The Size of the Keris

[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.