The Size of the Keris

Gustav · 9th April 2016, 12:11 PM

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 · 9th April 2016, 01:49 PM

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 · 9th April 2016, 02:03 PM

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 · 9th April 2016, 07:56 PM

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 · 9th April 2016, 08:17 PM

Quote:

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 · 9th April 2016, 10:15 PM

Quote:

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 · 10th April 2016, 12:30 AM

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 · 10th April 2016, 05:53 AM

Quote:

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?

A. G. Maisey · 10th April 2016, 08:01 AM

David, I do not believe that there is only one reason for the variation in keris size, so when I point at Marius' "big man = big keris" proposition, I am not saying that this is the only reason through all time and in all places that will explain why some keris are long, and some keris are short.

As I wrote in an earlier post:-

" I agree that we need to look at this question of size whilst bearing in mind the geographic location involved, the time in history, and the people involved. In other words, whatever we might think a valid reason for size variation might be, that reason needs to be related to the place, time and people involved."

However, in one place during an extended period of time, the size, and very probably the form of the keris does seem to have been directly related to the hierarchical position of the person in that society.

That place was Bali, and the period probably extended over several hundred years.

The very nature of Balinese society dictated that a man of the Sudra caste could not elevate himself in any way above a man of a higher caste, however, there were/are hierarchical divisions even within the Sudra caste, so within that group alone, some people may sit in a higher position than others.

Within the Triwangsa (Brahmana, K'satriya, Wesia) there is a very fine distinction of hierarchical position, and that position may not always depend upon present societal position, but rather upon descent. This whole area of hierarchical position in Bali is extremely complicated, and I doubt that many people understand it fully. However, what is perfectly obvious is that the system does exist and is recognised.

Thus, those who can trace their ancestry back to the settlers from Majapahit do not wear small keris in a formal situation, and a Sudra who is a descendent of the indigenous Balinese population does not wear keris of a length suitable for royalty, on a formal occasion.

The keris represents its custodian, and in some circumstances, all of the present custodian's forebears. One dare not either pretend or fail to take one's due position in such a situation.

So why do we not now often see smaller Balinese keris?

I would suggest that perhaps we see quite a few more of them than we might realise. It is a little known fact that dealers from Jawa travelled regularly to Bali during late colonial times, and indeed right through into the 1980's and bought Javanese size Balinese keris which were taken back to Jawa and turned into Javanese keris. No, I'm not on a flight of fancy. This is fact.

There is something else that we need to be aware of too. Even though it seems to be probable that most Balinese men would have owned a keris prior to the beginning of the 20th century, it is absolutely certain that not all Balinese men could afford to commission a new Balinese style keris from a Balinese pande. They very often used Javanese keris, and in fact, still do. The Culture Police who patrol and keep order during festivals and celebrations are nearly always equipped with Javanese keris in gayaman dress, these keris for the most part are owned by the banjars and lent out to the police for the duration of the event.

For myself, I'm quite content with the "big man = big keris" idea when thinking of Bali, but as for Blambangan, Banten, Tuban and the related big keris, I doubt that we can apply the same ideas.

Blambangan existed at the same time as Majapahit and followed on directly from Majapahit, and the smiths who migrated along the North Coast and finished up in Banten, began their migration in Blambangan. At the same time, and through the same gateway, there were migrations to Bali, and highly ranked Balinese keris were of similar size, but differing style, to the large Javanese keris of the same period.

Then we have the rather unique position of Blambangan in that it was the last of old Hindu-Jawa polities and held out for a very long time against attacks of Javanese rulers who attempted to bring it into the Muslim fold. Balinese rulers regarded Blambangan as a buffer zone between Bali and Jawa, and they also tried to gain control of Blambangan. From memory, I think the raja of Buleleng finally gained Blambangan in about 1697. Later, control went back to Jawa, then the the Dutch had control. It is not like the rest of Jawa, and the language spoken is also not much like Javanese but more influenced by Bali.

Because of this long period of conflict and attempted invasions by the Javanese and Balinese, perhaps it could be that the keris in Blambangan developed into a weapon of the first rank, rather than a subsidiary weapon, and thus became larger. Although Gustav believes that a large keris is not really suitable as a weapon, I would suggest that this only applies where the keris is used in the rather surreptitious manner of the Javanese and some other societies. Where it is used as an actual sword, rather than a dagger used in an oblique fashion, a long blade is clearly an advantage over a short blade.

I do not at this time have any supportable answers for the big Jawa keris. It may have been related to hierarchical position, or it may not have been. Hierarchical position through the keris is shown in much more subtle ways in Jawa than by the rather obvious symbolism of size. Although, in Jawa size also does have a role to play, and that is in the keris worn by boys, young men, and women, which are of varying sizes, all smaller than a full size Javanese keris.

My lack of answers is what generated my questions. Sometimes one can be standing too close to something for too long and fail to notice the obvious.

More suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

9th April 2016, 02:03 PM	#3
Sajen Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Germany, Dortmund Posts: 9,207	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. Attached Images

9th April 2016, 07:56 PM	#4
mariusgmioc Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Austria Posts: 1,911	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? Last edited by mariusgmioc; 9th April 2016 at 08:34 PM.

9th April 2016, 12:11 PM	#1
Gustav Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,280	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.

9th April 2016, 01:49 PM	#2
Jean Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,740	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

10th April 2016, 12:30 AM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,015	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.

10th April 2016, 08:01 AM	#9
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,015	David, I do not believe that there is only one reason for the variation in keris size, so when I point at Marius' "big man = big keris" proposition, I am not saying that this is the only reason through all time and in all places that will explain why some keris are long, and some keris are short. As I wrote in an earlier post:- " I agree that we need to look at this question of size whilst bearing in mind the geographic location involved, the time in history, and the people involved. In other words, whatever we might think a valid reason for size variation might be, that reason needs to be related to the place, time and people involved." However, in one place during an extended period of time, the size, and very probably the form of the keris does seem to have been directly related to the hierarchical position of the person in that society. That place was Bali, and the period probably extended over several hundred years. The very nature of Balinese society dictated that a man of the Sudra caste could not elevate himself in any way above a man of a higher caste, however, there were/are hierarchical divisions even within the Sudra caste, so within that group alone, some people may sit in a higher position than others. Within the Triwangsa (Brahmana, K'satriya, Wesia) there is a very fine distinction of hierarchical position, and that position may not always depend upon present societal position, but rather upon descent. This whole area of hierarchical position in Bali is extremely complicated, and I doubt that many people understand it fully. However, what is perfectly obvious is that the system does exist and is recognised. Thus, those who can trace their ancestry back to the settlers from Majapahit do not wear small keris in a formal situation, and a Sudra who is a descendent of the indigenous Balinese population does not wear keris of a length suitable for royalty, on a formal occasion. The keris represents its custodian, and in some circumstances, all of the present custodian's forebears. One dare not either pretend or fail to take one's due position in such a situation. So why do we not now often see smaller Balinese keris? I would suggest that perhaps we see quite a few more of them than we might realise. It is a little known fact that dealers from Jawa travelled regularly to Bali during late colonial times, and indeed right through into the 1980's and bought Javanese size Balinese keris which were taken back to Jawa and turned into Javanese keris. No, I'm not on a flight of fancy. This is fact. There is something else that we need to be aware of too. Even though it seems to be probable that most Balinese men would have owned a keris prior to the beginning of the 20th century, it is absolutely certain that not all Balinese men could afford to commission a new Balinese style keris from a Balinese pande. They very often used Javanese keris, and in fact, still do. The Culture Police who patrol and keep order during festivals and celebrations are nearly always equipped with Javanese keris in gayaman dress, these keris for the most part are owned by the banjars and lent out to the police for the duration of the event. For myself, I'm quite content with the "big man = big keris" idea when thinking of Bali, but as for Blambangan, Banten, Tuban and the related big keris, I doubt that we can apply the same ideas. Blambangan existed at the same time as Majapahit and followed on directly from Majapahit, and the smiths who migrated along the North Coast and finished up in Banten, began their migration in Blambangan. At the same time, and through the same gateway, there were migrations to Bali, and highly ranked Balinese keris were of similar size, but differing style, to the large Javanese keris of the same period. Then we have the rather unique position of Blambangan in that it was the last of old Hindu-Jawa polities and held out for a very long time against attacks of Javanese rulers who attempted to bring it into the Muslim fold. Balinese rulers regarded Blambangan as a buffer zone between Bali and Jawa, and they also tried to gain control of Blambangan. From memory, I think the raja of Buleleng finally gained Blambangan in about 1697. Later, control went back to Jawa, then the the Dutch had control. It is not like the rest of Jawa, and the language spoken is also not much like Javanese but more influenced by Bali. Because of this long period of conflict and attempted invasions by the Javanese and Balinese, perhaps it could be that the keris in Blambangan developed into a weapon of the first rank, rather than a subsidiary weapon, and thus became larger. Although Gustav believes that a large keris is not really suitable as a weapon, I would suggest that this only applies where the keris is used in the rather surreptitious manner of the Javanese and some other societies. Where it is used as an actual sword, rather than a dagger used in an oblique fashion, a long blade is clearly an advantage over a short blade. I do not at this time have any supportable answers for the big Jawa keris. It may have been related to hierarchical position, or it may not have been. Hierarchical position through the keris is shown in much more subtle ways in Jawa than by the rather obvious symbolism of size. Although, in Jawa size also does have a role to play, and that is in the keris worn by boys, young men, and women, which are of varying sizes, all smaller than a full size Javanese keris. My lack of answers is what generated my questions. Sometimes one can be standing too close to something for too long and fail to notice the obvious. More suggestions would be greatly appreciated.