When is a keris legitimate?

[Timo Nieminen]

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]

Hello Timo,

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