![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 1,254
|
![]() Quote:
There does seem to be a growing fascination with "proper" dress; with seeing a Java k(e)ris in Java dress, etc, and this phenomenon does not seem to me to be old/traditional nor SE Asian. Bluerf: those are interesting points that do seem to colour the issue. However, allow me to propose that they carry a greater weight with items, like the examples you give, where the blade has been incorporated into what is intended as at least a more-or-less permanent assembly; becoming in effect a part of a single object. This is prominantly not the case with k(e)ris. Further, allow me to suggest that being raised in a culture foreign to your genes is more like being a java k(e)ris made from Balinese ore, while a person FROM China who moves to USA and learns N American English and wears N American clothes is more like a Bali blade in Java dress. Although Java and Bali are not that far apart, of course...... I might mention here, BTW, that I do consider there to be a significant difference it type between shotels (with native or foreign blades) and sabres mounted as shotels, as well as between sabre sayf and the straight usually foreign blades one occasionally sees so mounted. Firangi is interesting, as it seems, though locally influenced, to have been invented specifically for the foreign blades. But my understanding of its name is that, in India, it is being called an European sword. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 125
|
![]()
Guys, we're talking about keris here, not ethnicity or race or anything else. There are paralells sure but its still apples and oranges. Humans can be defined by others but they can also define themselves. A keris is an inanimate object. It cannot define itself any further than its features communicate to us meaning and significance.
I would put to you that people in general assess the keris, as with most other examples including these cited by BluErf, based on the sum total off its parts. A Javanese blade dressed in Terengganu parts is a Javanese blade dressed in Terengganu parts. Why limit ourselves to such a simplistic notion that, because the blade is Javanese, ergo the keris is Javanese? Certainly we can grasp the complexities of a Javanese keris, dressed in Terengganu parts? I would further argue that people will only define things based on what they know about them. In that sense my argument about walking into the Kraton was a bit unfair. After all they could not reasonably be expected to recognize the blade as being Javanese when they could not see it. And once they were assayed of the facts they would certainly be most willing to accept that the keris was in fact a Javanese blade dressed in Terengganu parts. Of course they would have probably have gotten bored and gone for coffee half-way through the explanation but hey that's real world and we're speculatin' here. Also, Tom I'm afraid I don't quite buy your arugement about permanent (or impermanent construction). Its fair to say that in almost every case, a Javanese keris that has been dressed in Malay dress has been permanently modified - precisely because the pesi of a Javanese blade would almost certainly have to be shortened to fit a Malay hilt. Sure, you could re-dress the blade back in Javanese dress but I would also suggest that most Javanese would be appalled upon removing the hilt and discovering that the blade had been permanently disfigured. I leave you all will a fun image of the excesses of parts sharing...let it be a warning to us all ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,248
|
![]()
Yikes...what an ugly combination.
![]() Last edited by Alam Shah; 16th March 2005 at 01:23 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|