When is a keris legitimate?

[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]

Alan,
Perhaps the word " legitimacy" is confusing in this aspect. By definition, its roots come from the Latin lex, law, or legitimare, to make something in accord with the law.
What "law" can be applied here? Nothing was ever universally codified, nothing was divinely or democratically approved by the legitimately ( Ahem:-)) established authorities. Local traditions, tastes, beliefs and superstitions ruled the coops.

Applying different time points further confounds the issue, as we can specify an almost endless number of them, with each excluding a percentage of examples from the discussion.

The "military" purpose of keris vanished quite some time ago. Should we use this time point as our yardstick? Industrial nickel was introduced only at the end of 19th-beginning of the 20th century. Should we exclude anything not of Prambanan or Luwa ( BTW, which one?) connection? Even more provocative: should a good looking Keris made by an Englishman in Birmingham and intended to grace a wall of a Japanese collector be viewed as " illegitimate"? Would the situation differ if the Birmingham master or the new owner were ethnic Indonesians?

My point is that there are as many collections as collectors and as many criteria of "legitimacy" as features. It is just what each of us prefers: history, age, tradition, level of perfection, wealth of decor, particular pamor.... you name it :-) Certainly, we cannot impose our criteria on Jawanese natives, but they in turn cannot impose their definitions ( and there are more than one cares to consider:-)) on the non-Jawanese collectors. If I am in the "Balinese camp", the "Surakarta lovers" may cringe at my poor taste and .... go and stuff it:-) Legitimacy may be codified in narrow, isolated and well-defined groups, but its confines weaken and blur the further we move away from them.

BTW, why polygamy is legitimate in Yemen and illegitimate in Iceland? Why do you , an Australian, drive on the wrong side of the road? Why can't I show soles of my shoes to a Saudi or pat a child on the head in Thailand? Why did Nixon's "V-sign" provoke embarrassment in South America? Why does a child of an unwed mother is perfectly fine in the US and is an "illegitimate bastard" with no rights or prospects for future marriage in so many societies? Why was the latter true even in the US until some 50-70 years ago ? What effected the change in the criterion of his/her "legitimacy"?

What I am driving at is that the "legitimacy" of Keris is a function of individual or societal taste, place and time, and those have a tendency to change :-)

[A. G. Maisey]

I do agree with you Ariel that the word I chose to use could be a confusing one, however, I did take quite a long time to consider which single word I should use to express the essence of my question, and I chose the word "legitimate" precisely because of its wide range of application, and the foundation of the word, as you so correctly point out is in the concept of law, which is also the foundation stone of the existence of the keris.

I would like to address only the existence of the Modern Keris in the context of its foundation in regulation. When the Modern Keris was born from its ancestor form that we now call the "Keris Buda", there appears to be a solid argument to support the idea that this was not a process of illegitimate birth, but rather a legitimate and planned conception for a specific purpose. The birth of the Modern Keris seems to be rooted firmly in the law of the Javanese-Hindu hierarchical system.

Then there is the system of regulation that defines what can, and cannot be considered a proper form for a keris. I do appreciate Ariel, that you are not deeply involved with the keris, but contrary to what you believe, the keris is rooted in law and regulation. One of the natures of the keris is as a societal regulator, a nature that can hardly have force in the absence of law.

When we consider the multitude of other ways in which the word "legitimate" can be applied we have a word that can provide a descriptor for almost any concept of legitimacy that we wish to apply to the keris. The point I wish to make is this:- although "legitimate" may have its roots in "lex", in current usage it can be applied in a very much broader sense.

This was the usage I was aiming for, as I did not wish to constrain discussion to that tired old parade of opinions on why each of us think some particular elements of something or other make it a fitting addition to our personal collections. I wanted to move away from the collector-centric thought process.

A quick search of an authoritative dictionary will reveal that "legitimate" can be taken as :-

lawful, conforming to rule or law, proper, normal, regular, of a standard type, logically admissible, justifiable.

My preferred source is the Oxford on Historical Principles, but I believe any major dictionary will provide a similar list of applications.

So you see, my choice of words was not perhaps as haphazard as it may have appeared at first glance, and in fact it demands a proper consideration of the actual applications of the word "legitimate".

I am relatively certain that nobody grabbed their favourite dictionary before writing a response to my question, but even so, it seems that virtually everybody has responded in a sense that legitimises the use of the word "legitimate".

In your response you have touched on the fact that time alters perception, and that any individual or group of people can determine for themselves what it is that establishes the parameters of legitimacy. Your summing up is precisely in line with the opinions of other respondents, and also with my opinions.

However, although

"--- we cannot impose our criteria on Jawanese natives, but they in turn cannot impose their definitions ( and there are more than one cares to consider:-)) on the non-Jawanese collectors---"

In respect of the keris, and most particularly in respect of the Javanese keris, it is essential for us to recognise that we are dealing with much more than a simple weapon, or even a totemic symbol. We are dealing with what is arguably the major icon of a culture, and that icon is no less so today than it has been at any time in its past. Its nature may have altered, but its iconic status is living and remains intact.

Collectors of anything invent their own rules of legitimacy, rules which very often have no relevance at all to the legitimacy of the cultural owners of that which they collect. Dr. David has brought this out very clearly and concisely in what he has contributed to this thread.

So we have a situation where the ideas of collectors, especially collectors who are outside Javanese society, are not at all relevant to the values of the Javanese people who are most closely associated with the cultural values of Jawa. However, the collector must be at least somewhat aware of the values of those Javanese people, for if he fails to gain such an awareness he has negated any claim to knowledge of that which he collects.

Put simply:- the values of collectors of keris are of less than no importance to the Javanese, but the Javanese are of immense importance to collectors of keris.

[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:-)