When is a keris legitimate?

[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.

[A. G. Maisey]

Erik, perhaps you may care to share at least your current thoughts on keris legitimacy with us?

[erikscollectables]

My personal definition is very simple - intent for use (ceremonial or otherwise) in a keris bearing society made by a person onderstanding that society and the intended purpose of the keris.

Otherwise, to me, it can be a piece of art or craftmanship but not a keris.

The problem with intent is that it is not "measurable" after the fact, although there may be clues to what the intent could have been.

In my earlier defintions traditions of making were of influence as well but such traditions are everchanging so it can not be a sustainable definition.

Regards, Erik

[Bob A]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

T
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.

I had hoped that there might be a touchstone of sorts in the way the Javanese themselves viewed the concept. Looks like we're all wandering about in the vastness of our separate sensibilities, then.

I rather like Erik's definition as a working thesis, but I suspect it's not really operable by someone outside the culture, more or less by definition.

[A. G. Maisey]

I can understand how this subject of keris understanding might seem a little bit confusing, Bob, but its not nearly as bad as you may think. Yes, there are probably a few people wandering around in a fog wondering what the whole thing is all about, but any collector, or student of the keris, who has been at the game for a little while, and given only cursory attention to the plethora of information that is available, has probably got a pretty good idea of the basics that he needs.

There probably is no "touchstone", in the sense of one single rule of thumb that can be universally applied to help a beginning collector make decisions, but as has come through in the discussion to date, people decide what is legitimate in accordance with their own area of interest or attraction.

If we care to consider the way in which collectors who are a part of Indonesian society frame their parameters, we can most certainly identify the standards of value that they apply when deciding whether any particular keris is a worthwhile addition for their own collection.

They may collect on the basis of tangguh, which is Solo-centric classification system that seeks to classify on the basis of point of origin in terms of place and time. They may collect on the basis of art. They may collect on the basis of the isi, or "content" of the blade in spiritual terms. They may collect only keris from a particular geographic location, or from only a specific designated maker or time. Or they may collect on a number of other bases.

There are very many ways in which a collection can be structured, but however one seeks to structure one's own collection, the parameters applied should take account of the collector's own interests and tastes. It is simply not possible to lay down a set of universally applicable rules and standards that could be used by everybody as a guide to the way in which their collection should be structured.

This then brings us back to the purpose of this thread:- an endeavour to identify how various people think of the concept of legitimacy when applied to the keris.

When somebody has a newly awakened interest in the keris, I personally feel that it is always a valuable use of time to read some of the hardcopy material that is available. There's a lot of information available on the keris, and on keris cultures, but it is mostly found in hardcopy form, rather than on the net.