Sumatran Mystery?

David · 7th December 2014, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GIO

Hi David,
very interesting item. In my VERY HUMBLE opinion though this is a keris-like object. The manufacture is very crude and has no detail which can be attributed to a keris.

hmmm…well, i appreciate your response Gio, but personally believe that calling this a "keris-like-object" is perhaps taking it a bit far. No, this certainly isn't the work of an empu and does not seem to follow any known pakem. I have entertained the notion that perhaps this was created by a village smith without much previous experience in crafting keris who may have been working from memory without a clear example to copy from. I do realize that for some collectors anything that does not fall into a keraton pakem is not a legitimate keris, but from my perspective if it was created indigenously to serve the cultural purpose of a keris then it is a legitimate keris regardless of a lack of detailed excellence in execution. I tend to reserve the term "keris-like-object" for things like those nasty Bali tourist "keris" with the painted on pamors.
What is for certain is that somebody considered this keris important enough to spend the time and money to dress it well. I have no doubt that this sheath was created specifically for this blade.
Kai, i am attaching a shot up the hole of the hilt as you requested. To answer your question, the horn piece is indeed tightly attached to the ivory.

A. G. Maisey · 7th December 2014, 08:59 PM

I'm with you David:- this is a genuine keris, but it has been produced outside the area of influence of a major cultural center.

Yes, many people hold the opinion that any keris that does not follow a defined pattern that has been set down either by tradition, or in an authorised guide-book (pakem) is outside the guidelines and thus not a keris.

To a degree, this is legitimate point of view, and it is reasonable to apply this standard to those keris which are of superior workmanship of a level that indicates production by a knowledgeable and skilled maker.

However, we often tend to forget that there were vast areas of S.E.Asia that were not under the direct influence of any cultural center, or center of power, and these areas were occupied by ordinary people --- subsistence farmers, fishermen, forest workers. If one of these people needed a keris to be made, they would most likely turn to the nearest smith. If there was no existing keris available for the smith to copy, he had to work from memory. The result is most often a simple keris of rather pedestrian workmanship.

A similar thing happened with dress:- in the palace environment, or urban setting, it was essential that a man's keris should be dressed in the correct fashion, however, in a village setting away from a major center, the rules were (and are) not nearly so strict. If it was necessary to produce a scabbard, or a hilt, the owner himself would often produce these himself. In fact, in days long past, the production of all weapon dress was most probably done by the owner as a display of his skill in carving, the male balance to the female skill of weaving.

Skilled craftsmen lived in towns and cities and were paid for their work, but these skilled craftsmen were not available to everybody.

7th December 2014, 08:59 PM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,056	I'm with you David:- this is a genuine keris, but it has been produced outside the area of influence of a major cultural center. Yes, many people hold the opinion that any keris that does not follow a defined pattern that has been set down either by tradition, or in an authorised guide-book (pakem) is outside the guidelines and thus not a keris. To a degree, this is legitimate point of view, and it is reasonable to apply this standard to those keris which are of superior workmanship of a level that indicates production by a knowledgeable and skilled maker. However, we often tend to forget that there were vast areas of S.E.Asia that were not under the direct influence of any cultural center, or center of power, and these areas were occupied by ordinary people --- subsistence farmers, fishermen, forest workers. If one of these people needed a keris to be made, they would most likely turn to the nearest smith. If there was no existing keris available for the smith to copy, he had to work from memory. The result is most often a simple keris of rather pedestrian workmanship. A similar thing happened with dress:- in the palace environment, or urban setting, it was essential that a man's keris should be dressed in the correct fashion, however, in a village setting away from a major center, the rules were (and are) not nearly so strict. If it was necessary to produce a scabbard, or a hilt, the owner himself would often produce these himself. In fact, in days long past, the production of all weapon dress was most probably done by the owner as a display of his skill in carving, the male balance to the female skill of weaving. Skilled craftsmen lived in towns and cities and were paid for their work, but these skilled craftsmen were not available to everybody.