A new book on the keris
G.C. Woolley, writing from Brunei in 1938, reviews G.B. Gardner’s 1936 monograph Keris and other Malay Weapons (Progressive Publishing Co., Singapore), offering a detailed critique grounded in first-hand Brunei and North Borneo ethnographic observation. Woolley’s central contribution is a series of corrections and regional terminological supplements drawn from a Brunei informant, challenging Gardner’s classifications, illustrations, and nomenclature while defending the keris as a distinct weapon type defined by its characteristic blade-to-guard widening.
Summary
Woolley engages with Gardner’s book on several fronts: the origin and typology of the keris, the nomenclature of its component parts, the correct grip, regional naming conventions, and the book’s broader scholarly apparatus. On origin, he finds Gardner’s derivation from the ikan pari (stingray) sting attractive and compatible with the Javanese tradition recorded by Crawfurd (1820) attributing the weapon’s invention to Inakarto Pati of Janggolo in the early fourteenth century. He rejects the alternative hypothesis of foreign introduction, noting that no traces of the keris type survive in any putative country of origin.
The most substantive disagreement concerns classification. Woolley objects to Gardner’s inclusion of the Tumbuk Lada and Badek as forms of the keris, arguing they belong with the Lawi Ayam and Beladau in a separate class of daggers or knives. His defining criterion is the sudden widening of the blade to form the guard—a feature present even in the oldest Majapahit and Pichit forms—and the double-edged nature of the weapon, which the often single-edged Badek lacks. He also notes that the Sulu “Sundang” keris, while clearly a keris in blade form, has had its hilt entirely reconfigured to a sword grip for cutting rather than thrusting.
Woolley’s Brunei informant provides corrections on the grip (the ganja rests on the bent forefinger with the Dagu inwards and the Aring outwards, the thumb tip resting in the Janggut), on regional names for parts of the keris and sheath, and on the identification of specific weapon types. He also documents the use of cannon as currency in North Borneo, a topic Gardner treats only briefly, and criticises the book’s poor photographic quality, inconsistent plate organisation, and exiguous bibliography.
Key Findings
- Raffles recorded that keris blade varieties “exceed an hundred”; one of his plates illustrates 41 types (p. 40).
- In North Borneo, cannon served as currency: one picul (by weight) of ordinary-type cannon was equivalent to approximately $30, with more ornamental pieces carrying a premium (p. 41).
- Smaller cannon up to about 60 katies in weight were called Rentaka by Bruneis, Dusuns, and Bajaus; heavier pieces were Bedil (Brunei), Pedati (Dusun), or Lela (Bajau); a bell-mouthed type was Bedil Gergabut, and one mounted on a wooden stand was Bedil Bom (pp. 41–42).
- Woolley’s Brunei informant supplied alternative terms for keris parts: Puting (No. 1), Lidah Tiong (No. 4), Kuku Alang (No. 5), Awak (No. 6), Kukut (No. 8), Awar (hilt No. 2), and Sampak sarong keris for the Buntut (No. 5) (p. 40).
- The Keris Anjur (or Hanjur) was always straight; if waved, it was called Renti. The Sundang in North Borneo was known simply as Keris or Keris Suluk (p. 41).
- The Beladau dagger, as illustrated in Gardner’s Plate 86 fig. 1, was called Pidah by Bruneis and West Coast Bajaus, and Barong by Sulus and East Coast Bajaus; in the Philippines the equivalent is the Bolo (p. 41).
Conclusion
Woolley’s review establishes that Gardner’s book, while a welcome first English-language treatment of the subject, contains significant errors in classification, illustration, and nomenclature that can be corrected through regional ethnographic knowledge. The keris is defined not by blade shape alone (straight, curved, or wavy) but by the structural feature of the blade widening into a guard, a trait consistent from the oldest Majapahit forms through to the Sulu Sundang.
Context
- Woolley’s corrections derive from a single Brunei informant and his own observation in North Borneo; the review functions as a regional ethnographic supplement to Gardner’s more general (and largely Dutch-informed) treatment.
- The article draws on Raffles’ History of Java (1817 ed.), Crawfurd’s History of the Indian Archipelago (1820), Wilkinson’s Malay dictionary, and Dennys’ Descriptive Dictionary of British Malaya as comparative textual sources.