The Size of the Keris

[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 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 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