Orientation of the grip of this keris

[A. G. Maisey]

The length of the blade on the keris I have posted a photo of is 11.5 inches.

The other keris in my possession that had a reverse grip has a blade that is a fraction shorter than this.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you Kai Wee for clarifying this "chieftain" terminology. I think that I now might have some small understanding of what is meant by the term.

I thank you also for bringing to my attention a defect in my recent attitude towards posts made to this discussion group.

I have slipped into the habit of making posts in much the same manner that I would adopt if I were to be engaged in casual conversation with a group of friends. During the last 24 hours it has been most forcibly brought to my attention by events which have occurred outside this discussion group, that it is a great mistake to adopt an on-line persona that reflects one's personal approach and character.

I will take a step back, and try to avoid such a relaxed manner in future.

In respect of this current thread, I will attempt to correct some of the statements I have made, and rephrase them in more precise language.

Post of 18th November:-

Quote:- "I believe that the original position of the grip on this keris was correct."

This is very poorly phrased.
If I had wanted to use the word "correct", I should have defined the concept of "correct" in this context. I did not, and the result is a statement that can be read in many ways, resulting in a misunderstanding of the idea I wished to convey.

The idea I wished to convey was that in its place of origin, it was highly probable that the hilt had been reversed by a owner or user of this keris, who was indigenous to that location.

I apologise for any misunderstanding caused by my poor use of my native language.

Quote:- "The tang on these Bugis type keris nearly always seems to be bent to some degree, I doubt that I have ever pulled a keris of the generic Bugis type apart and found it with a straight tang---"

Again, a poorly constructed and imprecise, not to say contradictory statement.I have attempted to encapsulate two opposing ideas into the same construct.

I should have written something like this:- "My experience gained from handling many Bugis type keris over many years indicates that in most cases the tang is bent to greater or lesser degree."

This morning I have checked a sample of 19 of these keris; I have found that in 16 keris the tang has some degree of bend , in three keris the tang could be considered to be straight.

One thing that Kai Wee has highlighted very effectively is the question of the meaning of "correct".

Exactly what does "correct" mean in the context of hilt orientation?

I would propose that in fact, there is no overall "correct" hilt orientation, without a corresponding definition of context.

Thus, in the case of "correct" orientation of a hilt on a keris to be worn in a court environment, that "correctness" would reflect the requirements of this environment.

In the case of "correct" orientation of a keris to be used as weapon, that "correctness" would reflect the personal preferences of the user.

Again I apologise for any misunderstandings caused by my relaxed attitude.

[Jussi M.]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

The length of the blade on the keris I have posted a photo of is 11.5 inches.

The other keris in my possession that had a reverse grip has a blade that is a fraction shorter than this.

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

In the case of "correct" orientation of a keris to be used as weapon, that "correctness" would reflect the personal preferences of the user.

Originally Posted by David

(...) the exact postion will depend on what is most comfortable in your hand (...)

Maybe there is a very simple explanation to all this? Reverse hilt = reverse grip?





Please do note: both pics are hotlinked to websites which hold rights for these pictures.

Thanks,

J.

[David]

Jussi, have you ever tried holding this type of keris hilt in this manner. Besides, i have serious doubts that the bugis keris in question would ever be used in an overhand stabbing action like the one shown in the relief.

[Jussi M.]

Originally Posted by David

Jussi, have you ever tried holding this type of keris hilt in this manner. Besides, I have serious doubts that the bugis keris in question would ever be used in an overhand stabbing action like the one shown in the relief.

What I have done or have not done is irrelevant David. What is relevant however is that ancient people - so I believe - did not fight with weapons. - They fought with their fighting art and used the weapons only as an extension of their art. Take for example old Western and South East Asian wood workers; surely some of their tools were similar to each other but they surely also had in some ways different methods of using those tools which makes comparing them the same as comparing apples to oranges.

Same thing here - if one has no understanding of the methodology of how weapons were used on a culture at a given time how can one make claims on whether a weapon is good or not or why a weapon is shaped the way it is? I have a pretty hard time to accept that a tiny little keris is used on the same manner as a big one. It just is´nt very logical. Also it is good to remember that there were big differences on the fighting systems found in the Indonesian archipelago and even on some found on the same areas (so I´ve read). If there are big differences it isnt logical to assume that all those systems used weapons on the same manner either; not to mention the circumstances must also have played a part on shaping the ways weapons were used.

Take ancient Japan for example. The warriors had two swords; one long and one short. Why? - because in constricted space (like on a vessel on our case?) a long blade was not very usable hence it was used only outdoors whereas the shorter one was used inside and on situations where space was constricted.

Lets face it: more or less none here - myself included - have a clue of how the keris was actually used and whether there were different ways of using it (this I believe). We all have a bias that it is used X whereas the truth may very well have been Y, Z or something in between. And it may also have been that one mans Z was at another situation X as just like tools can be used on various ways depending on the situation at hand so can weapons: a rifle is a rifle yes but you can make devastating blows with it choose you to do so.

The relief pictured is from a time when these weapons were actually used, and used a lot. Saying that it isnt a truthful portrayal of how some (the pictured) were worn and used makes little sense from the standpoint of November 2008 as no-one from this forum was witnessing the events that took place when that carving was made.

Instead of us all having strong opinions we maybe should accept that we really dont know and form new hypothesis to broaden our views on how things might of have been. We dont learn new things by clinging ourselves to old ideas but by challenging the status quo and finding new layers of understanding beneath the surface clouded by of our biases

Thanks,

J

[fearn]

Hi Jussi,

I have to take the opposing view here. Human fighting arts evolved with and around the weapons they had to use. I think we can all subscribe to the notion that different weapons have their own best strokes. To use an extreme example, you really don't want to use a rapier the same way you'd use an axe. Now, some arts, primarily but not exclusively in the East, have an ideal set of moves, and use those moves with all sorts of weapons. This is your idea of "fighting with an art." I have seen this taken to extremes, where (for instance) a chinese tiger fork is used with to chop with like a guando, even though it doesn't have a sharp edge.

On the other side are the functional types who figure out the best strokes with the weapon, and then built their art bottom-up from this. This is the way most weapon arts develop, I think. There are, of course, arts where technique and philosophy mix.

I'd also like to point out that culture matters here. To go back to the samurai, I'd point out that they carried the daisho (long and short combination) primarily because the two swords were the badge of the samurai in Tokugawa Japan, by the Shogun's fiat, not by custom. Yes, the wakizashi works better in close quarters, but the thing is, prior to the Tokugawa shogunate, many samurai carried a tanto instead of a wakizashi, and did so on the battlefield. In this case, we're grafting a functional explanation onto what was basically a legislative act.

So far as the keris goes, I have no idea whether it can be held in an icepick grip, although it would be fun to find out. Equally, it could be that this blade was the equivalent of a man's necktie, worn not for physical utility but because it was part of his normal clothing. The handle was twisted out of the way, either to make it easier to wear (as Alan suggested), and it may also have signaled that the owner wasn't interested in getting into a knife fight.

My 0.0002 cents,

F

[Jussi M.]

Originally Posted by fearn

Hi Jussi,

I have to take the opposing view here.

Go ahead, make my day!

Originally Posted by fearn

Human fighting arts evolved with and around the weapons they had to use. I think we can all subscribe to the notion that different weapons have their own best strokes. To use an extreme example, you really don't want to use a rapier the same way you'd use an axe.

Neither of us was there to witness how fighting arts really evolved but your point sounds logical to me. What I dont agree however is your example regarding rapier and axe. - Of course no one would want to use a rapier like an axe or vice versa as they are not functional on each others roles. A short keris however is very functional in both the common way of grabbing it as well as held on an ice pick grip. Norman Bates proved this on Alfred Hitchcocks Psycho when he used a kitchen knife of the same length as the Bugis kerises discussed on this thread on the nice blond.

Originally Posted by fearn

Yes, the wakizashi works better in close quarters, but the thing is, prior to the Tokugawa shogunate, many samurai carried a tanto instead of a wakizashi, and did so on the battlefield. In this case, we're grafting a functional explanation onto what was basically a legislative act.

Maybe, maybe not.

Originally Posted by fearn

So far as the keris goes, I have no idea whether it can be held in an icepick grip, although it would be fun to find out. Equally, it could be that this blade was the equivalent of a man's necktie, worn not for physical utility but because it was part of his normal clothing. The handle was twisted out of the way, either to make it easier to wear (as Alan suggested), and it may also have signaled that the owner wasn't interested in getting into a knife fight.

Equally to the example of feodal Japan yes, the keris was a part of attire and there were customs that were more or less strictly obeyed. However if anything the people of ancient were practical. - They had to be as being a good problem solver and practical at what one did was the key to survival. Hence custom or not I have a hard time believing that if some guy at some place decided that grabbing a smaller keris on a reverse grip was a good idea for survival on a physical bout he wouldnt have modified the grip to suit his style of using the blade.

I said this before but I will repeat what I said: not all systems had similar views on what was the best way of using a weapon. Different systems differ on their emphasis on range, ratio between hitting, kicking, grappling what´ll have you - all that stuff. A man with a background in a system leaning heavily towards being on the ground and grappling surely had a different way of looking at things than say a guy with a background on keeping the fight on upright position with lots of hitting like, say, boxing. - And, just like youd grab a hammer closer to the head when you are hammering small nails that bent easily and grab it from the very end to get more momentum via the longer range of motion for those 2X4 nails when you are building a fence, maybe some fighters of old used different methods of getting the work done with the same tool depending on the situation at hand. - Like nails not all opponents were alike either nor equipped likewise what come to hardware.

Both rapier and axe are very limited in the ways they can be used. Not necessarily so with a small keris. Ask Norman, he knows



To get serious again I cannot see any reasons why a small keris could not be used on this manner. I think this is a question that may be worthy of a serious discussion.

Thanks,

J