Bali wedding Keris

Gustav · 10th February 2010, 08:37 PM

Margaret Wiener, "Visible and invisible realms (power, magic, and colonial conquest in Bali)", page 66 :

"His keris could, in certain contexts, even represent a man: someone who could not attend a meeting could send his keris in his place; a man of rank could marry a low-ranking woman by proxy, using one of his lesser keris. Keris are rather obvious phallic symbols; in marriage rites, the groom still stabs a keris through a small bamboo mat to symbolize the sexual relation between husband and wife even though nowadays his wedding is the only occasion on which a man is still likely to wear a keris."

Gustav · 10th February 2010, 09:26 PM

About wearing of figural, or golden and ivory hilts: Jasper and Mas Pirngadie, De bewerking van niet-edele metalen, page 230, writes:

"Golden and ivory hilts of these four species (deling or togog, lotjeng or grantim, kotjet-kotjettan, djaglir) were weared only by persons, who does belong to the triwangsa (the three casts). Nowadays a man doesn't praktice this rule strictly and one can see also a rich soedra's (shudra's) wearing golden hilts."

Is there any evidence, that this rule wasn't strongly complied already in 19 Century in states with stronger dutch influence? There probably must be some bigger changes in some parts of Bali already after 1860-ties.

But either way, we probably cannot expect, a low quality hilt of one of the four species, made of another material then gold and ivory (and silver?) would be older then beginning of 20 Century.

David · 10th February 2010, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gustav

But either way, we probably cannot expect, a low quality hilt of one of the four species, made of another material then gold and ivory (and silver?) would be older then beginning of 20 Century.

I would imagine that this sheath, though of higher quality than the hilt, is still not particularly old. It too is probably mid to late 20th century.

A. G. Maisey · 11th February 2010, 01:33 AM

In respect of the age of this keris, it is most often very difficult to be particularly accurate with age estimates from photos, however with this keris I am confident that the blade does pre-date WWII. As already noted, the hilt is not of particularly high quality, but I feel it may be older than it looks, and I would be inclined to place it as no later than mid-20th century; the scabbard probably dates from the same period. The wewer is probably not more than ten years old.

David, my perhaps longer than necessary post on wives and concubines was made in an attempt to try to convey the nature of the keris in its representative capacity. Let us not forget that a keris was able to represent its owner in situations other than those associated with the taking of wives or concubines. In the absence of an understanding of the nature of social contracts involving wives and concubines, I feel that it is not possible to understand the nature of the keris in this capacity.

David · 11th February 2010, 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

David, my perhaps longer than necessary post on wives and concubines was made in an attempt to try to convey the nature of the keris in its representative capacity. Let us not forget that a keris was able to represent its owner in situations other than those associated with the taking of wives or concubines. In the absence of an understanding of the nature of social contracts involving wives and concubines, I feel that it is not possible to understand the nature of the keris in this capacity.

Oh Alan, i don't think you need to explain yourself on this one. I got where you were going at least and i can only assume (as dangerous as that is) that others did as well. Nor did i find you post on the subject too long. Hope you didn't think my short comment was meant as a write off.

A. G. Maisey · 11th February 2010, 05:24 AM

Thanks David.

No, it was not your comment. I reread what I had written, and it occurred to me that possibly some might consider that I was blathering a bit, as I had moved right away from the direct comment on keris.

David · 11th February 2010, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Thanks David.

No, it was not your comment. I reread what I had written, and it occurred to me that possibly some might consider that I was blathering a bit, as I had moved right away from the direct comment on keris.

Ah, but it is often the indirect commentary that can be most revealing...

10th February 2010, 08:37 PM	#1
Gustav Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,295	Margaret Wiener, "Visible and invisible realms (power, magic, and colonial conquest in Bali)", page 66 : "His keris could, in certain contexts, even represent a man: someone who could not attend a meeting could send his keris in his place; a man of rank could marry a low-ranking woman by proxy, using one of his lesser keris. Keris are rather obvious phallic symbols; in marriage rites, the groom still stabs a keris through a small bamboo mat to symbolize the sexual relation between husband and wife even though nowadays his wedding is the only occasion on which a man is still likely to wear a keris." Last edited by Gustav; 10th February 2010 at 09:52 PM.

10th February 2010, 09:26 PM	#2
Gustav Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,295	About wearing of figural, or golden and ivory hilts: Jasper and Mas Pirngadie, De bewerking van niet-edele metalen, page 230, writes: "Golden and ivory hilts of these four species (deling or togog, lotjeng or grantim, kotjet-kotjettan, djaglir) were weared only by persons, who does belong to the triwangsa (the three casts). Nowadays a man doesn't praktice this rule strictly and one can see also a rich soedra's (shudra's) wearing golden hilts." Is there any evidence, that this rule wasn't strongly complied already in 19 Century in states with stronger dutch influence? There probably must be some bigger changes in some parts of Bali already after 1860-ties. But either way, we probably cannot expect, a low quality hilt of one of the four species, made of another material then gold and ivory (and silver?) would be older then beginning of 20 Century. Last edited by Gustav; 10th February 2010 at 09:55 PM.

11th February 2010, 01:33 AM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,056	In respect of the age of this keris, it is most often very difficult to be particularly accurate with age estimates from photos, however with this keris I am confident that the blade does pre-date WWII. As already noted, the hilt is not of particularly high quality, but I feel it may be older than it looks, and I would be inclined to place it as no later than mid-20th century; the scabbard probably dates from the same period. The wewer is probably not more than ten years old. David, my perhaps longer than necessary post on wives and concubines was made in an attempt to try to convey the nature of the keris in its representative capacity. Let us not forget that a keris was able to represent its owner in situations other than those associated with the taking of wives or concubines. In the absence of an understanding of the nature of social contracts involving wives and concubines, I feel that it is not possible to understand the nature of the keris in this capacity.

11th February 2010, 05:24 AM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,056	Thanks David. No, it was not your comment. I reread what I had written, and it occurred to me that possibly some might consider that I was blathering a bit, as I had moved right away from the direct comment on keris.