in another language, for instance Japanese seals or they are able to interpret various makers marks for instance the silver and gold assay marks typical of English precious metal objects or perhaps they have just looked closely at the brush style of Vermeer. The problem here is that experts may be mistaken and if the mistake is not corrected it becomes ‘truth’ in the public domain. I have successfully discussed mis-attributions of art works in the British Museum and the Rijksmuseum with their curators. The curators are vastly more expert than the amateur but they still make mistakes.

Then we move into the area of non-marked or non-specifically marked objects. Here legitimacy is conferred in a number of ways (importantly we are no longer just talking about attributing an object to a specific maker).

1. Those who create the object determine that the object is legitimate for their purpose. The purpose may be singular or multifaceted ie it may have a specific function (carrying water) or it may have many (it carries water to the ceremonial place in order that the rains will arrive to ensure crops thrive) and it may change over time (it becomes part of the legitimate regalia of the ruler). An object may serve as a token for another object and still be regarded as legitimate (noting the paper keris may be a legitimate token for a metal one in one circumstance eg at a wedding but not in another circumstance eg trying to cut a throat in a dark alley). The creation group determines legitimacy.

2. Those who create the object do so for a purpose other than their own needs, but recognise it fulfils a need outside of their own group and provides the second group with a desirable object. The creation group do not necessarily benefit directly from the object but do benefit from the trade purpose of the object. The creation group may use a generic mark to show that it is legitimate eg by marking it ‘Toledo steel’ or ‘Made in Japan’. They may simply create a facsimile of an object they use themselves but in a manner that they would not chose to use, eg a plastic replica of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Most facsimile/souvenir items would fall into this group. The creation group creates an object that an external group accepts is a legitimate product of the creation group and the external group does not try and change the objects purpose.

3. Those who fetishize the object (for example the monk with the holy relic or the collectors with the only examples of a particular plastic object that is green) decide that this object is a legitimate example of the desired object. Desired is the key word. They may create a status ranking for objects based on ‘desirable features’ such as size, rarity, % content of elephant dung or even that most deceptive of beasts ‘provenance’. Their concept of legitimacy is often at odds with that of the originators’ of the objects concept. For example the original manufacturer of the green plastic object may have found that it was an unpopular colour and hence dropped it from the product line very quickly. It only becomes rare because of its unpopularity with the original audience but the later audience will fetishize it because of its rarity or because green has become fashionable. I say ‘fetishize’ because this group are generally providing another purpose for the original object to that of its original intent. (I would argue that this group also frequently fetishize signed and marked objects because they appreciate, use and rank them in manners not necessarily intended by their original makers and consumers). The fetishizing group determines that an object has a legitimate purpose independent of that of the creation group.

You will note that the definition of legitimate is a somewhat slippery one and changes over the course of this post. I am confident there are many holes and overlaps in the suggestions I have made, but having spent an hour or so on them I am comfortable with them being a starting point for one particular view. The key message is that the needs of the creation group are different to the needs of the fetishizing group and hence the determination of legitimacy lies with the group discussing the object.

Legitimizing an object is a long way from understanding an object.

DrD

jwkiernan · 29th December 2013, 12:33 AM

I originally posted this in the thread that spawned this thread.....

Here is my 2 cents on this topic...as a collector I focus on true antique weapons. I want them as original as possible (noting that variations/adaptations/additions added over the life of the weapon).
Now, with that said I know many folks that collect new pieces or recreations of old pieces (money concerns or personal preference for newer). Many of these pieces are made in the traditional manner using traditional means...I would therefore interject that a piece made with correct materials and made in a traditional manner would still be classified as a "true" albeit modern version.
Now where does that place blades that are produced for the souvenir or modern use trade? If using morphological standards alone and not material/manufacture as a means to define legitimacy of a weapon type then yes, they would be legitimate (note any wavy bladed knife, sword, or dagger being classified as a keris...same with barong, parang, bolo ect) albeit modern and not traditional.
I truly think that any weapon made with the correct materials should be referred to as at legitimate" but not antique. All others that fall into the correct morphological form and made of untraditional materials should just be classified as modern...most of these are made for the souvenir market, however many are being used by current practioners of traditional martial arts whom can not afford true antique weapons or do not want to chance damaging true artifacts...I refer to them as modern.
Technology has changed the process of how all things are made to one extent or another ie: the use of hand held grinders in keris making, air hammers for forging/folding ect.
Modern, modern/traditional, or antique, I think that is how they should be classified for what it's worth. May you all be blessed with a happy, healthy and prosperous 2014!
All my best,
John

A. G. Maisey · 29th December 2013, 01:37 AM

Thank you for your contributions gentlemen.

I do hope that others will see fit to share their thoughts with us.

I very much like what I am reading here. I gave a lot of thought to the way in which I posed this question. You're looking at what is probably something like draft 10 or 12 or maybe more of the question. The word "legitimate" was my final choice from a number of other words.

The idea of "in", and "out" of keris bearing society is one factor, but possibly there is more to it than that. Many people in the keris bearing societies that I know best do not hold particularly traditional sets of values, on the other hand some people in western post-industrial societies try in-so-far as they are able, to hold very traditional sets of values in respect of the keris.

I personally do not see any answers to this question as either right or wrong.

I see the answers as only a contribution to our better understanding.

There is perhaps one factor that needs to be considered when formulating a response to my question, and that is the nature of the keris:- what is a keris?

I do not intend this as another question, merely as something we should ask ourselves before we decide what the word "legitimate" might mean.

rasjid · 29th December 2013, 01:28 PM

Hi Alan,

When you say : what is a keris, the we are talking about Pakem. Keris can be called Keris if its follow certain rules/or known knowledge amongs the rulers, ie Kraton. It will be called work of arts or keris keris-an if its not flowing with the Pakem.
In short to call the keris is a legitimate keris, could be:
1. Follow the Pakem set by Kraton standard according to the era / tangguh of the Keris itself
2. A group of knowledgeable Keris seniors agreed about the Keris quality of workmanship and flow with the Tangguh.
( subject to neutral opinion... )

Another point, for newly made Keris, if acceptable by majority people and sold with High Price... can we call it a legitimate Keris?

Regards
Rasjid

VANDOO · 29th December 2013, 07:35 PM

THE FIRST TIME I SAW A DAGGER REFFERED TO AS A KRIS IT WAS A NEW POORLY MADE KNIFE WITH A WAVEY BLADE SAID TO BE A THROWING KNIFE. IT WAS A MONOSTEEL BLADE SHAPED WITH A POWER SAW WITH CRUDELY GROUND BLADE EDGES A CRUDE GAURD AND A WOOD HANDLE PAINTED BLACK WITH A GOLD PAINTED DRAGON DESIGN ON THE GRIP. A REAL PIECE OF JUNK

BUT IT HAD A WAVEY BLADE SOMETHING NOT SEEN OFTEN, I ASSUMED IF ALL WAVEY BLADES WERE EITHER A KERIS OR A FLAMBU (FLAME SHAPED BLADE).
I HAVE LEARNED MUCH SINCE THEN AND HAVE FOUND THE KERIS IS MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN JUST A WAVEY BLADE

. MANY YEARS LATER I FIND I MAY BE A NOVICE AT BEST, BECAUSE THERE IS SO MUCH TO LEARN ABOUT THE KERIS. I JUST DABBLE AND DON'T PUT IN THE NECESSARY TIME NEEDED TO ADVANCE AND OFTEN TEND TO FORGET WHAT I LEARN AS I DON'T STICK WITH IT AND HAVE TOO MANY OTHER IRONS IN THE FIRE.

I MOSTLY COLLECT WHAT I FIND ASCETICALY PLEASING TO ME AND DO ENJOY READING THE POSTS HERE THOUGH I DON'T HAVE THE KNOWLEGE TO ADD MUCH.
A FEW THOUGHTS. THE BLADE IS WHAT MAKES A KERIS A KERIS. 1. KERIS BLADES ARE DOUBLE EDGED AND HAVE A SEPARATE PART TO THE BLADE NEAR THE FORTE. (A SINGLE EDGE AND A ONE PART BLADE DOES NOT A KERIS MAKE)
2. THERE ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENT VARIATIONS IN SHAPE TO KERIS BLADES STRAIGHT AS WELL AS WAVEY.
3. THE MANY BLADE PATTERNS SHOW REGION , MASTERY OF FORGEING AND HAVE DIFFERENT MEANINGS OR DENOTE VARIOUS POWERS.

THIS IS JUST VERY BASIC AND I HOPE NOT INCORRECT OR MISLEADING THE MORE I WRITE THE MORE I FEEL I DO NOT KNOW MUCH SO WILL STOP HERE BEFORE I GOOF UP TOO BAD.

AND LEAVE IT TO THOSE MORE DEVOTED TO THE KERIS TO LAY THE INFORMATION OUT.

Timo Nieminen · 29th December 2013, 08:47 PM

Since "keris" is a conventional taxonomic label, we are not free of collective opinion. For something to be a "real" keris, it must meet the requirements of the definition; some of these have been noted by Vandoo above. But here there is some plasticity.

1. Does a keris need to be forged? If the maker grinds the blade from a slab of steel, can it be a real keris?

2. Can anybody make a keris? Can a keris be made everywhere in the world, or only in certain places? I.e., does "keris" have similar status to "nihonto" ("real" Japanese sword)?

3. What degree of variation is permitted before it ceases to be a keris?

From a weapons-collecting point of view, a key point is functionality as a weapon or bladed tool. This provides no answer for the three questions above. So it is insufficient for keris. (It is also insufficient for "nihonto".) Where the type of object in question is still in modern use, but the main use is not as a weapon or cutting tool (i.e., the main use is not actually cutting or stabbing things, or training to cut/stab things), perhaps physical function can mislead us. Based on physical function, I would not call a Bali tourist keris with an unsharpened sheet metal blade with painted-on "pamor" a real keris. To a weapons collector, it isn't "real" - it isn't a weapon. But perhaps it could be to a modern keris user. I don't know the answer, but am interested. So:

4. Can a "non-weapon" keris be "real"?

kai · 29th December 2013, 11:30 PM

Hello Timo,

Quote:

From a weapons-collecting point of view, a key point is functionality as a weapon or bladed tool. This provides no answer for the three questions above. So it is insufficient for keris. (It is also insufficient for "nihonto".) Where the type of object in question is still in modern use, but the main use is not as a weapon or cutting tool (i.e., the main use is not actually cutting or stabbing things, or training to cut/stab things), perhaps physical function can mislead us. Based on physical function, I would not call a Bali tourist keris with an unsharpened sheet metal blade with painted-on "pamor" a real keris. To a weapons collector, it isn't "real" - it isn't a weapon. But perhaps it could be to a modern keris user. I don't know the answer, but am interested. So:

4. Can a "non-weapon" keris be "real"?

If we accept a Jawa-centric cultural approach to things keris, the weapon function has certainly not been a major consideration during the last centuries. While in other keris cultures the weapon function did not ceased (at least as much as colonial powers allowed and arguably well into modern times), other factors would have been just as important: esteemed cultural icon, symbol of manhood, display of status, group-connecting pusaka, etc.

If anything, a keris being weapon is currently the least acknowledged (if not downright disputed) function/meaning by the general populace in today's "keris-bearing" societies. A toy-like prop is good enough to represent as a wedding keris; even if you can afford more you better spend it on gifts, food, offerings, etc.

Regards,
Kai

kai · 30th December 2013, 12:13 AM

Hello Alan,

Quote:

There is perhaps one factor that needs to be considered when formulating a response to my question, and that is the nature of the keris:- what is a keris?

I do not intend this as another question, merely as something we should ask ourselves before we decide what the word "legitimate" might mean.

I'm not sure both definitions can be seperated (unless you specify each for this discussion). Genuine, good (as in the ol' thread), traditional, real, you-name-it. All may have slightly different connotations to any of us collectors - not terribly different from our more or less ideosyncratic decisions/priorities what to include in our personal collections.

Even if limited to Orang Jawa in today's society of central Java, I'd posit that "legitimate" (or any of the other "definitions/descriptions") keris will mean very different things to different sectors of society and even individuals.

I'm not sure if this helps the discussion a lot. However, I have no problems to accept that some toy-like props serve as "legitimate" keris in societies of origin (even if falling way short of any academic definition of keris) and, arguably, may have a place in a comprehensive keris collection. Unless limiting the definition to Keraton pakem quality pieces (which would exclude some 99% of keris from discussion), there are also always lots of keris conforming to any less restrictive definition that most of us would agree being of crappy craftmanship (despite "traditionally" worked).

Regards,
Kai

kai · 30th December 2013, 12:54 AM

I, for one, feel quite happy in applying a sliding scale when deciding what to obtain for my collection and don't have any criteria written in stone that define what is IMHO legitimate, genuine, nice, untouched/complete, old, etc. and which need to be met by any new family member...

I'd be enthusiastic about any antique high-quality blade (even damaged and/or without any fittings) and may also be more than happy about an antique village keris of fairly crappy quality if deemed a "complete, original combination", from a rare origin, or, possibly, even special provenance. Heck, I may even go for a current era keris if it speaks to me...

From a practical POV, much more relevant than trying to define what makes a keris "legitimate" would be to ascertain that I don't fall prey of any misrepresentations that abound with things keris (from ol' myths/exaggerations like meteoric metal to downright lies and forgeries).

Regards,
Kai

rasdan · 30th December 2013, 04:04 AM

G’day Alan,

I’ll try to give some insights on this. Haven’t done much research, but here’s my call on this subject. Many of the following are actually my quick guess. There are probably dozens of loopholes in it and can be quite sticky.

IMHO, a keris that is perceived as “legitimate” differs with time and culture and at current time, the definition is really up to our perception. In order to identify a “legitimate” keris , we first must define the physical characteristics of a keris then distinguish the functions and the development of the functions of a keris. The definition part we already passed in previous discussions –asymmetric etc.

The keris IMHO, initially have 2 primary functions; starting out primarily as a weapon (in buda form) with religious symbols. I would imagine that it is not an item that exclusively used in religious rituals since it is quite a normal practice at that time where most items will bear some sort of religious symbolism.

During this a “legitimate” keris is a keris that is a weapon that forms the unique physical characteristics of a keris. Only nobles have keris as it is still a luxury item.

As the keris developed into the modern keris, it is then accepted as a pusaka in a sense that it is a symbol of regency/office of a certain group of people where still, in this time, only nobles owns or were given a keris. During this time, a “legitimate” keris is probably a keris that was manufactured according to the official purpose and the status and of its owner- a keris that is a weapon AND a pusaka.

During this time also, the keris culture as a pusaka weapon spreads to other places and kingdoms. Keris can also be a gift from one regent to another and the particular keris is then regarded as a pusaka of the kingdom - a symbol of a bond/relation. This is why we normally found that a pusaka keris in many kingdoms outside of Jawa are actually of Javanese origin. As in any type of items that are related with power/authority, the manufacturing quality must be superior subjected to the time period and the artistic qualities/symbolism of this type of keris must be set according to the artistic and symbolic viewpoint of the authority that starts that culture. It is probably during this period also, other kingdoms such as Palembang started their own pusaka keris culture which really inspired by the Javanese culture. These locally made keris soon becomes a pusaka weapon of that particular kingdom and the concept of a pusaka keris soon flourishes in that kingdom.

Over time, as iron becomes common and more pande are able to forge keris and the economic conditions of the general public improves, the use of the keris as a weapon becomes widespread and the general public throughout the archipelago had started to have the means in acquiring a keris. It now had evolved into culture and also a functional item of dress. However, the keris owned by the general public at this time is nothing more than a weapon. While it can be considered a pusaka once it is being passed down to the next generations in a loose sense, but it is probably not a pusaka in a sense where it have the binding power of a regent/chief where it is a symbol of authority over a certain group of people. The symbols are still preserved on the blade, but the meaning of the symbols was changed to fit the belief of that time. The concept of a pusaka that binds/authority was also maintained.

During this time, depending on our perception, there are 2 types of “legitimate” keris. Keris that are a weapon AND a pusaka (from the previous and the current era – still being made by an empu) and also kerises that are just weapons from that current era made by smiths (pande). Both types of keris can be a functional item of dress. However, although some weapon grade keris have reached a reasonable quality it is not infrequent that these keris does not meet the requirement of a pusaka grade keris that was set by the authority which is the palace of that particular culture.

We now reach the current era, where a large number of pusaka grade keris and weapon grade keris of the previous ere were passed down to newer generations. The only way to distinguish the pusaka grade to the weapons grade keris is using tangguh knowledge (for Javanese culture) or to have some knowledge to identify a quality keris – as pusaka grade keris would rationally have a high quality. I am unsure if we say that a pusaka grade keris is still being made at this day. Weapon grade keris, however, are still being made to a large extent and the quality now are significantly higher than its predecessor and in some cases it meets the specification of the older pusaka keris as well. It had become a platform purely for displaying artistic skills while maintaining its features as a weapon and a cultural item.

However, in the current era the function of a keris as a weapon is greatly reduced. Now, a keris that is an item of dress does not have to be a functional weapon. This breeds a new type of keris, where it is very hard for it to be considered a weapon (where it does not have a steel cutting edge). These are what we normally call “tourist keris” - a keris that serves a non-functional item of a cultural dress.

Coming back to our original question, what is a legitimate keris? The answer to this question IMHO lies in our perception towards the function of the keris. Does a keris must be a pusaka weapon- a weapon symbolising power and/or office- a weapon that is manufactured according to the specification specified by the ruler, or do we only require it to be just a weapon made according (or not) to the specification, or whether we will accept it as a keris as long as it looks pretty much like a keris – doesn’t matter if it does not serve as a weapon, what more a pusaka.

The keris started out as a weapon. It later evolves to an item that serves two purposes, a weapon and a pusaka. These are the 2 basic functions of a keris. Although there is a concept of a pusaka keris is not a weapon, I’m not sure if it is possible for us to accept that. A keris that is made as a cultural item, serves only as an icon of a culture displayed as an item of dress. It does not satisfy the 2 basic functions of a keris. It is not a weapon and not a pusaka. Therefore IMHO, at a minimum, a legitimate keris should be a keris that at least satisfy at least one of its original purpose- that it’s to be a weapon. A weapon that bears the unique physical attributes that forms a keris.

Now we need to define keris that serves as a "legitimate weapon"..

A. G. Maisey · 30th December 2013, 04:59 AM

I very much appreciate the thought and the effort that has gone into the opinions given above.

I do not intend to give any opinion for the moment, because I asked the question, and as I have said:- I'm interested in how others may think.

"how others may think", and it seems fairly clear that there are various shades of meaning for various people.

But Rasdan's opinion has raised another question. He has focused much of his attention on the "pusaka" character that can be attached to the keris, so Rasdan, could you please clarify for us exactly what you mean by "pusaka" and under what circumstances a might a keris become "pusaka". How could we recognise a "pusaka keris" if we were not aware that it was one?

28th December 2013, 11:58 PM	#1
drdavid Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 372	The concept of legitimacy is a difficult one as to a great extent it is dependent on who is discussing the issue and what they decide legitimacy is. Please note that in my reply to Alan’s question I will only address the idea in relation to objects. We have a number of layers to consider when we are looking at objects. In some circumstances legitimacy of an object is conferred by the object being definitively signed by the maker, as in some art works. We can read the signature, accept that the object is made by a specific creator and have a concept of why it was created. Whether we actually understand why it was created may be debateable. Of course there are those who would take advantage of that by producing objects ostensibly but not actually signed by the maker eg fake paintings by Vermeer, (see for instance http://www.essentialvermeer.com/misc/van_meegeren.html). When faced with this problem we turn to ‘experts’, that is to say those who have devoted time, energy and money to developing insight into a particular group of objects. In this (the fake signature) and other circumstances we the public accept that certain people have developed sufficient expertise to differentiate one object from another by some other relatively concrete means even if we cannot do it ourselves. Perhaps they can read symbols in another language, for instance Japanese seals or they are able to interpret various makers marks for instance the silver and gold assay marks typical of English precious metal objects or perhaps they have just looked closely at the brush style of Vermeer. The problem here is that experts may be mistaken and if the mistake is not corrected it becomes ‘truth’ in the public domain. I have successfully discussed mis-attributions of art works in the British Museum and the Rijksmuseum with their curators. The curators are vastly more expert than the amateur but they still make mistakes. Then we move into the area of non-marked or non-specifically marked objects. Here legitimacy is conferred in a number of ways (importantly we are no longer just talking about attributing an object to a specific maker). 1. Those who create the object determine that the object is legitimate for their purpose. The purpose may be singular or multifaceted ie it may have a specific function (carrying water) or it may have many (it carries water to the ceremonial place in order that the rains will arrive to ensure crops thrive) and it may change over time (it becomes part of the legitimate regalia of the ruler). An object may serve as a token for another object and still be regarded as legitimate (noting the paper keris may be a legitimate token for a metal one in one circumstance eg at a wedding but not in another circumstance eg trying to cut a throat in a dark alley). The creation group determines legitimacy. 2. Those who create the object do so for a purpose other than their own needs, but recognise it fulfils a need outside of their own group and provides the second group with a desirable object. The creation group do not necessarily benefit directly from the object but do benefit from the trade purpose of the object. The creation group may use a generic mark to show that it is legitimate eg by marking it ‘Toledo steel’ or ‘Made in Japan’. They may simply create a facsimile of an object they use themselves but in a manner that they would not chose to use, eg a plastic replica of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Most facsimile/souvenir items would fall into this group. The creation group creates an object that an external group accepts is a legitimate product of the creation group and the external group does not try and change the objects purpose. 3. Those who fetishize the object (for example the monk with the holy relic or the collectors with the only examples of a particular plastic object that is green) decide that this object is a legitimate example of the desired object. Desired is the key word. They may create a status ranking for objects based on ‘desirable features’ such as size, rarity, % content of elephant dung or even that most deceptive of beasts ‘provenance’. Their concept of legitimacy is often at odds with that of the originators’ of the objects concept. For example the original manufacturer of the green plastic object may have found that it was an unpopular colour and hence dropped it from the product line very quickly. It only becomes rare because of its unpopularity with the original audience but the later audience will fetishize it because of its rarity or because green has become fashionable. I say ‘fetishize’ because this group are generally providing another purpose for the original object to that of its original intent. (I would argue that this group also frequently fetishize signed and marked objects because they appreciate, use and rank them in manners not necessarily intended by their original makers and consumers). The fetishizing group determines that an object has a legitimate purpose independent of that of the creation group. You will note that the definition of legitimate is a somewhat slippery one and changes over the course of this post. I am confident there are many holes and overlaps in the suggestions I have made, but having spent an hour or so on them I am comfortable with them being a starting point for one particular view. The key message is that the needs of the creation group are different to the needs of the fetishizing group and hence the determination of legitimacy lies with the group discussing the object. Legitimizing an object is a long way from understanding an object. DrD

29th December 2013, 12:33 AM	#2
jwkiernan Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 37	I originally posted this in the thread that spawned this thread..... Here is my 2 cents on this topic...as a collector I focus on true antique weapons. I want them as original as possible (noting that variations/adaptations/additions added over the life of the weapon). Now, with that said I know many folks that collect new pieces or recreations of old pieces (money concerns or personal preference for newer). Many of these pieces are made in the traditional manner using traditional means...I would therefore interject that a piece made with correct materials and made in a traditional manner would still be classified as a "true" albeit modern version. Now where does that place blades that are produced for the souvenir or modern use trade? If using morphological standards alone and not material/manufacture as a means to define legitimacy of a weapon type then yes, they would be legitimate (note any wavy bladed knife, sword, or dagger being classified as a keris...same with barong, parang, bolo ect) albeit modern and not traditional. I truly think that any weapon made with the correct materials should be referred to as at legitimate" but not antique. All others that fall into the correct morphological form and made of untraditional materials should just be classified as modern...most of these are made for the souvenir market, however many are being used by current practioners of traditional martial arts whom can not afford true antique weapons or do not want to chance damaging true artifacts...I refer to them as modern. Technology has changed the process of how all things are made to one extent or another ie: the use of hand held grinders in keris making, air hammers for forging/folding ect. Modern, modern/traditional, or antique, I think that is how they should be classified for what it's worth. May you all be blessed with a happy, healthy and prosperous 2014! All my best, John

29th December 2013, 01:37 AM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Thank you for your contributions gentlemen. I do hope that others will see fit to share their thoughts with us. I very much like what I am reading here. I gave a lot of thought to the way in which I posed this question. You're looking at what is probably something like draft 10 or 12 or maybe more of the question. The word "legitimate" was my final choice from a number of other words. The idea of "in", and "out" of keris bearing society is one factor, but possibly there is more to it than that. Many people in the keris bearing societies that I know best do not hold particularly traditional sets of values, on the other hand some people in western post-industrial societies try in-so-far as they are able, to hold very traditional sets of values in respect of the keris. I personally do not see any answers to this question as either right or wrong. I see the answers as only a contribution to our better understanding. There is perhaps one factor that needs to be considered when formulating a response to my question, and that is the nature of the keris:- what is a keris? I do not intend this as another question, merely as something we should ask ourselves before we decide what the word "legitimate" might mean.

29th December 2013, 01:28 PM	#4
rasjid Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Jakarta - Indonesia Posts: 114	Hi Alan, When you say : what is a keris, the we are talking about Pakem. Keris can be called Keris if its follow certain rules/or known knowledge amongs the rulers, ie Kraton. It will be called work of arts or keris keris-an if its not flowing with the Pakem. In short to call the keris is a legitimate keris, could be: 1. Follow the Pakem set by Kraton standard according to the era / tangguh of the Keris itself 2. A group of knowledgeable Keris seniors agreed about the Keris quality of workmanship and flow with the Tangguh. ( subject to neutral opinion... ) Another point, for newly made Keris, if acceptable by majority people and sold with High Price... can we call it a legitimate Keris? Regards Rasjid

29th December 2013, 07:35 PM	#5
VANDOO (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OKLAHOMA, USA Posts: 3,138	THE FIRST TIME I SAW A DAGGER REFFERED TO AS A KRIS IT WAS A NEW POORLY MADE KNIFE WITH A WAVEY BLADE SAID TO BE A THROWING KNIFE. IT WAS A MONOSTEEL BLADE SHAPED WITH A POWER SAW WITH CRUDELY GROUND BLADE EDGES A CRUDE GAURD AND A WOOD HANDLE PAINTED BLACK WITH A GOLD PAINTED DRAGON DESIGN ON THE GRIP. A REAL PIECE OF JUNK BUT IT HAD A WAVEY BLADE SOMETHING NOT SEEN OFTEN, I ASSUMED IF ALL WAVEY BLADES WERE EITHER A KERIS OR A FLAMBU (FLAME SHAPED BLADE). I HAVE LEARNED MUCH SINCE THEN AND HAVE FOUND THE KERIS IS MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN JUST A WAVEY BLADE . MANY YEARS LATER I FIND I MAY BE A NOVICE AT BEST, BECAUSE THERE IS SO MUCH TO LEARN ABOUT THE KERIS. I JUST DABBLE AND DON'T PUT IN THE NECESSARY TIME NEEDED TO ADVANCE AND OFTEN TEND TO FORGET WHAT I LEARN AS I DON'T STICK WITH IT AND HAVE TOO MANY OTHER IRONS IN THE FIRE. I MOSTLY COLLECT WHAT I FIND ASCETICALY PLEASING TO ME AND DO ENJOY READING THE POSTS HERE THOUGH I DON'T HAVE THE KNOWLEGE TO ADD MUCH. A FEW THOUGHTS. THE BLADE IS WHAT MAKES A KERIS A KERIS. 1. KERIS BLADES ARE DOUBLE EDGED AND HAVE A SEPARATE PART TO THE BLADE NEAR THE FORTE. (A SINGLE EDGE AND A ONE PART BLADE DOES NOT A KERIS MAKE) 2. THERE ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENT VARIATIONS IN SHAPE TO KERIS BLADES STRAIGHT AS WELL AS WAVEY. 3. THE MANY BLADE PATTERNS SHOW REGION , MASTERY OF FORGEING AND HAVE DIFFERENT MEANINGS OR DENOTE VARIOUS POWERS. THIS IS JUST VERY BASIC AND I HOPE NOT INCORRECT OR MISLEADING THE MORE I WRITE THE MORE I FEEL I DO NOT KNOW MUCH SO WILL STOP HERE BEFORE I GOOF UP TOO BAD. AND LEAVE IT TO THOSE MORE DEVOTED TO THE KERIS TO LAY THE INFORMATION OUT.

29th December 2013, 08:47 PM	#6
Timo Nieminen Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 422	Since "keris" is a conventional taxonomic label, we are not free of collective opinion. For something to be a "real" keris, it must meet the requirements of the definition; some of these have been noted by Vandoo above. But here there is some plasticity. 1. Does a keris need to be forged? If the maker grinds the blade from a slab of steel, can it be a real keris? 2. Can anybody make a keris? Can a keris be made everywhere in the world, or only in certain places? I.e., does "keris" have similar status to "nihonto" ("real" Japanese sword)? 3. What degree of variation is permitted before it ceases to be a keris? From a weapons-collecting point of view, a key point is functionality as a weapon or bladed tool. This provides no answer for the three questions above. So it is insufficient for keris. (It is also insufficient for "nihonto".) Where the type of object in question is still in modern use, but the main use is not as a weapon or cutting tool (i.e., the main use is not actually cutting or stabbing things, or training to cut/stab things), perhaps physical function can mislead us. Based on physical function, I would not call a Bali tourist keris with an unsharpened sheet metal blade with painted-on "pamor" a real keris. To a weapons collector, it isn't "real" - it isn't a weapon. But perhaps it could be to a modern keris user. I don't know the answer, but am interested. So: 4. Can a "non-weapon" keris be "real"?

30th December 2013, 12:54 AM	#9
kai Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,255	I, for one, feel quite happy in applying a sliding scale when deciding what to obtain for my collection and don't have any criteria written in stone that define what is IMHO legitimate, genuine, nice, untouched/complete, old, etc. and which need to be met by any new family member... I'd be enthusiastic about any antique high-quality blade (even damaged and/or without any fittings) and may also be more than happy about an antique village keris of fairly crappy quality if deemed a "complete, original combination", from a rare origin, or, possibly, even special provenance. Heck, I may even go for a current era keris if it speaks to me... From a practical POV, much more relevant than trying to define what makes a keris "legitimate" would be to ascertain that I don't fall prey of any misrepresentations that abound with things keris (from ol' myths/exaggerations like meteoric metal to downright lies and forgeries). Regards, Kai

30th December 2013, 04:04 AM	#10
rasdan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Kuala Lumpur Posts: 368	G’day Alan, I’ll try to give some insights on this. Haven’t done much research, but here’s my call on this subject. Many of the following are actually my quick guess. There are probably dozens of loopholes in it and can be quite sticky. IMHO, a keris that is perceived as “legitimate” differs with time and culture and at current time, the definition is really up to our perception. In order to identify a “legitimate” keris , we first must define the physical characteristics of a keris then distinguish the functions and the development of the functions of a keris. The definition part we already passed in previous discussions –asymmetric etc. The keris IMHO, initially have 2 primary functions; starting out primarily as a weapon (in buda form) with religious symbols. I would imagine that it is not an item that exclusively used in religious rituals since it is quite a normal practice at that time where most items will bear some sort of religious symbolism. During this a “legitimate” keris is a keris that is a weapon that forms the unique physical characteristics of a keris. Only nobles have keris as it is still a luxury item. As the keris developed into the modern keris, it is then accepted as a pusaka in a sense that it is a symbol of regency/office of a certain group of people where still, in this time, only nobles owns or were given a keris. During this time, a “legitimate” keris is probably a keris that was manufactured according to the official purpose and the status and of its owner- a keris that is a weapon AND a pusaka. During this time also, the keris culture as a pusaka weapon spreads to other places and kingdoms. Keris can also be a gift from one regent to another and the particular keris is then regarded as a pusaka of the kingdom - a symbol of a bond/relation. This is why we normally found that a pusaka keris in many kingdoms outside of Jawa are actually of Javanese origin. As in any type of items that are related with power/authority, the manufacturing quality must be superior subjected to the time period and the artistic qualities/symbolism of this type of keris must be set according to the artistic and symbolic viewpoint of the authority that starts that culture. It is probably during this period also, other kingdoms such as Palembang started their own pusaka keris culture which really inspired by the Javanese culture. These locally made keris soon becomes a pusaka weapon of that particular kingdom and the concept of a pusaka keris soon flourishes in that kingdom. Over time, as iron becomes common and more pande are able to forge keris and the economic conditions of the general public improves, the use of the keris as a weapon becomes widespread and the general public throughout the archipelago had started to have the means in acquiring a keris. It now had evolved into culture and also a functional item of dress. However, the keris owned by the general public at this time is nothing more than a weapon. While it can be considered a pusaka once it is being passed down to the next generations in a loose sense, but it is probably not a pusaka in a sense where it have the binding power of a regent/chief where it is a symbol of authority over a certain group of people. The symbols are still preserved on the blade, but the meaning of the symbols was changed to fit the belief of that time. The concept of a pusaka that binds/authority was also maintained. During this time, depending on our perception, there are 2 types of “legitimate” keris. Keris that are a weapon AND a pusaka (from the previous and the current era – still being made by an empu) and also kerises that are just weapons from that current era made by smiths (pande). Both types of keris can be a functional item of dress. However, although some weapon grade keris have reached a reasonable quality it is not infrequent that these keris does not meet the requirement of a pusaka grade keris that was set by the authority which is the palace of that particular culture. We now reach the current era, where a large number of pusaka grade keris and weapon grade keris of the previous ere were passed down to newer generations. The only way to distinguish the pusaka grade to the weapons grade keris is using tangguh knowledge (for Javanese culture) or to have some knowledge to identify a quality keris – as pusaka grade keris would rationally have a high quality. I am unsure if we say that a pusaka grade keris is still being made at this day. Weapon grade keris, however, are still being made to a large extent and the quality now are significantly higher than its predecessor and in some cases it meets the specification of the older pusaka keris as well. It had become a platform purely for displaying artistic skills while maintaining its features as a weapon and a cultural item. However, in the current era the function of a keris as a weapon is greatly reduced. Now, a keris that is an item of dress does not have to be a functional weapon. This breeds a new type of keris, where it is very hard for it to be considered a weapon (where it does not have a steel cutting edge). These are what we normally call “tourist keris” - a keris that serves a non-functional item of a cultural dress. Coming back to our original question, what is a legitimate keris? The answer to this question IMHO lies in our perception towards the function of the keris. Does a keris must be a pusaka weapon- a weapon symbolising power and/or office- a weapon that is manufactured according to the specification specified by the ruler, or do we only require it to be just a weapon made according (or not) to the specification, or whether we will accept it as a keris as long as it looks pretty much like a keris – doesn’t matter if it does not serve as a weapon, what more a pusaka. The keris started out as a weapon. It later evolves to an item that serves two purposes, a weapon and a pusaka. These are the 2 basic functions of a keris. Although there is a concept of a pusaka keris is not a weapon, I’m not sure if it is possible for us to accept that. A keris that is made as a cultural item, serves only as an icon of a culture displayed as an item of dress. It does not satisfy the 2 basic functions of a keris. It is not a weapon and not a pusaka. Therefore IMHO, at a minimum, a legitimate keris should be a keris that at least satisfy at least one of its original purpose- that it’s to be a weapon. A weapon that bears the unique physical attributes that forms a keris. Now we need to define keris that serves as a "legitimate weapon"..

30th December 2013, 04:59 AM	#11
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	I very much appreciate the thought and the effort that has gone into the opinions given above. I do not intend to give any opinion for the moment, because I asked the question, and as I have said:- I'm interested in how others may think. "how others may think", and it seems fairly clear that there are various shades of meaning for various people. But Rasdan's opinion has raised another question. He has focused much of his attention on the "pusaka" character that can be attached to the keris, so Rasdan, could you please clarify for us exactly what you mean by "pusaka" and under what circumstances a might a keris become "pusaka". How could we recognise a "pusaka keris" if we were not aware that it was one?