New Keris/Keris baru

ariel · 24th May 2012, 01:49 AM

I might approach this question indirectly: what criteria do we use in choosing an item for our collection of arms?

Keris, IMXO, is a thing apart. It had never been used as a weapon first and foremost. It was made, chosen and kept for its artistic value and for its mystical intangible aura: protecting the owner, bringing good luck, threatening enemies, communicating with the dead etc. The former requires good taste, money, skills and knowledge of decorating and forging techniques. The latter is a matter of personal beliefs. Thus, both can be achieved by a combination of superb contemporary mastery of the craft and superstitions of the owner. Old or new - they all are worthy and comparable to their 15th century brothers. This is what I think A.G. Maisey meant when he defended and extolled modern kerises.

Examples from other cultures are primarily concerned with the "weapon" dimension: shamshir, khyber, kindjal, yataghan,- you name it, - were weapons first and foremost. Their artistic component is important, but secondary to their fighting usage. In those swords we look for stories of battles, bloodshed ( real or not), famous military owners, etc. Thus, no modern replica would qualify for an object of interest, no matter how artistically-pretty or richly embellished. We are looking for history, not for the spiritual aspect. Keris criteria would be simply not applicable. It is either antique or junk. Would anyone here buy a contemporary Syrian-made pala, despite the fact that its modern steel alloy blade might be better than the original one from the 17th century and carries profuse golden inscriptions? Or a Cold Steel khyber that is mechanically better than the village-made old Afghani one?

Keris is first and foremost object of art and spirituality, and is therefore always real. The rest are objects of history. Therefore, new keris is perfectly fine, whereas new shashka is either a replica or a fake.

David · 24th May 2012, 05:58 AM

Sorry Ariel, but i completely disagree with your downplaying of the historical aspects of the keris. History is not simply a matter of the battle capability of a weapon or whether or not a weapon has drawn blood (though in some Indonesian cultures such as the Bugis the keris had a much greater use as an actual physical weapon. I also believe that the keris began as a true physical weapon, first and foremost and developed it's spiritual attributes as it evolved). A keris that is pusaka can hold the "history" of many generations. If i were to be the custodian of such a keris i would say that clearly the history of that blade is of utmost importance. At least it would be to me.

I would also say that contemporary keris are much more objects of art and much less objects of spirituality. The days of the Mpu is for the most part past and the magickal qualities that were once their providence to impart on the blades though fasting, prayer and magickal incantation are lacking in today's modern keris. Most keris are not made by Mpus anymore, only skilled (sometimes highly skilled) metal smiths who do not have the knowledge or priestly lineage to create such keris. I do not believe that is a reason to dismiss modern keris by any means, but i did want to correct your impression just a bit.
As an expression of high Indonesian art the keris is a living art form and though the keris does not hold quite the same cultural importance it once did it still has a place to fill in Indonesian culture. That is the difference that i see between it and the other weapons you mention and what i see as a real reason to encourage it's continued growth as an art form.
In my own collection i have mostly antique keris, but quite a few recent ones. I collect keris that i like, first and foremost. A blade need not be a master work to attract my attention, but it must hold some kind of character that attracts my attention. But with the antique keris that i have collected i am most certainly interested in that link to the past, that connection to history.
As for what is or is not a "fake", i would say that all depends on how it is presented. Artificial aging of blades is not a sign of forgery in and of itself. The look is a preference for many collectors within the culture. If, however, you age a blade and then try to pass it off as an ancient weapon, that is indeed fakery. As for the term replica, i am not sure how that applies to keris. Keris form is often set by certain pakem. So a keris that follows that pakem will, for the most part, look like any other keris that follow that pakem, regardless of when they were made. I can't see how that would make the newer blades "replicas", especially in a culture that still has a place for the keris in it's traditions and cultural practices.

dbhmgb · 24th May 2012, 03:20 PM

David, you make some excellent points. It was the spiritual aspect of the keris that first attracted and fascinated me. As I've learned more, I have a growing appreciation for the fact that it is also an art form. At first I bought every keris as a because of it's spiritual history (I bought the story, not the blade), now I find I'm looking for something that peaks my interest - unless it's dirt cheap on eBay.

I still have a special affinity for the older kerises.

Now here's an example of what what may be considered a fake keris. It's the Bali Tourist Special. The hilt is kind of cool, but overall, I consider it a caricature of a keris and I don't even keep it with my others. Correct me if I'm wrong.

David · 24th May 2012, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbhmgb

Now here's an example of what what may be considered a fake keris. It's the Bali Tourist Special. The hilt is kind of cool, but overall, I consider it a caricature of a keris and I don't even keep it with my others. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yep, this is indeed what i would call a "fake" keris or a keris-like object (KLO)

This hilt form can be found in much finer quality.

dbhmgb · 24th May 2012, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

This hilt form can be found in much finer quality.

There's not much about it that can't be found in finer quality...

Jean · 24th May 2012, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbhmgb

Now here's an example of what what may be considered a fake keris. It's the Bali Tourist Special. The hilt is kind of cool, but overall, I consider it a caricature of a keris and I don't even keep it with my others. Correct me if I'm wrong.

A perfect specimen of fake kris indeed, what a pity that you have destroyed this fine "pamor"!

And as kris replica, I have in mind these roughly made naga krisses from Madura with brass kinatah for instance, or artificially aged copies of antique krisses.
Regards

dbhmgb · 24th May 2012, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jean

A perfect specimen of fake kris indeed, what a pity that you have destroyed this fine "pamor"!

Jean - LOL!!! That pamor! I could tolerate everything else, but that pamor was way, way over the top!

David · 25th May 2012, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jean

And as kris replica, I have in mind these roughly made naga krisses from Madura with brass kinatah for instance, or artificially aged copies of antique krises.

In some cases i guess i could indeed see these as "replicas", especially when made for a foreign market. Though i wonder if i would still look at it that way if one of these keris were to be used by a native of Jawa who is tight on cash and chooses one of these to dress himself for an low-economy wedding ceremony.

24th May 2012, 03:20 PM	#3
dbhmgb Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Maryland, USA Posts: 112	David, you make some excellent points. It was the spiritual aspect of the keris that first attracted and fascinated me. As I've learned more, I have a growing appreciation for the fact that it is also an art form. At first I bought every keris as a because of it's spiritual history (I bought the story, not the blade), now I find I'm looking for something that peaks my interest - unless it's dirt cheap on eBay. I still have a special affinity for the older kerises. Now here's an example of what what may be considered a fake keris. It's the Bali Tourist Special. The hilt is kind of cool, but overall, I consider it a caricature of a keris and I don't even keep it with my others. Correct me if I'm wrong. Attached Images

24th May 2012, 01:49 AM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I might approach this question indirectly: what criteria do we use in choosing an item for our collection of arms? Keris, IMXO, is a thing apart. It had never been used as a weapon first and foremost. It was made, chosen and kept for its artistic value and for its mystical intangible aura: protecting the owner, bringing good luck, threatening enemies, communicating with the dead etc. The former requires good taste, money, skills and knowledge of decorating and forging techniques. The latter is a matter of personal beliefs. Thus, both can be achieved by a combination of superb contemporary mastery of the craft and superstitions of the owner. Old or new - they all are worthy and comparable to their 15th century brothers. This is what I think A.G. Maisey meant when he defended and extolled modern kerises. Examples from other cultures are primarily concerned with the "weapon" dimension: shamshir, khyber, kindjal, yataghan,- you name it, - were weapons first and foremost. Their artistic component is important, but secondary to their fighting usage. In those swords we look for stories of battles, bloodshed ( real or not), famous military owners, etc. Thus, no modern replica would qualify for an object of interest, no matter how artistically-pretty or richly embellished. We are looking for history, not for the spiritual aspect. Keris criteria would be simply not applicable. It is either antique or junk. Would anyone here buy a contemporary Syrian-made pala, despite the fact that its modern steel alloy blade might be better than the original one from the 17th century and carries profuse golden inscriptions? Or a Cold Steel khyber that is mechanically better than the village-made old Afghani one? Keris is first and foremost object of art and spirituality, and is therefore always real. The rest are objects of history. Therefore, new keris is perfectly fine, whereas new shashka is either a replica or a fake.

24th May 2012, 05:58 AM	#2
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,229	Sorry Ariel, but i completely disagree with your downplaying of the historical aspects of the keris. History is not simply a matter of the battle capability of a weapon or whether or not a weapon has drawn blood (though in some Indonesian cultures such as the Bugis the keris had a much greater use as an actual physical weapon. I also believe that the keris began as a true physical weapon, first and foremost and developed it's spiritual attributes as it evolved). A keris that is pusaka can hold the "history" of many generations. If i were to be the custodian of such a keris i would say that clearly the history of that blade is of utmost importance. At least it would be to me. I would also say that contemporary keris are much more objects of art and much less objects of spirituality. The days of the Mpu is for the most part past and the magickal qualities that were once their providence to impart on the blades though fasting, prayer and magickal incantation are lacking in today's modern keris. Most keris are not made by Mpus anymore, only skilled (sometimes highly skilled) metal smiths who do not have the knowledge or priestly lineage to create such keris. I do not believe that is a reason to dismiss modern keris by any means, but i did want to correct your impression just a bit. As an expression of high Indonesian art the keris is a living art form and though the keris does not hold quite the same cultural importance it once did it still has a place to fill in Indonesian culture. That is the difference that i see between it and the other weapons you mention and what i see as a real reason to encourage it's continued growth as an art form. In my own collection i have mostly antique keris, but quite a few recent ones. I collect keris that i like, first and foremost. A blade need not be a master work to attract my attention, but it must hold some kind of character that attracts my attention. But with the antique keris that i have collected i am most certainly interested in that link to the past, that connection to history. As for what is or is not a "fake", i would say that all depends on how it is presented. Artificial aging of blades is not a sign of forgery in and of itself. The look is a preference for many collectors within the culture. If, however, you age a blade and then try to pass it off as an ancient weapon, that is indeed fakery. As for the term replica, i am not sure how that applies to keris. Keris form is often set by certain pakem. So a keris that follows that pakem will, for the most part, look like any other keris that follow that pakem, regardless of when they were made. I can't see how that would make the newer blades "replicas", especially in a culture that still has a place for the keris in it's traditions and cultural practices.