When is a keris legitimate?

[rasdan]

Originally Posted by rasdan

As the keris developed into the modern keris, it is then accepted as a pusaka in a sense that it is a symbol of regency/office of a certain group of people where still, in this time, only nobles owns or were given a keris. During this time, a “legitimate” keris is probably a keris that was manufactured according to the official purpose and the status and of its owner- a keris that is a weapon AND a pusaka.
……
As in any type of items that are related with power/authority, the manufacturing quality must be superior subjected to the time period and the artistic qualities/symbolism of this type of keris must be set according to the artistic and symbolic viewpoint of the authority that starts that culture. It is probably during this period also, other kingdoms such as Palembang started their own pusaka keris culture which really inspired by the Javanese culture. These locally made keris soon becomes a pusaka weapon of that particular kingdom and the concept of a pusaka keris soon flourishes in that kingdom.
……
However, the keris owned by the general public at this time is nothing more than a weapon. While it can be considered a pusaka once it is being passed down to the next generations in a loose sense, but it is probably not a pusaka in a sense where it have the binding power of a regent/chief where it is a symbol of authority over a certain group of people.
……
The only way to distinguish the pusaka grade to the weapons grade keris is using tangguh knowledge (for Javanese culture) or to have some knowledge to identify a quality keris – as pusaka grade keris would rationally have a high quality.

G’day Alan,
Actually my take on that is embedded in the post above. I’ll reiterate what I mean. The word pusaka can be translated into 2 words in the English language. One means “regalia” and the other means “inheritance”. It can be related where regalia may be inherited, but an inheritance may not be a regalia. Here’s my guessing part.

A keris is a regalia when it is made to symbolise the authority of a king over a group of people or when it is a gift to a person authorising that person as an authority over a specific area for example. I would imagine that a normal person cannot simply acquire a pusaka keris as it would require a source of power (like a country’s constitution in modern time) to authorise this. In old Hindu times, the source of power is their God and a King I guess is supposedly God’s representation on earth. (Not sure). Let’s call this type of keris Type A.

Then there are probably nobles and rich people that may acquire high quality keris made by the empu that makes regalia type keris. These keris are not regalia, but have a very high quality. These are Type B keris. There are also keris that were made by smiths. Some have a good quality, some not very much. Let’s call these Type C keris.

Going back to the second definition of pusaka – an inheritance. Type B and Type C keris will also be a pusaka where it is a keris that is inherited by a person that is not originally made to symbolise power. So, according to the second definition of pusaka these types of keris can be any type of keris as long as it fits the physical characteristics of a keris. It can be made by an empu or a smith (type B or C).

Type B and perhaps Type C keris also however, have a chance to become a Type A or maybe I should call it a “Type A” keris as the owner is elevated to a higher status in life or perhaps become a king where he may regard his keris is a regalia of his country or area of authority. Weather this act can be regarded as “legitimate” or not, I guess it is related to that particular area concept of “source of power/authority” (which normally goes back to religion) at that particular time.

Regarding quality. I would imagine the main identification characteristics of a regalia keris is quality. For Javanese keris, the tangguh knowledge is a must. However, I think, the tangguh knowledge would be insufficient to differentiate between Type A and Type B keris as both may be made by the same empu and therefore have rather similar quality. Type C keris I would imagine can easily be distinguished as someone acquires the knowledge in determining a quality keris.

For kerises from other areas, the only way to go is to look for signs of quality and old age (if desired) using conventional wisdom as keris manufactured outside Java are probably manufactured with a different specification. Therefore it is quite impossible to apply the “tangguh like knowledge” to these kerises.

As I see it, the concept of pusaka/regalia is created by us. We create and elevate it and regard it as a symbol of authority. Without our recognition, any regalia would only be an object. Most likely an expensive object. For collectors, it is very unlikely for us to differentiate Type A and B keris unless a keris have a very good provenance. Type C keris on the other hand also can have a very good quality. Therefore, the only reasonable way to go for collectors is quality. Whether a keris is really a Type A, B or C most likely in many cases will never be known and in my opinion, are the stuff of dreams.

[David]

Very interesting thread so far. As i expected, also some difference of ideas, some which i agree with and some which i don't. But i am not sure that we can really have too many "wrong" answers on this question as much of it will depend on personal preferences and ideas.
I certainly agree that the question of what is a "real" keris cannot be answered without also answering "what is a keris".
1. A cultural icon and a symbol of manhood.
2. An asymmetric double edged dagger (i do still consider keris sepang a legitimate keris form. Most of the ones i have seen are not perfectly symmetrical anyway).
3. The blade has a gonjo, either true or implied as in gonjo iras blades.
4. The blade if forged and often pattern welded with contrasting material to create a pamor pattern, though the use of contrasting material is not mandatory.
5. The blade may be straight or wavy (so obviously any blade with a wavy blade cannot automatically be considered a keris).

For me there are two things that have no real bearing on legitimacy for me. The first is weapon readiness. While i am of the mind that the keris first developed as a functional weapon (and i have many examples that fit that bill quite nicely), there are many keris that were forged solely to serve an esoteric function such as keris sajen and keris picit.
The second thing that has no bearing on legitimacy for me is quality. If a keris has been made within the culture to serve the cultural purpose of a keris it is still a keris to me even if it is not particularly well produced. It still does need to fit the other requirements, but it doesn't need to be a "good" keris to be a "real" keris. This doesn't mean that i necessarily want to add poorly conceived keris to my collection, but i would still count such keris as "real". I don't image that too many of us have many truly Mpu made keris in our collections. I know most of what i have collected was made outside the keraton. Some of those are still very nicely conceived blades. Some perhaps are more imperfect, but they contain a character or "spirit" that suits me personally that i find attractive so i collect it. Certainly some of the more esoteric blades that i have collected are not great examples of highly skilled keris work. They are still real, important and valued parts of my collection.
For me a really important part of legitimacy relates to my first specification for what makes a keris. For what intent and purpose was the keris created? I personally find it impossible to remove the keris from it's cultural context. So to use GIO's example i would not consider the "Bali" keris made in England to be a legit keris. I might still like it and consider it collectable, but removed from its context as a cultural icon it no longer meets my personal requirements of legitimacy. For me a cultural icon must be made within and for use within that culture. In 2005 UNESCO proclaimed the keris a "Masterpiece of Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity". I think a "real" keris should probably be able to live up to this designation in some way.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for your response Rasdan.

My feeling is that we are gradually building a foundation of opinions here that may help us clarify the way in which people who have responded to my question determine whether or not a keris is legitimate in their eyes.

I am hopeful that some more of our regular participants in discussion will share their thoughts with us.

[GIO]

Reading the last few lines of David's post, I'm afraid I didn't well express my opinion.
Should the "English made kris" have had the ganja separated from the blade, have a nice uwer and hilt and a finely made sheath, I assure that anybody with a good experience in the field would have considered it a real (or legitimate) kris. It is starting from this preliminary statement that I RELUCTANTLY have concluded that the English kris is a legitimate kris, though I would never have purchased it.
Probably none of the kris in my collection was made by an empu, most probably by a common village smith with some skill. 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.

Happy New Year to everybody !!!!

[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.

[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:-)