When is a keris legitimate?

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for your response Rasdan.

My feeling is that we are gradually building a foundation of opinions here that may help us clarify the way in which people who have responded to my question determine whether or not a keris is legitimate in their eyes.

I am hopeful that some more of our regular participants in discussion will share their thoughts with us.

[GIO]

Reading the last few lines of David's post, I'm afraid I didn't well express my opinion.
Should the "English made kris" have had the ganja separated from the blade, have a nice uwer and hilt and a finely made sheath, I assure that anybody with a good experience in the field would have considered it a real (or legitimate) kris. It is starting from this preliminary statement that I RELUCTANTLY have concluded that the English kris is a legitimate kris, though I would never have purchased it.
Probably none of the kris in my collection was made by an empu, most probably by a common village smith with some skill. What is the difference between a skilled smith living in Indonesia and one living in England ? After all only the geographical position.
What I have expressed is only my personal opinion. I would welcome with interest any comment on my thought.

Happy New Year to everybody !!!!

[David]

Originally Posted by GIO

What is the difference between a skilled smith living in Indonesia and one living in England ? After all only the geographical position.
What I have expressed is only my personal opinion. I would welcome with interest any comment on my thought.

Like yourself GIO this is my personal viewpoint, but to answer that question it returns once again for me to my first stipulation for "what is a keris" and that word "culture" For me a legitimate keris is a cultural icon and must be made WITHIN it's culture FOR that culture. Even if your English made "Bali" keris had been "perfect" by all standards of acceptable garap and had been dressed in a perfect copy of accepted Bali dress it would still be a reproduction in my eyes. Now it is possible that it is so well done that i would not be able to tell it wasn't made for and by the culture, but that wouldn't change the fact that it is still a reproduction of the real thing. Even experts are sometimes fooled by well produced reproductions. Being fooled doesn't change what that object truly is. A keris is not simply another dagger, it is the embodiment of a culture. Without that culture, i do not believe you have a true keris.

[GIO]

Yes, David. I fully agree with you, and that is the reason why I would have never purchased the English made keris. My opinion was based only on the physical aspect, and yours on the cultural background. But when we see a keris without knowing where it was made it is only on the physical aspect that we base our appreciation. It is a bad notice, but we can do nothing.

[Bjorn]

A difficult question to answer, to be sure. I'm also of the belief that there is no correct answer to this question, and that the answer will depend on one's own beliefs and preferences.

To me, personally, I do believe that the blade should meet a certain standard of quality and that the maker of the keris should have put a certain amount of good effort into creating the blade. This standard of quality is not - and cannot be - a fixed point as it is dependent on the maker as well as the region in which the keris was produced. As such, I do consider kampung keris to be perfectly legitimate but hold a rather dim view of cheap blades that were rushed to market for the sole purpose of providing tourists with cheap souvenirs. Equally, I wouldn't consider pieces of simple metal dressed up in a wrongko for the express purpose of being used at a wedding or other occasion to be legitimate keris either. For these categories I am also partial to designating these as keris-like objects (KLOs) rather than as keris.

According to my own standards, I have no qualms about kemardikan blades (although I do have qualms about some of them being passed of as old blades). In fact, I enjoy how they are yet another step in the evolution of the keris. What matters to me is that they were created with care and that the maker tried to bring out the beauty of the blade to the best of his (or her) ability.

[A. G. Maisey]

Analysis of the responses to date seems to indicate that most people here believe that the question of whether a keris can be considered to be legitimate or not can be decided by personal or group opinion and that the reasons that form this opinion of legitimacy can vary.

Amongst the reasons that can form a basis for a decision on legitimacy we can find:-

Physical form, functionality as a weapon, quality of workmanship, symbol of authority, point of origin.

Both the right to make a decision (group/personal determination), and the reasons that help form that opinion can be subjected to extensive analysis and argument, however, my intent in asking this question was not to generate debate where a show of hands would indicate the agreement or otherwise with any opinion. My intent was and is quite simply to gain a better understanding of how the people in our little group here regarded the matter of keris legitimacy. Since the question of keris legitimacy cannot be separated from an understanding of the nature of the keris, the answer to the question of legitimacy also provides an answer to the question of understanding.

It may be argued that only one concept of legitimacy is valid, and that concept is the one held by the owners of the keris, the people who own the culture which created the keris. It is possible to mount a convincing argument both for and against this point of view, but for the purpose of discussion here I feel that this restrictive point of view is best not pursued, as the intent of my question was to seek a broad range of opinions, not necessarily opinions that can be supported as being correct.

The keris is a multifaceted object that can be considered in many different ways:-

It is primarily a symbol of the masculine element (Nawanatya), extended to "the essence of the world" (Sukuh inscription +/-1437)

But it is a symbol in the form of a weapon, and it possesses a symbolic as well as a weapon function.

The symbolic function was extended beyond the masculine symbolism and incorporated elements that in their entirety could be read as cosmic symbolism:- the Gunungan, the Naga, the ties to ancestors, the tie of ruler to ruled, the binding of previous to present generations of a kin group, the symbol of authority binding a tributary ruler to his lord.

It is also a part of formal dress, and a store of wealth.

The keris originated within the framework of early Javanese society, and it fulfilled and developed its cultural function within that society. By the time other societies in Maritime South East Asia had adopted the keris it was already incorporated into Javanese Islamic society and it was received into these other societies as an object that was only partially understood in its original context by both the originating culture, and by those who adopted the keris.

Thus, if we wish to address the question of legitimacy we need firstly to specify the period of time, the place and the facet of the keris that we wish to declare to be either legitimate or illegitimate.

Additionally we must understand exactly what we mean by “legitimate”.

The word “legitimate” can be understood in a number of different ways, and each of these different ways can give legitimacy to a type of keris, or to anything that has a pretense to being any representation of the form of a keris. Thus, if we wish to declare that a keris is “legitimate”, or “not legitimate” we need to specify the parameters within which we wish to place that keris and declare its legitimacy.

As an example of this, a keris that could be regarded as a legitimate for use as an item of dress may not necessarily be regarded as legitimate as a store of wealth; similarly, a keris regarded as a legitimate store of wealth may not necessarily be regarded as legitimate for use as a weapon.

I would suggest that when we consider this question of keris legitimacy we need to answer these questions:-

“legitimate for what?”

“legitimate when?”

“legitimate for whom?”

Since the answers to these questions will cover a broad expanse of time, geographic location and cultural orientation, perhaps we should then consider if all opinions are equal, or does any opinion have its own relevance within the group that has given rise to that opinion?

Careful examination of the responses above seems to indicate that most people are at least sub-consciously aware that the idea of “keris legitimacy” is not as clear cut as it might appear to be. It is just not an easy question to answer, any attempt to answer this question does in my opinion need to be fairly carefully qualified.

This now brings me to the concept that gave rise to my question.

The concept of the notorious "Tourist Keris".

There seems to be a predisposition amongst many collectors to classify any keris that varies from a self-determined norm of quality to classify this variant keris as a "tourist keris".

We cannot deny that there are keris that have been prepared specifically for sale to tourists. In general terms such keris present with hilt and scabbard that do not conform to societal norms, and with blades that can vary from flat iron to fairly decent antique blades. In one case I can recall seeing a Bali Tourist keris that had no blade at all, only a dowel that projected from the top of the scabbard to accept a hilt.

I do not know of any endeavour amongst the makers of keris at any level to produce keris blades specifically for sale in the tourist markets of Indonesia. Yes, during the current era, as in times past, keris blades have been produced in various levels of quality, and the level of quality dictates the price. These keris blades are produced primarily for local consumption, and from my first hand observations, are purchased mainly by Indonesians, not by people from outside Indonesia. There is an ongoing need to supply keris as an item of dress, and as with any other item of dress in any society, people buy according to their means.

Just because a keris is of poor quality that does not make it a tourist keris.

Sales of keris at any level into the western world from Indonesia are only a drop in the bucket.

If keris makers focused their attention on the occasional tourist who buys a keris as a souvenir of his visit, they would all starve to death. Makers of keris are as pragmatic as any other people engaged in trade and manufacture:- they produce goods that have the widest possible market base.

The population of Indonesia exceeds 247 million people; during 2012 about 8 million tourists entered Indonesia.

Is it good economic strategy to pin one's hopes on a very small, fluctuating and uncertain market, when there is a massive local market with continuing demand?

I really would like to see the myth of the "Tourist Keris" buried with full honours.

It would be very nice if we could look at every keris presented for comment and give as accurate an appraisal as possible, without dubbing it a "Tourist Keris", a term that inevitably conveys very little information to the enquirer, but surely leaves him feeling a little less enthusiastic about our shared passion.

Do we wish to add to our numbers, or is it preferred that we remain a small niche group of enthusiasts, a group that will inevitably become smaller with passing time and eventually disappear?

[A. G. Maisey]

Ariel, I do agree that an argument can be mounted to support your opinion, however, if we were to apply this argument to the keris it would make every keris made after the Early Javanese Classical period a non-legitimate keris.

If we moderated our criteria just a little and took the stance that we were really only thinking in terms of the Modern Keris, that is, the keris in the form it gained in about the 14th century, then we would need to label as non-legitimate every keris that was made after Islam became the dominant religious system in Jawa.

If we were readers of Raffles "History of Java" we might decide that any keris that was made after about the mid-18th century in Jawa was indeed, non-legitimate.

Moving into the 20th century we could give due consideration to the methods of manufacture used by many current era makers and determine that since such methods were at variance with the methods of the pre-industrial world, keris produced by such methods were non-legitimate.

However, if we were to adopt any of the above points of view we would be placing our opinion above the opinion of the people of the culture that owns the keris.

It is a simple fact that the nature of the keris has changed over the +1000 years of its existence, but it is still today a cultural icon in the culture that gave it birth.

I do find that I can agree with the concept that as a collector who is not a part of the originating culture, we can all establish our own criteria for the addition of keris, or other objects, to our own collections.

However, we cannot take it upon ourselves to dictate the legitimacy or otherwise of a cultural icon to the people who are a part of that culture.

The keris as an art object is most certainly one of the facets of its character, but it is by no means the only facet, nor even the most important facet.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by David

For me a legitimate keris is a cultural icon and must be made WITHIN it's culture FOR that culture.
.......
A keris is not simply another dagger, it is the embodiment of a culture. Without that culture, i do not believe you have a true keris.

Being a total outsider, I am adding my 5 cents with certain hesitation.

Any object of art should be judged by: A. Its historical significance and B. Its artistic merit.

This being the case, any contemporary bladed weapon in the form of a historical one ( I am not talking about "ninja swords", utility knives, hunting implements etc) is not a legitimate one. This pertains equally to modern-made katanas or kindjals as well as to modern-made kerises. To wiggle out of this argument by stating that Keris still fulfills some cultural functions in this-day Indonesia is to ignore its original role as a weapon and to re-define it as a bauble, akin to bow-tie or wedding tiara.

The artistic merit of any thing is judged on its own and does not depend on its place of manufacture or, - even more so, - on the ethnic origin of the master. Some of the best contemporary katanas are made by the Westerners and are commanding huge prices among Japanese collectors. Wootz ( bulat) originally was an Indian invention, and the most valuable examples were made in the 17-18th century Persia. However, at the present time , the best bulat blades are made by the Westerners, especially in the former USSR. As an example, here are contemporary saber and close-ups of bulat patterns made by Zaqro Nonikashvili and Gotscha Lagidze from Georgia. Can one find me a comparable example made by modern Indian or Persian bladesmiths?

Any collector would dearly love to have pieces fulfilling both criteria. This is as a rule affordable only by very rich museums. Thus, we are forced to choose only one. I, for example, want to have only old swords. Other may go for the esthetic merit. But modern mediocre example made "within the culture and for the culture" is still a mediocrity. "Legitimate mediocrity" sounds even more insulting:-)