I remember an anecdote from Gardner's book how he repeatedly switched the  handles of kerises from different areas and  showed them to the same indonesian experts. Needless to say, they faithfully attributed the same  blade  with different handles to the origin of the handle.  
 
 I am also puzzled by the fact that neither Frey's nor Ghiringhelli's books  ever mention or even discuss the potential ages of the  kerises presented there, -  obviously, the most outstanding examples of the genre. Instead, they repeatedly mention purely esthetic features of particular kerises, including wood  coloring, quality of carvings, elegance of  jewelry etc.  
 
 Since as  Mr. Maisey stipulated that it is all about money, one can recall that a heavily patinated and pockmarked  authentic crusader's sword lacking original handle and scabbard  would fetch infinitely more interest and money from professional collectors than an outstanding and complete  20th century rendition of the same.  
 
  Would it be correct to say that, unlike all other fields of weapon studies   and in the absense of inscribed and authenticated dating and signature,  the field of indonesian kerises is largely "art appreciation" rather than historical study of weapons?  Is keris more in league with, say, netsuke rather  than with katana? 
 
   Is it a naive question?
		 
		
		
		
		
		
		
		
	 |