The Size of the Keris

[Jean]

Originally Posted by Gustav

My idea at the moment is, that in the 1500ties there are should be some amount of very big, beefy blades, which are quite impractical as weapons. So I think, I can not agree with the "romantic" idea of big Keris as "Warriors Keris", if this idea includes the practical use of such Keris. As Alan pointed out, Keris Bugis are often normal or smaller size, and Bugis are perhaps the last people, who apparently used Keris as weapon.

During the 1600ties the size of Keris has diminished, and perhaps it could be so due to growing influence of Central Javanese court of Mataram/stratification of society.

Hello Gustav,
Is this big, beefy blade (attributed to Blambangan or Banten?) as old as the 1500ties (16th century) in your opinion?
Regards

[Gustav]

Good to see such blade posted on forum. Thank you Jean.

Could you perhaps also post the dimensions of it? If the blade has been shortened, the length of Gonjo ? From pictures I would say more probably 1600ties and it has something, which let me think of Sumatra (I am speaking about blade only). yet this isn't even speculation, just fully unsupported feeling.

There are more substantial specimens, and the most prominent one is the Keris from MVK in Vienna. The blade is 44 cm long, Gonjo 9 cm long. It is mentioned 1607 for the first time. The blade almost don't taper till the last Luk, if you see or handle it, you have a feel of a Moro blade.

I own a very similar blade, also 44 cm long, Gonjo 10,5 cm long, width just before last Luk 3,4 cm, last luk 3 cm. Comparing to it the blade you posted looks slender.

[Jean]

Hello Gustav,
Unfortunately this blade had been shortened, it is only 31.5 cm long with 9 luks but I estimate the original size at about 38 cm long with 13 luks. The ganja is 9.5 cm long and the width at mid-lenght (luk 5) is 2.6 cm. The hilt depicts a man-eating raksasa similar to one piece shown by Jensen and attributed to Blambangan.
Regards

[Sajen]

Here my shortest Bali blade, 331 mm long (without pesi), in comparison with a Central Java blade (370 mm) and a normal sized Bali blade (460 mm).
Have some thoughts about blade size but need to think about.

[mariusgmioc]

Very interesting topic, and as I am an absolute begginer, I can't help you with any valuable input but with some analogy you may find interesting.

I am currently in INARI, way North from the Polar Circle, in the heart of Lapland (the land of the Saami people). The Saami have a whole culture for knives, culture that developed and evolved during their whole existence in this harsh environment where a good knife at hand could make the diference between life and death. So, it is no surprise that for them, the knife has become almost a cult object. To cut it short is that here every Saami has a knife. Men have bigger knives, women and children smaller knives... maybe not unlike the Malay?

Please feel free to remove my posting if you think is unrelated to this subject.

PS: Could it be that the size of the keris is related also to the status of the owner?! The higher the status, the bigger the keris?

[Jean]

Originally Posted by Sajen

Here my shortest Bali blade, 331 mm long (without pesi), in comparison with a Central Java blade (370 mm) and a normal sized Bali blade (460 mm).
Have some thoughts about blade size but need to think about.

Hello Sajen,
Besides the twin lambe gajah (also found in Java), which indicators make you believe that this blade is Balinese?
Regards

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by Jean

Hello Sajen,
Besides the twin lambe gajah (also found in Java), which indicators make you believe that this blade is Balinese?
Regards

Hello Jean,

everthing by this blade let me think that it is a Balinese blade, starting by all features, the pamor, the feel and also the pamorless gonjo. At last I found it once on Bali, offered with many other Bali/Lombok keris. The wrangka is original and as well Balines, the gandar is a replacement but again Balinese. But can be wrong like always.

Regards,
Detlef

[A. G. Maisey]

In respect of the middle blade that Detlef has shown us, from the photo I cannot tell if it is probably Balinese or not, the pamor material does not look Balinese in the photo, but it could be so.

If it is Balinese I would expect to see evidence of a polished surface, either still in full polish, or clear indications that it had been accustomed to be kept polished.

Of the ricikan that can give some guidance in blade origin, probably the most reliable is the ron dha, Balinese ron dha usually have a form that is not quite the same as most Javanese blades, but in this keris of Detlef's, the ron dha seems to be too heavily eroded to be of much use as an indicator.

As to pamorless gonjos, they can be found in Javanese keris of any classification, but most especially in Mataram Sultan Agung and earlier classifications. A pamorless gonjo is not a reliable indicator of a Balinese keris, and in later Balinese keris, say after the early 20th. century, gonjos with pamor are often found.

Then again we have the fact that many very early Balinese keris were in fact either made in a Javanese style or were made in Jawa.

Yes, we're all accustomed to seeing nice, big, shiny Balinese keris that are true works of art, but for the most part these keris are from the second half of the 19th century forward, and were seldom made for ordinary farmers and fishermen.

Similarly we are accustomed to the image of princes in court dress, or marriage dress, with their keris poking up behind the shoulder, but the vast bulk of Balinese people were not royalty, and they wore, and wear, a common sarung that finishes at the waist, often with a sash or belt to keep it up, and the keris is worn, by these people, at the waist.

So, Balinese keris are not invariably great big whackers, nor are they always so easy to differentiate from Javanese keris.

Thus we return to the central question that I posed:- why?

Think of the nature of these societies, then read Marius' comments.

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Thus we return to the central question that I posed:- why?
Think of the nature of these societies, then read Marius' comments.

Well sure, not the first time i have heard the big man/big keris theory suggested, but how does that explain when we have periods of larger keris size in the general population of keris as we see in Tuban keris? It also seem to me that the majority of late 19th century Bali keris are indeed rather large. You say they were seldom made for farmers or fisherman, but i can't say i have seen many particularly small late 19th century Bali keris. Where have all the smaller commoner keris from Bali in this period gone to then if indeed the Bali court and other important people were the only ones with the large ones we are most familiar with?