Symbolism of Bali Cecekahan handle?

[A. G. Maisey]

The first two hilts I have shown are not conventional cekah solas:- the first one has 27 notches, I do not have the patience to count how many the second one has. The first with 27 notches also has five notches at its top back, and a double wideng on each face.

The other five hilts I have shown could be called conventional cekah solas.

Three have no notches at the top back.

One has six notches, and these notches are not of a uniform nature.

One I do not own and I do not know how many notches it has.

Statistically this is an insignificant sample, however it is sufficient a sample to demonstrate that the presence and number of notches is not consistent in this type of hilt.

I do not know the reason for the presence of these notches when they do exist, and I doubt that anybody now does know. All we can do is to guess, and any guesses we make will be virtually impossible to support with any kind of convincing argument.

I do not like making this sort of guess, as I believe that guesses, theories, hypotheses and ideas that cannot be supported with either evidence or a logical argument are simply time wasters and non-productive.

However, with the disclaimer that what I will now say in respect of these features found in some Balinese hilts is only the spouting of empty words and an indulgence in the spirit of fun, I here offer a suggestion:-

the Balinese keris is worn at the back, with the top of the keris sitting high above the shoulder, this places the hilt of the keris in a very obvious and easily seen position; I suggest that these notches could be an indication of either rank or cast.

Similarly, the wideng ( that small scroll-like engraving adjacent to the notches) could perhaps also be indicative of rank. A wideng on a Javanese wrongko was the prerogative of the sons and grandsons of the ruler, a similar purpose could have existed in Bali.

Regarding the grip used with the Balinese keris.

I have never seen an old photo of a Balinese man gripping a keris where that keris was gripped in the fencer's grip as in Jawa.

Every example of keris grip that I have seen has been of the entire hilt gripped firmly, often with the first joint of the index finger anchored against the top of the gonjo, as in the photo posted by Rick. My own experimentation with gripping Balinese keris has demonstrated to my satisfaction that in general the Javanese fencer grip is not suitable for use with a Balinese keris.

There is something that should be noted about the basic difference between Balinese and Javanese attitudes. Historically the Javanese tended towards gentility and refinement, even if this was often only feigned. On the other hand, the Balinese from very early times up to very recent times (C1910) were regarded as rough, unruly, dangerous and murderous, often given to quick fits of temper. Back in the 19th century Kuta was a den of criminals and cut throats ( maybe things haven't changed all that much).

Translating this cultural variation into the gripping of a keris, it is easy to see the delicate Javanese grip as a reflection of societal attitude, and the firm grip employed with the Balinese keris as a reflection of that society's attitudes.

There can be no doubt that the keris is an object that is very subject to symbolic interpretation. Some of this symbolism can be supported, some is simply fantasy. When we begin to attempt to provide a symbolic interpretation, or a reason, for any feature noted in the keris, we first need to place that interpretation within a time frame. This is particularly true of the Javanese keris, where symbolic --- and philosophical --- interpretation has changed over time, and in fact is still developing.

[David]

While searching for images of Balinese actually holding drawn keris i came across this hilt which seems a different form from the cecekahan hilt but incorporates the same "accordian" notches.
I was not at all successful finding images of the grip on unsheathed Bali keris, other than dancers stabbing themselves in the Barong dance. Alan if you have some i would love to see them. I do concede that the "fencers" grip is not very practical, though i do have 3 small bondalan hilts where it is very comfortable to use. Most Bali hilts are too large though. My original point however was to point out that these 5 (or 6) straight notches at the back of the "head" have nothing to do with getting a better grip on the hilt regardless of how you hold it.
I must disagree that looking for theories is a useless exercise. Claiming any unproven theory as fact would indeed be misleading, but throwing around theories can help to stimulate the thought process and can sometimes lead us to unexpected realizations. If i don't know the answer to something i cannot see any benefit to not discussing the possibilities of it. IMO we are here to discuss keris, not necessarily to have or even find all the answers about them. Sometimes that journey can be more insightful than the destination itself. I see no waste of time in such discussions as long as the argument do not become circular in nature.

[Gustav]

Grip and cecekahan in one picture

[David]

Ah yes, thanks Gustav. This was one i was already familiar with.

[asomotif]

And a very "moving"picture of the grip when you try to stab yourself.

[A. G. Maisey]

I don't have any pics I can show you David. I've seen pics over the years, but they have been in various books, some I own, some I don't, and since this is something that doesn't interest me very much, I do not keep records of where they are.

I agree that the little notches at the back would have almost no impact at all on grip.

As for discussion.

A theory is a supposition, or a system of ideas that has been constructed to explain something. We do not ever need to prove a theory:- if we can prove it, it is no longer a theory.

However, when we propose a theory we should be able to support that theory with a logical argument, or with evidence. As noted, we do not need to prove it, but we should be able to come up with some convincing and above all logical arguments to support our ideas.

We are not in academia here, this is just an open discussion amongst friends, so perhaps we do not need to be as strict as might be the case in an academic setting, however, as in any subject, there can be varying levels of knowledge held by the participants in the discussion.

In the situation in which we find ourselves, that is, an online discussion group that is populated by people of various nations, various ages, various levels of knowledge, and for the most part using names other than their own names, we have absolutely no way of knowing the level of authority with which any contributor speaks.

Moreover, the discussion that takes place is open to observation by many people across the globe who never take part in any discussion.

Now, factor in the friendly, non-confrontational nature of discussion that does take place here. We all put our views, and are almost never called upon to support those views. Thus, our discussions generate a lot of opinions, but very few supportable theories. What we have is a "good ideas club".

I'm not criticising this. Its a friendly atmosphere, quite unlike some other on-line discussion groups, we don't seem to have any abrasive personalities --- the ones who have appeared from time to time have gone elsewhere to exercise their egos when they found that they could not get a fight.

But the very positive factors that have formed the nature of our discussion group are also negatives in any search for expanded understanding.

All of these factors operating together have, I believe, the potential to create a situation where somebody's "good idea" can be taken up by members of the community who access these pages and before long be turned into accepted wisdom, but wisdom that cannot be supported.

I am not arguing for change. We have a friendly , social group. I like it that way. I can get enough argument and confrontation in other aspects of my life, I do not want it in something that I see as one of my areas of relaxation.

But let us not delude ourselves that our friendly exchange of good ideas is contributing to a better understanding of the keris.

If we want that better understanding to become reality, then the "good ideas" are going to have to become more structured and be supported by logic or evidence.

If we do this, then we might be able to generate some theories.

If we do not, then what we have is friendly, social intercourse.

Which, I agree, is not a waste of time, but it is not productive in fostering a better understanding founded in reality.

[A. G. Maisey]

Where do notches stop, and checkering begin?