The Size of the Keris

[A. G. Maisey]

In this thread:-

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=21265

Jean presented a small keris for comment, and several comments were made , it was decided that it was probably correct to call it a keris patrem, and that keris patrem were usually accepted as keris that were intended to be worn by women.

I believe that all this is true, however, when I reflect on this idea of the size of a keris I find that although we might be accustomed to thinking of Javanese keris as being of a certain size, Balinese of being of another size, keris from outside the keris heartlands as being of another size, in fact, there is a great deal of variation in keris size.

Similarly, there may be many reasons as to the why and where of keris size.

Bugis style keris can sometimes be quite short.

Apart from the seldom seen Javanese keris panjang, some Javanese keris are very big.

Balinese keris, particularly older ones, are often quite small.

Comments and personal experience of this variation in keris size would be most welcome

[Jean]

Hello Alan,
I attach my contribution with 3 unusually sized krisses:
. A typical large kris from Cirebon or the pesisir (blade lenght 47.5 cm).
. A relatively small balinese kris (blade lenght 36.5 cm, it has typical balinese features, however it may have been forged in Java or Madura).
. A small Minangkabau kris (blade lenght 22 cm). These krisses are often attributed to women but I saw several pics of such krisses worn by Minangkabau grooms.
Best regards

[David]

My shortest Bali keris is about 12.5 inches (31.75 cm). I am fairly certain this blade is of Bali origin. It also seems to be a fairly old blade. While this is certainly not short enough to qualify as a patrem by Javanese standards it is quite short for what we have come to know in Balinese keris. I doubt, however, that this keris was created for either a woman or a child. It is dressed in a full size painted Bali sheath that could accommodate a blade of much larger size, i image so that it can be worn in the traditional manner of Bali up the back with the hilt rising above the shoulder.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by David

My shortest Bali keris is about 12.5 inches (31.75 cm). I am fairly certain this blade is of Bali origin. It also seems to be a fairly old blade. While this is certainly not short enough to qualify as a patrem by Javanese standards it is quite short for what we have come to know in Balinese keris. I doubt, however, that this keris was created for either a woman or a child. It is dressed in a full size painted Bali sheath that could accommodate a blade of much larger size, i image so that it can be worn in the traditional manner of Bali up the back with the hilt rising above the shoulder.

Hi David,
Could we see this blade please? Otherwise we won't trust you that it is Balinese...
This subject of the origin of the short Bali/ Lombok blades (I mean less than about 15 inches), whether they are Javanese/ Madurese or not, in old Mahapahit style, etc., is a very difficult and interesting one. I have several such blades which I am unable to properly qualify.
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks for your comments Jean and David.

Yes, North Coast Jawa/Tuban keris were often pretty "super-size", and Balinese keris, especially old ones, were frequently the size of Javanese keris, or even smaller.

The photo I've posted is of a display in the Den Pasar Museum. You can see a couple of Bali keris of the size that we think of when we think of Bali keris, and another very much smaller keris.

The smallest Bali keris I have is 17.5" (445mm.) overall, and with an 8.4" (212mm.) blade. 5 luk., it is definitely Balinese and definitely old, I estimate probably pre-1800.

I do have a number of other Balinese keris that are about the size of Javanese keris, and I have a few big Tuban keris.

I used to have two Balinese keris that were only about 8" to 10" overall.

So, I think we've established that there can be wide variation in keris size.

But does anybody have any suggestions as to why this variation in size may have occurred?

[David]

Originally Posted by Jean

Hi David,
Could we see this blade please? Otherwise we won't trust you that it is Balinese...
This subject of the origin of the short Bali/ Lombok blades (I mean less than about 15 inches), whether they are Javanese/ Madurese or not, in old Mahapahit style, etc., is a very difficult and interesting one. I have several such blades which I am unable to properly qualify.
Regards

My deepest regrets Jean, but i am afraid you're just going to have to trust me on this one. The vast majority of my keris blades i choose not to post in public forums on as a matter of principle. While that sometimes causes me a twinge of guilt when others are so free with their postings, it is still my personal stance on the matter and not one i wish to change at this point. Whenever i have broken this rule i have always had regrets on that decision afterwards. So my humble apologies.
I can show you one image that shows the top of the blade in the sheath, but i am not sure it will satisfy your curiosity. However you might be able to at least see that it is not the meaty Bali keris we are most used to.
If this blade was not made in Bali it is probably from Lombok. It does not look like anything i have ever seen from Jawa or Madura and has clear Balinese indicators.

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

But does anybody have any suggestions as to why this variation in size may have occurred?

This is a good question Alan. With my example it does not seem to be intended for either a woman or a child. The dress, which as you can see, is also old (though probably not as old as the blade ) is full size Bali dress, made large so that the keris can be worn in the tradition manner of Bali. I doubt this dress would have been made for either a woman or a boy.
I suppose that an area that could be explored is one of iron sources or scarcity. Is it possible that at certain times in certain places the availability of good iron was less than at other times when larger blades were made?
Of course this doesn't really approach the issue of larger Javanese keris such as North Coast Tuban blades. Obviously there was no iron shortage at that time and for some reason the tastes at that time and that place were for a larger blade style. Were the Tubans trying to compensate for something?

[Jean]

Originally Posted by David

My deepest regrets Jean, but i am afraid you're just going to have to trust me on this one. The vast majority of my keris blades i choose not to post in public forums on as a matter of principle. While that sometimes causes me a twinge of guilt when others are so free with their postings, it is still my personal stance on the matter and not one i wish to change at this point. Whenever i have broken this rule i have always had regrets on that decision afterwards. So my humble apologies.
I can show you one image that shows the top of the blade in the sheath, but i am not sure it will satisfy your curiosity. However you might be able to at least see that it is not the meaty Bali keris we are most used to.
If this blade was not made in Bali it is probably from Lombok. It does not look like anything i have ever seen from Jawa or Madura and has clear Balinese indicators.

Hi David,
Thank you for your picture and it tells quite a lot actually.
Regards

[Jean]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

But does anybody have any suggestions as to why this variation in size may have occurred?

Hello Alan,
A very difficult question but few suggestions:
. Small amulet krisses worn by dukuns for convenience.
. Patrem krisses worn by women or children.
. Large warrior krisses.
. Worn-out and re-used krisses like this one.
Regards

[Gustav]

The questions are Where, When and Who.

Generally - big man = big Keris.

I am also interested in this question in Javanese context (1500-1600).

My idea at the moment is, that in the 1500ties there are should be some amount of very big, beefy blades, which are quite impractical as weapons. So I think, I can not agree with the "romantic" idea of big Keris as "Warriors Keris", if this idea includes the practical use of such Keris. As Alan pointed out, Keris Bugis are often normal or smaller size, and Bugis are perhaps the last people, who apparently used Keris as weapon.

During the 1600ties the size of Keris has diminished, and perhaps it could be so due to growing influence of Central Javanese court of Mataram/stratification of society.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks for your thoughts Gustav.

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 related to the place, time and people involved.

This being so , and since we are at this point only floating ideas, I feel that perhaps we should not argue either in favour or against any idea at all, at this point:- just pick up the ideas and throw them onto the table. When we have the ideas we might perhaps be able to fit them into a context and perhaps begin to understand the reasons for the variations.

My own ideas about this range over availability of material, societal hierarchy, personal wealth, physical size of a wearer, dress style, societal attitudes, personal status, influence from outside the society --- these are things that come readily to mind.

Certainly there must be other factors that we have not yet mentioned.

So what other ideas can we throw onto the table to consider?

[Jean]

Originally Posted by Gustav

My idea at the moment is, that in the 1500ties there are should be some amount of very big, beefy blades, which are quite impractical as weapons. So I think, I can not agree with the "romantic" idea of big Keris as "Warriors Keris", if this idea includes the practical use of such Keris. As Alan pointed out, Keris Bugis are often normal or smaller size, and Bugis are perhaps the last people, who apparently used Keris as weapon.

During the 1600ties the size of Keris has diminished, and perhaps it could be so due to growing influence of Central Javanese court of Mataram/stratification of society.

Hello Gustav,
Is this big, beefy blade (attributed to Blambangan or Banten?) as old as the 1500ties (16th century) in your opinion?
Regards

[Gustav]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[David]

Thank Alan, for a very informative post.

[Gustav]

[QUOTE=A. G. Maisey]

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.

QUOTE]

Alan, I can assure you, that in the land of Java the symbolism of length of Keris was an important factor, at least since the beginning of 19. cent.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you Gustav.

I'm always willing to learn, so I would appreciate it if you would be so kind as to teach me how, where and in what way the length of the keris indicated hierarchical position in Jawa.

[Roland_M]

Hello Alan,

~ 8" or 21 cm is no short blade compared to a modern army dagger, which is not longer than 6-7" (Fairbairn–Sykes fighting knife).

One reason could be, that a short 8" Keris is very much faster together with more control in a duel, than a long Keris with a 15" blade.

Every blade with a blade length of more than 3.2" (~8cm) is potentially deadly, long enough to penetrate the heart or throat.


Roland

[David]

Originally Posted by Roland_M

Hello Alan,

~ 8" or 21 cm is no short blade compared to a modern army dagger, which is not longer than 6-7" (Fairbairn–Sykes fighting knife).

One reason could be, that a short 8" Keris is very much faster together with more control in a duel, than a long Keris with a 15" blade.

Every blade with a blade length of more than 3.2" (~8cm) is potentially deadly, long enough to penetrate the heart or throat.


Roland

Roland, i don't believe that you will find that the fighting styles used in modern military martial practices are all that comparable to the martial styles used when fighting with keris. A keris isn't used in the same manner as a Fairbairn–Sykes fighting knife.
Then, of course, there is the obvious fact that very few keris, relatively speaking, of any area are anywhere near the short size of 8". Even in the Bugis culture, which is generally acknowledged as being most likely to have used the keris in actual combat, keris most often measure up to at least 12" (30.48cm). The fact that you can potentially kill someone with a blade only 8cm long seems to have very little bearing on this question.

[Gustav]

Alan, I am not able to give any further information about the sources. Many apologies for that, but I am sure you can understand the circumstances - you have been in similar situations before.

I assure, it isn't a flight of fancy, but I absolutely don't want to insist on something, as I am not a teacher.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for your response Gustav.

I have no doubt that what you wrote in respect of keris length in Jawa having important symbolism is something that because of its extremely reliable source, you believe absolutely.

I also understand very well that some people who supply us with information are reluctant to permit us to pass that information to third parties, thus your inability to reveal the source of your knowledge is well understood.

However, before I comment further on this matter, I would request your indulgence in a small clarification.

Your exact words were:-

"Alan, I can assure you, that in the land of Java the symbolism of length of Keris was an important factor, at least since the beginning of 19. cent."

And I understood these words to be in response to my own comment, which was:-

"Hierarchical position through the keris is shown in much more subtle ways in Jawa than by the rather obvious symbolism of size."

Thus, I understood your comment to mean the following:-

since the year 1800, and for some time thereafter, in the geographic location that is regarded by the Javanese people as the Land of Jawa, as distinct from the Island of Jawa, the length of a keris blade could be symbolically understood as indicating the hierarchical position in either the society at large, or possibly only within the confines of the courts, as indicative of the hierarchical position of the wearer.

Specifically, that a longer keris blade co-related to a higher hierarchical position within the society, or a segment of the society.


So Gustav, can you confirm that my understanding of your comment is correct?

If my understanding is not correct, would you be so kind as to amend this understanding?

Thank you so much.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for your comment Roland.

David has commented that the mode of use of a keris, and of a modern defence force dagger is completely different, and I agree with this, however, the philosophy of use in both the FS dagger and the Javanese keris is virtually the same:- the opponent should be dead before he even realises that he is in danger.

I have deliberately specified the Javanese keris, and the FS dagger, because the mode of use of these two weapons is something that I understand well.

The use of the keris in places other than Jawa can be governed by different philosophies, and the use of defence force daggers can vary from nation to nation and conflict to conflict. I do not have a thorough knowledge of the ways in which keris were used in every society where they existed, nor do I have a thorough knowledge of defence force daggers in all countries.

Although the keris in Jawa should ideally be used in a surreptitious manner, on those occasions where this was not possible, the available evidence indicates that it was used in a manner similar to the way in which a rapier was used. However, although the keris in Jawa may have been used in some circumstances, in a similar way to the rapier, there was no system of fence taught for its use.

Actually, dependent upon circumstances, blade length is not particularly important in ensuring the demise of an opponent.

I once sat through a training video of an actual event that occurred in the USA. A highway patrol officer stopped a vehicle to question the driver. The driver did not wish to be questioned so he slashed the officer's throat with the short blade of a Swiss Army Knife. The short blade of a SA knife is about 1.5 inches long. The officer died.

Blade width is not all that important either. Prior to WWII most women in Australia would not leave the house without wearing a hat. These hats were kept in place with hat pins, which were very thin, sharply pointed steel pins up to 6 inches long. I used to know a woman who was molested by a man whilst travelling by rail, she stabbed him repeatedly with her hat pin. The man died as result of this attack.

Then we have another example from Jawa itself. In Jawa, especially in East Jawa and Madura, cock fighting spurs are a favourite weapon of those people who use sharp pointy things to injure or kill others. These spurs are razor sharp and around 3 or 4 inches long and about 1/4 inch wide, for use as a weapon a piece of cloth is wound around the base and the size permits easy concealment in the hand. A favoured technique is to walk towards the target and slash his or her throat in passing.

Circumstances alter cases.

[Roland_M]

Originally Posted by David

The fact that you can potentially kill someone with a blade only 8cm long seems to have very little bearing on this question.

David,

Maybe i have missed the theme. What i tried to say was, that a Keris was never just a symbol of mythology or so.
Keris was mainly a weapon, a very effective and handy weapon, if one knows how to deal with it.

I think, the Keris have probably the highest cutting power of all daggers worldwide, because of the multiple curved shape.
I have one old example with a razor sharp cutting edge and tiny nicks.

In Indonesia they had duels extremely often, even nowadays.
Some users preferred a shorter Keris for duels, because it is an advantage for high skilled users. That is my explanation for the different sizes.


Roland