When is a keris legitimate?

[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.

[Bob A]

“ . . .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.”

An elegant and pithy statement which summarises the nature of the question of legitimacy regarding the keris, yet it still begs questions which the author had previously addressed, namely legitimate for what, when, and for whom.

It seems obvious that Mr Maisey’s definition of legitimacy is intimately bound to the culture and people whose iconic device is the center of this discussion, and he has presented his case thoroughly and with insight, to the extent that I feel it cannot be disputed, but it might still be refined, if that is the word I’m looking for, or perhaps expanded.

It seems therefore that legitimacy conferred on a keris would perhaps vary according to its chronological place in a cultural continuum. That is to say, a keris found legitimate in pre-Islamic Indonesia would have to remain legitimate in the eye of an outsider as well as a native Javanese; but would a keris made in the current millennium be seen as legitimate according to the lights of such a pre-Islamic Indonesian? Cultural perceptions shift, and my miniscule knowledge concerning Javanese culture leads me to suspect it is perhaps even more fluid than most.

It cannot be denied that the culture of Indonesia has been influenced by centuries of contact with the rest of the world. Can that influence be seen to be of importance to the values of the Javanese, and how might it influence their perception of the iconic nature of their keris?

While the concept of a “tourist keris” might seem, in the light of the relatively small numbers of tourists compared to the native population, tourists still number in the millions annually. The keris being obviously iconic to the culture, it is not unreasonable, although it might seem offensive to one intimate with that culture, to assume that at least some of these objects were made for purely financial reasons confined to the tourist trade. I speak as one who has never toured Indonesia, and who is nearly totally ignorant of the culture, so you may value my statement accordingly. But if it were so, I feel that this would impact on the concept of legitimacy.

“The values of collectors are of less than no importance to the Javanese” being taken as given, it seems that even the “tourist keris” would have some form of legitimacy, but it’s hard to say, as I’m unable to speak for the Javanese regarding their perception of the situation. If they confer legitimacy on such an object, who am I to object?

But I do not wish to focus on the tourist concept; the whole question is so open to consideration. Indeed, it is so open that ultimately there can be no answer such that it can be said to have been resolved to everyone’s satisfaction; or even, perhaps, to anyone’s satisfaction. As such, it is a delicious topic of exploration. Part of me wonders whether such a thing is reflective of an aspect of Javanese culture itself?

As a nearly virginal collector of keris myself, my few choices have been made on the flimsiest of bases; exposure to a large number of photographs of such objects, coupled with some reading regarding the keris and the Javanese culture. In very fact, the heaviest influence has been photographic. This permits me to hold forth in a forum of individuals who have been involved with this subject for a sum total of centuries, if not millennia; my opinions will doubtless be taken with an eye toward their intrinsic worth. Nevertheless, the level of exposure that a forum such as this, and the various sources of visual input such as auction sites, is unprecedented, and perhaps confers some small level of legitimacy to the development of an eye with which to judge the worthiness of a purchase.

It has been noted by Mr. Maisey that an ever-narrowing focus by a diminishing number of interested parties might not be a desideratum, which has prompted me to respond in these pages to his initial query; if it be considered too bold, I apologise; I have no wish to offend anyone’s sensibilities, nor do I feel that my insights are of major value to anyone beside myself.

That said, my few choices of keris to collect has been formed by a fair amount of visual input, and nearly no hands-on experience. The number of keris that one can find to handle in any major Western city is not high; in fact, the number approaches zero asymptotically. So how to decide whether, and with what, to begin a collection? My focus was on the blade, as I saw it to be the heart, if not the soul, of the keris. To my mind, older was better, as being more likely to have, yes, legitimacy. Additionally, attractive pamor or unusual appearance was of interest; something out of the ordinary might be a false trail, but just as easily might be worthy of interest for its own sake. Tuition in this sort of school must be paid, and negative information is still, after all, information.

I have no doubt that my study of the field has no chance of amounting to much, given the decades that will have been spent by others in their pursuit of knowledge of the subject, and the little time remaining to me to engage in such study. Despite that, I’m not yet deterred from further exploration.

I see that I have done little to address the subject of legitimacy; really there’s not a lot to be added to what has gone before in this thread, especially from one so far outside the subject. While I suppose it is a legitimate area of inquiry for a collector, I sense that it can only really be addressed by those within the culture being studied; even so, I’m not sure that those within said culture concern themselves with such matters. Do fish concern themselves with water? Only to the extent that the medium itself might force the matter.

[David]

Welcome to the forum Bob. An eloquent introductory post.

[erikscollectables]

Very interesting question and answers!

To me there is no generic definition of what a keris is and therefore also no generic answer to what is legitimate.

The definition of what a keris is can be different to different people but also different in context, culture, location and time (and probably some more factors I did not think of) - to each combination there will be a specific defintion as outcome and compared to that definition you can decide if a keris fits - which would make it legitimate - or not.

My personal definition of what a keris is has evolved over the last years which does not make my earlier definitions incorrect nor does it make my current definition correct - just different.

Best regards, Erik

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks for joining our discussion Bob.

Actually, I have not given any definition of keris legitimacy, but rather, I have suggested that the idea of keris legitimacy varies widely.

I do not want to deliver any lectures on why one keris may be legitimate according to my own set of values, and why another is not. Rather, I would like to try to understand the many sets of values that people with a keris interest apply when they decide the question of legitimacy for themselves.

Yes, it is fair to say my ideas about the legitimacy of keris have been heavily influenced by my lengthy involvement with Javanese culture and society. However, as I have said in post #6 :-

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

My intention in beginning this thread was to try to gain some understanding of what people with a keris interest might consider to be a "legitimate keris" as determined by their own sets of values.

Since these people will be collecting for a number of reasons, and will have various levels of knowledge and experience, as well as variation in personal preference, it is to be expected that we will see a fairly wide range of criteria expressed.

I believe I've said most of what needs to be said about the idea of the "tourist keris", but one more short comment may be useful.

There is no doubt that keris have been manufactured purely for sale as souvenirs or decorator items, but changing tastes in the wider community, as well as the present day stringent regulations that many countries have in place on import of weapons, seem to have just about removed those "tourist keris" from the shelves of tourist centres in Bali and Jawa.

The ideas about older keris, which many collectors have regarded as "tourist keris", and I am thinking here of the well known "soldier keris", are possibly a creation of the collectors themselves, caused by the transference of their own values to an indigenous society.

Bob, you have raised the question of how to decide what to include in a beginning collection. I've been asked this question more times than I could count --- probably other long term collectors have also been asked.

In my opinion there is no definitive answer. You're the person who has to live with the keris, so you need to decide for yourself just what it is about the keris that appeals to you. When you have a firm idea in your mind of why you like keris, then you have a foundation stone to build on.

However, having said that, if you continue to collect for any length of time, I believe you will find that your tastes, and your criteria, will change.

You have raised another point I'd like to comment on, and that is in the content of the last paragraph of your post.

Within Javanese and other keris bearing societies there are undoubtedly many more collectors of keris than in all of the rest of the world.

At least in Javanese society, the reasons that these people collect, and thus their ideas on legitimacy in terms of their own collections, are as varied as are these reasons in the rest of the world.