Keris and other Malay Weapons by Gerald B. Gardner

A. G. Maisey · 10th September 2024, 11:39 PM

My Gardner is a 1973 reprint.

It has been popular for a long time.

Personally, I reckon its worth a read, there little interesting snippets in it like:-

"--- the lawi ayam is small hooked knife for ripping the bowels --- it is a very horrible weapon---"

&

"--- a tiny variety of this weapon is carried by a lot of Javanese women, often in their hair --- they yield to a man then rip his genitals---"

flowers of the Orient those Jawa girls.

Then there is the way British sailors dealt with attack by keris:- whip out the old belaying pin and whack the keris-man with it --- or break the blade.

Personally, I find the "break the blade" bit rather imaginative, keris are usually only hardened for the first few inches, if subjected to force they are far more likely to bend than to break. But still, way back then, a lot of people seemed to trust the belaying pin --- or maybe the walking stick, there was a whole method of defence built upon the walking stick.

From my perspective the biggest flaw in Gardner is that as a Colonial he was getting fed the usual thing that Colonials get fed by indigenous peoples, you know the stuff, its good for your veges, but pretty unpalatable eaten fresh.

This intentional misinformation continues today in Jawa & Bali, & probably in other places where tourists go, if you're not an insider you get told what your informant thinks you want to hear, the important thing is not truth, it is to please the bloke with the money.

Yeah, sure there are flaws in Gardner but we tend to forget just how recently the veil was lifted from the keris. I published "Origin Of the Keris and its Development to the 14th. Century" in 1998, at the time, & even for some time after that there was still debate about just exactly where the keris originally came from.

Even Harsrinuksmo got it wrong in "Ensiklopedi Budaya Nasional" published 1988 --- or maybe it was his principle informant, Lumintu. They thought it was Buddhist, & that representations could be found on Borobudur.

Back before WWII there were knock-down-dragouts going on between serious scholars of the keris. In retrospect much of it was stupidity voiced by people who had not even visited SE Asia, but at the time it passed for learned debate. I think Hill was published in 1956, and he was a long way from the mark too.

Gardner is OK, as David remarks "historic value" but I find that perspective interesting.

10th September 2024, 11:39 PM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,892	My Gardner is a 1973 reprint. It has been popular for a long time. Personally, I reckon its worth a read, there little interesting snippets in it like:- "--- the lawi ayam is small hooked knife for ripping the bowels --- it is a very horrible weapon---" & "--- a tiny variety of this weapon is carried by a lot of Javanese women, often in their hair --- they yield to a man then rip his genitals---" flowers of the Orient those Jawa girls. Then there is the way British sailors dealt with attack by keris:- whip out the old belaying pin and whack the keris-man with it --- or break the blade. Personally, I find the "break the blade" bit rather imaginative, keris are usually only hardened for the first few inches, if subjected to force they are far more likely to bend than to break. But still, way back then, a lot of people seemed to trust the belaying pin --- or maybe the walking stick, there was a whole method of defence built upon the walking stick. From my perspective the biggest flaw in Gardner is that as a Colonial he was getting fed the usual thing that Colonials get fed by indigenous peoples, you know the stuff, its good for your veges, but pretty unpalatable eaten fresh. This intentional misinformation continues today in Jawa & Bali, & probably in other places where tourists go, if you're not an insider you get told what your informant thinks you want to hear, the important thing is not truth, it is to please the bloke with the money. Yeah, sure there are flaws in Gardner but we tend to forget just how recently the veil was lifted from the keris. I published "Origin Of the Keris and its Development to the 14th. Century" in 1998, at the time, & even for some time after that there was still debate about just exactly where the keris originally came from. Even Harsrinuksmo got it wrong in "Ensiklopedi Budaya Nasional" published 1988 --- or maybe it was his principle informant, Lumintu. They thought it was Buddhist, & that representations could be found on Borobudur. Back before WWII there were knock-down-dragouts going on between serious scholars of the keris. In retrospect much of it was stupidity voiced by people who had not even visited SE Asia, but at the time it passed for learned debate. I think Hill was published in 1956, and he was a long way from the mark too. Gardner is OK, as David remarks "historic value" but I find that perspective interesting.