[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.