Orientation of the grip of this keris
 

I recently bought what I think is a Bugis keris. Unfortunately without sheath, but it's still a nice piece.

The position of the handle looked a bit 'akward' to me. I had quite some trouble getting it off the blade. The peksi was bent.

I was able to straighten it without causing damage, but now I'm wondering what would be the best position of the handle for this type of keris.

I'm sure some of our keris-loving forum members could 'enlighten' me. ;)

Here are some pics : first the piece as I got it, secondly a pic of the 'bent' peksi.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...91665318_o.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...lding002-4.jpg

Hi Fredy,

I do also think it's a bugis from sulawesi, but im no expert. But stil i can see the garuda on the sorsoran(V shape). I have one like it, but without luk.

Her a pic, how it's mounted.


http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/628/img0677ih6.jpg

You have to twist the hilt till it is in comfort in your hand. I hope it is clear for you, iff not tel us and one of us wil try to help. One knows a bit..all know a lot.

Regards and congrats...nice blade and willah. Maybe someone can help you with a sheath(sarong)...try out and you wil know. :)

That's a nice looking Bugis keris. Kulbuntet's photo should set you straight, but he is also right that the exact postion will depend on what is most comfortable in your hand. It should be based on that grip in the photo though.
On of our Peninsula area friends might be able to put you on to a new sheath, but i suspect that it will cost you quite a bit more than the price you paid for the keris.

I believe that the original position of the grip on this keris was correct.

I have seen a number of examples of this type of keris with the grip apparently reversed. I own two myself, both of which were very old acquisitions into Australia, and the hilts were fitted with damar, that is, they were glued into place with a natural resin.

I have also seen at least one old photograph showing a keris like this being worn.

The tang on these Bugis type keris nearly always seems to be bent to some degree, I doubt that I have ever pulled a keris of the generic Bugis type apart and found it with a straight tang--- and I've taken apart one hell of a lot of these keris.

I do not know exactly where, when or why these keris have reversed grips, but it is absolutely certain that they do exist and the reversed grip is correct.

To Allan,

I know that the sulawesi buginese do take off their hilt sometimes, when they are a guest in some ones house, or court. So that they can't use their keris....

Could it be like that? I think that it is difficult to hold/use the keris like that.

Allan is right about the fact that sometimes bugi kerisses show the reversed grip. I always thought it was just fitted wrong.

Any Bugis keris that came out of S.E. Asia a long time ago, and that I have handled, have always had the hilt fixed very firmly, more often than not with damar.

Possibly these reversed grip keris were used in a different manner, or worn like that for a particular reason. It occurs to me that it would be a very practical way to mount a keris hilt for somebody working around ropes, such as a seaman.

I certainly would not argue that you and others have occasionally come across a hilt fixed into this "reverse" position, for whatever reason. However, i don't believe that one can automatically assume that the original position of this grip was therefore correct. We have no idea whose hands this keris was in over it's recent (and not so recent) past. Did this keris come out of S.E. Asia a long time ago, or has it been in more Western hands for many years? I certainly don't know, but it seems strange to me that you would form a conclusion based on the exception to the rule.
I do know that the opposite orientation, the one showed by Kulbunet, allows this keris to best be wielded as a weapon. It therefore seems a logical explanation to photos that might show a reverse orientation (again, i believe, the exception to the rule) that the wearer is perhaps show a peaceful intent. I do realize that this does not explain keris that have this reverse orientation fixed with damar, but how many of these have you actually encountered in you 50 some odd years of experience?

I have two of these keris, David.

One has the end of the grip broken off , making it considerably shorter in the grip. (pictured)

One of these keris belonged to my mother's father, that is, my grandfather, and he brought it to Australia around 1920.

The other one I bought at an arms fair.

I have taken both these keris apart, and both had the grips fixed in the reverse position with damar, I needed to heat the blades to remove the hilts.

I have also seen an old photograph of a keris being worn in this way.I saw it in a book, but I cannot remember which book.

Yes, I agree, this way of mounting a hilt is an exception to the rule, but if a tang has been purposely bent to allow such mounting, I believe it is very likely that the hilt was fixed in that way in its place of origin.

It probably comes down to just how the hilt was fixed, and how it sat on the blade when moved to a normal position before the tang was straightened.

One other thing:- both of my keris that had hilts mounted in this way have blades that appear to share relevant characteristics with Freddy's blade, they are broad, have very stiff gonjos, and the kembang kacang is very internal. To me, they seem to be variations of the same type of blade. If we were talking tangguh---which I don't think we can with these types of blades---I'd be inclined to think they were candidates to be classified into the same tangguh.

Yes, I accept that in the case of Freddy's keris, we do not know its history, and no mention of the way in which it was secured is made. Maybe I was a little too positive in my previous remarks, however, although I could be wrong, I don't think I am.

Thanks for all your input, guys. :)

I don't believe the position of the grip on this keris was the original one. When I got it, it was too much bent towards the ganja to be held comfortably in one's hand.

It wasn't easy to get this grip loose from the peksi. But once I was able to take the keris apart, I can assure you that there was nothing with which the handle was secured to the peksi. No 'damar', cloth, paper or similar things.

Only the bent peksi 'secured' the grip. It seemed unnatural to me. Therefore I guess the peksi was bend some time ago. Perhaps it got stuck somewhere. :shrug:

Now, I'm trying out the best position (for me) for this grip. I'll show some pics when I figured this out.

There was no sheath with this keris. Does anyone know where it would be possible to get a proper sheath made ?

Alan, would the one you pictured be considered a chieftain's keris?

I do not know.

I had never heard of a "chieftain's keris" before I started to read posts to this forum.

Its an English language name, so I just don't know what it means.

I also do not know what a "chieftain" is in the cultural context of the people who would have originally generated these keris.

I strongly suspect it is a Singapore or Malaysian collector classification, rather than a cultural classification.

Perhaps one of our brothers from that area could enlighten us as to origin and meaning of the term?

at first to Allan again. Chieftain keris is as i see it know as a tribe elder or leader, head waroir. I heve read the same that those men had a keris with a large wranka fited for their status.

To Freddy, the missing of batik/hair or what ever, on the peksi as the bended peksi. Can be explained as it try to write before. Sulawesi bugis do twist off their hilt as a sight of good will. Like the sam custom as carrying a keris in the right hand an putting you left on your right wrist when shaking sombody's hand. Sulawesi bugis did not put their keris in a rack or stand when entering a hous or court.They just twist off the hilt, and the keris can not be used as a weapon but is stil with the owner.

I also found some pics in books showing the reversed hilt(Edward Frey/The Kris..pg67C/E, pg66E and pg68F bugis Sulawesi and Sumatra keris)(and David van Duren/The kris(dutch versoin)..pg89). I had a thought about what Allan said...using ropes..bugis/sulawesi..they were seamen the bugis. I tryed using the keris with reversed hilt, it can be used as a cutting/stabing weapon(cutting roppes?). The diffrence would be that it is more used as a short sword than as a dagger.



:) Regards

Yes Michel, that's the obvious interpretation of "chieftain".

Don't get me wrong:- I understand the word itself, I just have no idea of why this keris type is called this name, I also have no idea of exactly what a "chieftain" is in the cultural context of these societies.

If a Malay word were to be used to describe this type of keris, we would probably have a pretty good idea of exactly what was meant, and the relevant connotations, but "chieftain"?---sorry, I do not understand.

If it is true that the elites of some cultural group wore keris with a bigger than usual wrongko, can we identify the specific cultural group, persons permitted this style within the cultural group, location, time period, source of information,---etc, etc, etc? In other words:- what do we know and how do we know it?

Whenever we give an opinion on something, that opinion is usually based upon our experience. We might come to a particular conclusion after some years of observing various factors from various sources, and our experience can be of varying types, varying integrity, and varying durations. But when all is said and done, an opinion is just somebody's good guess. It could well be wrong. However, with this "chieftain" name tag, I see it recurring consistently, and I doubt that it is based on experience, but rather upon information from some source. The gap in my knowledge is that I do not know the source, and not knowing the source, I don't really understand what it means.

As for the reversed grip, as I have already stated, the ones I have handled with reversed grips were of the same type,and these grips were not easily removeable, both were firmly stuck in place with damar. Perhaps Freddy's keris grip was not stuck with damar, and perhaps its reversal was the result of some ill advised removal and replacement, but the fact remains that the blade type seems to fall within the same classification as my two that had reversed grips. I do most strongly believe that this grip reversal was a practice that was observed by some group of people at some time. Who, when, where, why, I cannot even guess.

Freddy, we dont called it Keris in Sulawesi. We called it Tappi or Sele but I prefer Tappi. IMHO your Tappi has Bugis Characters such as Pangulu (Handle), Wanua (Sheath) and Kili kili (Ring/Mendak). It is true what Alan said, there are some Tappi which have reversed Pangulu. In term of Watting (Paksi), yes they are always bend but not quite as bend as yours and most of the Watting slightly twisted at the edge. As far as why the watting always glued/sealed very hard? it is a tradition or so called belief that the 'Tuah' of the Tappi stayed inside the Watting therefore you can always show the blade to someone but never show the Watting. The same with Badik, Alameng, and Salaga they are always sealed.

I have always assumed that hilts were secured to the blades with damar when they were to be used for fighting to make sure that they do not become separated in the heat of battle. :shrug:

True indeed, apart from that there is also mystical factor. Thank you for adding.

Hi all,

I attach pictures of 2 Bugis kerises from my collection - one Straits Bugis, prob from the Peninsula side, and one Sulawesi Bugis. Both have pretty straight/unbent peksi (in Malay terminology). You could use a ruler to verify the centre line of each peksi remains true from ganja to the end the peksi. I should have some more Bugis kerises from various locations with pretty straight peksi.

However, I have also seen many Bugis kerises with bent peksi.

On the point about chieftain kerises, I cannot pinpoint where I first heard the about it. I do hear my Malay collector friends call such kerises "keris penghulu", which I understand to mean village headman or a chief of sorts. I see the term "chieftain" as a convenient tag to identify such types of Bugis kerises in the Peninsular/Sumatran context, defined by big sampir, broad batang, and typically a short but broad 7-waved Bugis blade. These kerises seemed to be a Peninsular/Sumatran construct, and not found in Sulawesi.

In the Peninsular/Sumatran Bugis context, the bigger the size of the sampir, the higher the status of the wearer. There seemed to be no fixed rule as to how big or small it should be for any given social standing of the chief, and I suppose much depends on the economic wellbeing of the keris owner. That said, I don't see any of this "chieftain" kerises as being really really high class. The epitome of Bugis keris in the Peninsular/Sumatran context is probably the golden keris on the cover of Court Arts of Indonesia, from the Riau-Lingga empire, if I remember correctly. That keris has a normal-sized sampir covered in finely chased gold. I suppose the "chieftain" keris could be a phenomenon amongst the "village head" level of people.

On the orientation of the hilt, even if the few specimens here have had their hilts fixed sideways with resin, it may not prove that it is the 'correct' way, I feel. I turn my Bugis keris hilts that way myself all the time - when I am storing them. I'm not saying that this is the reason for these keris hilts to turn up like that in the original context, but surely for practical reasons, the hilt has to be turned to face forward again when necessary? And as pointed out, turning the hilt sideways could have been to signify a non-aggressive stance, or perhaps it made sense for sea-faring Bugis not to have the hilt get in the way. So perhaps there are a few ways of positioning the hilt, and the correctness of either position may not be that important.

Please could you tell me how long are these blades with reverse hilts?

Thanks.

J

The length of the blade on the keris I have posted a photo of is 11.5 inches.

The other keris in my possession that had a reverse grip has a blade that is a fraction shorter than this.

Thank you Kai Wee for clarifying this "chieftain" terminology. I think that I now might have some small understanding of what is meant by the term.

I thank you also for bringing to my attention a defect in my recent attitude towards posts made to this discussion group.

I have slipped into the habit of making posts in much the same manner that I would adopt if I were to be engaged in casual conversation with a group of friends. During the last 24 hours it has been most forcibly brought to my attention by events which have occurred outside this discussion group, that it is a great mistake to adopt an on-line persona that reflects one's personal approach and character.

I will take a step back, and try to avoid such a relaxed manner in future.

In respect of this current thread, I will attempt to correct some of the statements I have made, and rephrase them in more precise language.

Post of 18th November:-

Quote:- "I believe that the original position of the grip on this keris was correct."

This is very poorly phrased.
If I had wanted to use the word "correct", I should have defined the concept of "correct" in this context. I did not, and the result is a statement that can be read in many ways, resulting in a misunderstanding of the idea I wished to convey.

The idea I wished to convey was that in its place of origin, it was highly probable that the hilt had been reversed by a owner or user of this keris, who was indigenous to that location.

I apologise for any misunderstanding caused by my poor use of my native language.

Quote:- "The tang on these Bugis type keris nearly always seems to be bent to some degree, I doubt that I have ever pulled a keris of the generic Bugis type apart and found it with a straight tang---"

Again, a poorly constructed and imprecise, not to say contradictory statement.I have attempted to encapsulate two opposing ideas into the same construct.

I should have written something like this:- "My experience gained from handling many Bugis type keris over many years indicates that in most cases the tang is bent to greater or lesser degree."

This morning I have checked a sample of 19 of these keris; I have found that in 16 keris the tang has some degree of bend , in three keris the tang could be considered to be straight.

One thing that Kai Wee has highlighted very effectively is the question of the meaning of "correct".

Exactly what does "correct" mean in the context of hilt orientation?

I would propose that in fact, there is no overall "correct" hilt orientation, without a corresponding definition of context.

Thus, in the case of "correct" orientation of a hilt on a keris to be worn in a court environment, that "correctness" would reflect the requirements of this environment.

In the case of "correct" orientation of a keris to be used as weapon, that "correctness" would reflect the personal preferences of the user.

Again I apologise for any misunderstandings caused by my relaxed attitude.

Maybe there is a very simple explanation to all this? Reverse hilt = reverse grip?

http://www.survivalsheath.com/knives...s/icepick2.jpg

http://www.nikhef.nl/~tonvr/keris/ke...es/kerism4.jpg

Please do note: both pics are hotlinked to websites which hold rights for these pictures.

Thanks,

J.

Jussi, have you ever tried holding this type of keris hilt in this manner. Besides, i have serious doubts that the bugis keris in question would ever be used in an overhand stabbing action like the one shown in the relief. :)

What I have done or have not done is irrelevant David. What is relevant however is that ancient people - so I believe - did not fight with weapons. - They fought with their fighting art and used the weapons only as an extension of their art. Take for example old Western and South East Asian wood workers; surely some of their tools were similar to each other but they surely also had in some ways different methods of using those tools which makes comparing them the same as comparing apples to oranges.

Same thing here - if one has no understanding of the methodology of how weapons were used on a culture at a given time how can one make claims on whether a weapon is good or not or why a weapon is shaped the way it is? I have a pretty hard time to accept that a tiny little keris is used on the same manner as a big one. It just is´nt very logical. Also it is good to remember that there were big differences on the fighting systems found in the Indonesian archipelago and even on some found on the same areas (so I´ve read). If there are big differences it isnt logical to assume that all those systems used weapons on the same manner either; not to mention the circumstances must also have played a part on shaping the ways weapons were used.

Take ancient Japan for example. The warriors had two swords; one long and one short. Why? - because in constricted space (like on a vessel on our case?) a long blade was not very usable hence it was used only outdoors whereas the shorter one was used inside and on situations where space was constricted.

Lets face it: more or less none here - myself included - have a clue of how the keris was actually used and whether there were different ways of using it (this I believe). We all have a bias that it is used X whereas the truth may very well have been Y, Z or something in between. And it may also have been that one mans Z was at another situation X as just like tools can be used on various ways depending on the situation at hand so can weapons: a rifle is a rifle yes but you can make devastating blows with it choose you to do so.

The relief pictured is from a time when these weapons were actually used, and used a lot. Saying that it isnt a truthful portrayal of how some (the pictured) were worn and used makes little sense from the standpoint of November 2008 as no-one from this forum was witnessing the events that took place when that carving was made.

Instead of us all having strong opinions we maybe should accept that we really dont know and form new hypothesis to broaden our views on how things might of have been. We dont learn new things by clinging ourselves to old ideas but by challenging the status quo and finding new layers of understanding beneath the surface clouded by of our biases :o

Thanks,

J

Hi Jussi,

I have to take the opposing view here. Human fighting arts evolved with and around the weapons they had to use. I think we can all subscribe to the notion that different weapons have their own best strokes. To use an extreme example, you really don't want to use a rapier the same way you'd use an axe. Now, some arts, primarily but not exclusively in the East, have an ideal set of moves, and use those moves with all sorts of weapons. This is your idea of "fighting with an art." I have seen this taken to extremes, where (for instance) a chinese tiger fork is used with to chop with like a guando, even though it doesn't have a sharp edge.

On the other side are the functional types who figure out the best strokes with the weapon, and then built their art bottom-up from this. This is the way most weapon arts develop, I think. There are, of course, arts where technique and philosophy mix.

I'd also like to point out that culture matters here. To go back to the samurai, I'd point out that they carried the daisho (long and short combination) primarily because the two swords were the badge of the samurai in Tokugawa Japan, by the Shogun's fiat, not by custom. Yes, the wakizashi works better in close quarters, but the thing is, prior to the Tokugawa shogunate, many samurai carried a tanto instead of a wakizashi, and did so on the battlefield. In this case, we're grafting a functional explanation onto what was basically a legislative act.

So far as the keris goes, I have no idea whether it can be held in an icepick grip, although it would be fun to find out. Equally, it could be that this blade was the equivalent of a man's necktie, worn not for physical utility but because it was part of his normal clothing. The handle was twisted out of the way, either to make it easier to wear (as Alan suggested), and it may also have signaled that the owner wasn't interested in getting into a knife fight.

My 0.0002 cents,

F

Go ahead, make my day! :D

Neither of us was there to witness how fighting arts really evolved but your point sounds logical to me. What I dont agree however is your example regarding rapier and axe. - Of course no one would want to use a rapier like an axe or vice versa as they are not functional on each others roles. A short keris however is very functional in both the common way of grabbing it as well as held on an ice pick grip. Norman Bates proved this on Alfred Hitchcocks Psycho when he used a kitchen knife of the same length as the Bugis kerises discussed on this thread on the nice blond.

Maybe, maybe not.

Equally to the example of feodal Japan yes, the keris was a part of attire and there were customs that were more or less strictly obeyed. However if anything the people of ancient were practical. - They had to be as being a good problem solver and practical at what one did was the key to survival. Hence custom or not I have a hard time believing that if some guy at some place decided that grabbing a smaller keris on a reverse grip was a good idea for survival on a physical bout he wouldnt have modified the grip to suit his style of using the blade.

I said this before but I will repeat what I said: not all systems had similar views on what was the best way of using a weapon. Different systems differ on their emphasis on range, ratio between hitting, kicking, grappling what´ll have you - all that stuff. A man with a background in a system leaning heavily towards being on the ground and grappling surely had a different way of looking at things than say a guy with a background on keeping the fight on upright position with lots of hitting like, say, boxing. - And, just like youd grab a hammer closer to the head when you are hammering small nails that bent easily and grab it from the very end to get more momentum via the longer range of motion for those 2X4 nails when you are building a fence, maybe some fighters of old used different methods of getting the work done with the same tool depending on the situation at hand. - Like nails not all opponents were alike either nor equipped likewise what come to hardware.

Both rapier and axe are very limited in the ways they can be used. Not necessarily so with a small keris. Ask Norman, he knows :D

http://www.libertyfilmfestival.com/l...cho_shot5l.jpg

To get serious again I cannot see any reasons why a small keris could not be used on this manner. I think this is a question that may be worthy of a serious discussion.

Thanks,

J

Unless he never intended to use the keris as a weapon; merely as a cultural symbol where all are expected to conform .

When all go armed in a society; maybe there are customs we have no idea about .

Maybe these backward handled keris were expressly made for social gatherings . :shrug:

Possible but unlikely in my opinion as many men at that time had no money to spend of different kerises for different parties. Also why use the adhesive if not to make sure the hilt stays put on the blade? So far I havent heard of a single keris like this which has not had it´s hilt attached firmly to the peksi.

Well ... that would prevent the handle from being re-oriented into a more dangerous position; wouldn't it . :)

Forgive me Jussi, you seem to have taken some kind of offense from my posting. I can assure you that it was not intended that way.
What i was attempting to point out, and why what you have or have not done is indeed relevant to this question, is that the shape of the hilt on the keris in question makes the "ice pick" grip just a little bit awkward. This is why i asked you if you had ever tried holding it that way, because as examples of your point you presented an ice pick, not a keris with this style hilt.
Also, the butcher knife which Norman Bates uses in the movie (and this is just a movie, not real life) is not a keris either. So no Jussi, Norman doesn't know. He never comes near a keris in the movie. This grip would not be nearly as comfortable with a keris with this style of handle. Form follows function. Holding a keris with this style hilt almost demands a rather specific grip. If you hold the keris with this grip it becomes obvious how one can move and fight with this weapon.
BTW, the blade shown in the relief is not a keris, at least not as we know the keris today. It can and has been argued to be a kind of proto-keris buda, but it is not the same weapon as the keris up for discussion in this thread. It also does not have the same style of hilt as the keris that is up for discussion so i do not find the comparison all that helpful.
Lastly, even if this relief were relevant you can not always trust art to provide an accurate descriptions of ancient warfare. If so we would have to conclude that the Spartans went into battle bare-ass naked which is nothing more than an idealized artist's rendition of the perfected Spartan, not the logical nor historical account of Spartan battle methods. So no, i do not believe that this relief necessarily shows us a "truthful portrayal" of how even this proto-keris weapon was used, though it is indeed possible that this overhand stab was one of the ways to use it. Frankly though, from a purely martial perspective, i find the overhand stab to be ineffective in most cases and opens up the entire mid-section of the assailant to easy counter-attack. It is also easily blocked.
Jussi, i am not personally clinging to old ideas here. What i am doing is taking the keris in hand and actually trying to use it in different ways to see what the most logical and effective grip and form of attack actually is. No, i was not there and neither my conclusion nor you own will ever be conclusive. But i am not merely following the status quo either.

Hi All,

One point of clarification, what I meant to say when I asked whether "the keris" could be held in an icepick grip was whether this particular keris could be held in an icepick grip, as David already asked. If it can't be held reversed, then that's not the explanation for the orientation of the hilt.

As for the non-functional blade explanation, I believe that there are plenty of non-functional modern keris, including specimens that are a handle attached to a sheath. It's similar to a man's neck tie. It used to be for keeping your neck warm, and now it's mostly symbolic. If you think about it, wearing a winter scarf over a necktie is goofy from the functional perspective, but it is normal behavior in western society when it's cold.

As for the utility of the reversed grip, I'm not a knife fighter, but I've certainly seen the arguments for and against. So far as I can tell, you can use the icepick very effectively, at least with a short blade. Do a google search on "Piper knife" if you want to see a very scary South African knife fighting system that uses the icepick grip almost exclusively. You can also use a knife in a sword grip quite effectively too. It's mostly a question of what range you want to fight at, and the icepick comes into its own when you're close in.

Be that as it may, the question on this particular blade is whether it can be held in a functional way, reversed grip or not. If it cannot be held comfortably in any grip (and do check the left-handed grips too), then we should be talking about non-functional explanations.

F