A Balinese Keris (?) for discussion
 

I have a Balinese keris for discussion. It is a small keris. The blade not more than 30 cm long, still in good polish except for some rust spots which I would need advice on how to remove without destroying the polish on the blade. The seller said it was an ex-museum piece as seen by the catalogue number written on the keris. I remember in an earlier post, Mr Maisey made mention about small Balinese Keris but I can’t find that thread.

I attach pictures of the keris. I juxtapose the keris with a typical Balinese keris I have so that you can get an impression of its size. Any additional information welcome on views on the keris welcome.

Well I can surly say that I like the pamor and the condition of that pamor on the blade!

Definitely not a tourist piece!

Well José, i don't think there was ever a question that this could be a tourist piece. Certain size alone would not be an indication of that.
I believe we can find numerous smaller Bali keris about that are genuinely antique and legitimate. The smallest one i own in just under 13 inches (33cm). This one is a bit smaller at just under 12 inches. Certainly by Javanese standards that would be too large for the usual patrem. Frankly i am uncertain that patrems were even a thing in Balinese keris culture. I can't really recall actually ever seeing any. But one thing i notice that is different in the presentation of this small Bali keris from my own is the sheath size. While my 13 in. Bali blade is clothed in normal sized Bali dress Paul's example wears dress that is more proportionate to the smaller size of the blade. As an accessory of Balinese dress the sheath and hilt need to be of a certain minimum size to be appropriately wore in public. The smaller dress of Paul's keris does not allow for that style of wear so perhaps it is meant as a patrem or perhaps it was made for a small boy. :shrug:
Alan, if you are tuned into this thread perhaps you have some insights to add.

Exactly! What if the Keris was meant for a boy?! :shrug:

Or what if the Keris was meant for a rather small man?! I am rather small myself, but I certainly saw many Indonesians smaller than me. :)

Kuta Beach, Bali, Melasti 2015

Would you argue with this man?

Aha... that must be it!

The traditional Indonesian wearing the traditional dress with the assorted Kris.

Right?! ;)

Not all Balinese dress is a sarung up to the armpits. That is formal dress, mostly for aristocrats and bridegrooms.

Usual attire is sarung --- or was a sarung, these days its Levis.

Formal dress requires a larger than life keris with the hilt up over the shoulder.

With normal daily dress a keris was usually smaller, often about the same as an old-time Jawa keris.

Very, very often blades revered as pusaka blades in Bali were made in Jawa.

We're used to seeing big finely made keris and thinking of them as typical Bali.

George Gershwin : Porgy & Bess : Sportin' Life

Look at this keris. Forget that you think you know where it comes from.

What do you see?

Oh. It looks like a keris topengan (mask pendok) from East Java but without the topengan.

Well no, i would not argue with him. My only problem with using this as an example though is that this is a 21st Century Balinese man while Paul's small keris in its small dress most certainly is not. While the manner in which this man is wearing his keris is most probably perfectly acceptable today, was it so in the 19th or 18th or 17th centuries? :shrug:

Hello Paul,

I think that Alan speak about the blade alone! ;)

Also when the sarung show age and handling is the blade much older IMVHO.
And I think in a maybe similar direction like Alan. :rolleyes:

Regards,
Detlef

Paul's pictures. :)

Firstly, the keris.

The wilah is an old Javanese one that has been given a Bali style polish. It can be classified as Tangguh Segaluh, which is one of the very few tangguh classifications that I am prepared to endorse from a photograph. Its about the easiest of any.

The hilt and scabbard are 20th century. Based upon similar examples of known age that I have seen and owned, I am of the opinion that the hilt and scabbard date from either the period 1950 to 1980, or from the 1930's. My best bet would be 1960-1975.

As I remarked earlier, an old Javanese blade presented in Balinese dress is not at all unusual, in fact a great number of Balinese pusaka keris are keris (wilah) that have been made in Jawa.

Secondly the way in which a Balinese keris is worn.

We have all seen the old posed photos taken by colonial era photographers of Balinese princes and other nobles wearing sarungs that cover the chest, and with a great big keris stuck into the back of the sarung, its hilt projecting well above the shoulder.

This style of dress is formal dress, it is not everyday dress.

Everyday attire prior to the modern era was a short, knee length sarung for men, and a sarung for women that came just below the knees. Neither sex wore anything above the waist, and when working, the back of the sarung was drawn between the legs and tucked into the waist fold of the sarung at the front; sometimes a heavy belt or an additional sash was worn around the waist to keep everything nicely anchored. Sandals or shoes were not normally worn. Underclothes were not worn.

In remote village areas of Bali this mode of dress is still used, and in the mid-1970's, as soon as you got out of a major town it was common to see people dressed in this traditional fashion.

This traditional style of dress, used by the common people of Bali is not conducive to the wearing of the super-size keris that is usually associated with Bali in the minds of modern collectors. The usual everyman's Balinese keris in the pre-colonial era was comparable with a Javanese keris.

There is something else that needs to be understood in respect of Balinese keris:- Bali is a very, very hierarchical society, if anything, even more so than is Jawa. Everything that a person does or wears reflects that person's status within the society. It is not acceptable for anybody to behave in a fashion that is incompatible with his status in society, and such behaviour can lead to exclusion from society until the offender mends his ways and begins to behave correctly again.

In Balinese society Big Keris = Big Man. Not in terms of physical size, but in terms of societal size. In other words even if the Raja is only 5'4" tall, he is very much bigger than a farmer who tops 6'. Thus, the Raja wears a big keris, the farmer wears a normal size keris.

As in Jawa and other keris bearing societies, there is more than one way in which to wear a keris, and the way in which it is worn signals the mood and intent of the wearer.

In Jawa one of the names for a keris is "wangkingan". This word comes from "wangking", which means a narrow waist; if something is worn at the small of the back, it is said to be "mangking", thus the keris when worn at the back (in a particular way) is called a "wangkingan".

This style of wear at the back signals a relaxed sociable attitude in the wearer, and is the appropriate way in which to wear a keris for a formal occasion.

The same thing applies in Bali:- how you wear your keris tells people what your mood and intent is:- worn at the back, you're off to have a good time; worn at the left side front and ready to draw, you don't argue, you get out of the way and do what the wearer wants you to do, because he is ready to draw that keris and use it.

The Melasti photo I posted is a photo of one of the culture police, given the responsibility for maintaining order by one of the banjars participating in the ceremony. The way in which he is wearing his keris is one of his badges of authority.

You do not argue with this man.

The correct name for a Balinese keris is "kadutan". This word comes from "kadut", which refers to the front of a belt, or sash, or girdle that goes around the waist.

The Balinese keris is called a kadutan because it is normally worn at the waist, in a peaceful situation it is worn at the back, in a situation where it might need to be used it is slipped around the waist to the position that our culture policeman is wearing it.

Thanks Alan. Great explanation and custom and word definitions.

Thank you Alan. BTW, this gentleman does not look Balinese at all? :)
Regards

Thank you Alan for this very insightful view.

Jean, there is a very wide range of physical types in both Bali and Jawa. These places are just about at the end of what was not very long ago, the known world.

There is an old theory that everything moves slowly to the East, and that theory applies to not only things, but people as well.

This is exactly what I thought byself but frankly said first after Alan hit my nose on this with his remark: "Look at this keris. Forget that you think you know where it comes from.

What do you see?" !!

Paul you have a very old Javanese blade with a Balinese polish and newer dress. I personally would look for a nice uwer.

Regards,
Detlef

Hello Alan,
Would you definitely rule-out that this blade could be a very old Balinese blade? The smooth polishing does not seem recent and the blade size was probably significantly larger originally.
Regards

Absolutely yes.

There are many old Javanese blades in Bali dress, and in fact some old Balinese pusaka keris have Javanese blades.

Then of course we have the Balinese blades that were taken to Jawa in more recent times --- 1950's to 1970's --- and turned into Javanese blades. This was purely a matter of money:- average garap in a Bali keris is excellent garap in a Jawa keris, and in this period good Jawa keris were worth a lot more money than Bali keris.

There is one factor that is very often overlooked by people who do not try to think like people from times past :- until very recent times the areas of water that to our minds separate the islands of Indonesia, in times past were highways:- the water connected the islands, it was the forest without decent roads that separated settlements.

We sometimes refer to the "Jawa-Bali Nexus". They were joined at the hip. Javanese kings were of Balinese origin sometimes, Bali was ruled by Jawa. There are connections in language:- I cannot speak nor understand spoken Balinese, but I have been assured by native speakers of Javanese that they can understand/guess what is being said in Balinese, once they become used to the accent and delivery. I'm guessing that this might be a bit like me listening to somebody from North West England --- I cannot immediately understand him, but after a couple of hours listening to him I pick up the flow of the words and I can fill in the gaps.

Things don't always fit into neat, separate boxes, its more like they're in pools in water that merge into one another.

Thank you Alan. Now have you got any idea about how the old Balinese blades (I mean from the pre-Islamic period) differ from the Javanese ones? Of course I realize the difficulty of my query :)
Regards

irrelevant

Thanks David
 

Just let me clarify that question Jean.

I think you are asking this:-

"How do we tell if a keris blade is either Javanese, or Balinese, if it dates from before 1500 ( the end of the 15th century)?"

The year 1500 is a nominal date, but Islam had already established a presence in Jawa well before this, and Majapahit had collapsed by 1525.

Bali began development of its present form during the Majapahit period, and following the collapse of Majapahit, with the influx of "Wong Jowo" who married into the existing population of Bali at all levels.

We cannot think of 15th century Bali in anything like the way in which we think of 19th century Bali.

How many Balinese made keris were there in Bali in the 15th century?

Were there any at all?

I don't know

Then of course we have the problem of identifying a keris that definitely comes from before 1500. In Jawa such a keris is referred to as a "Keris Buda", because the period before Islam is referred to as the "Buda" period.

Has a Keris Buda ever been found in Bali?

I know of none.

I don't think I can answer your question Jean.

Just to clarify your statements Alan, a keris that date from immediately before 1500 would be from the 1400s which is the 15th century, so did you intend to write 15th century in this statement?

Thanks David.

I actually intended to write what I did originally write, but my intention was incorrect. Put it down to another conversation in a different place. Too many trains of thought.

Thank you Alan. Yes, my question was exactly as you put it down.
Regards