Balinese Keris hilt ID

[mariusgmioc]

Can somebody please enlighten me who the guy of this Balinese Keris hilt is?

[David]

I think many might describe him as Bayu the father of Bhima. Here is my own example in brass with a gold wash.

[A. G. Maisey]

Marius, one of the problems in identification of the characters depicted in Balinese hilts is that very often these characters are not sculpted in a way that will permit identification by the use of the traditional indicators.

With a hilt that has been recently made, such as the one on the keris you have shown, it is nearly always quite impossible to affix any sort of positive identification to the character shown. The reason for this is that the artists who make these hilts no longer necessarily follow traditional patterns; they set out to create an art work, rather than a culturally accurate representation of a deity or folk character.

Occasionally we may be able to find one or more attributes that will allow us to say that a particular hilt is intended to show such & such a character, but even then, it will be a rare occasion when we can claim a positive, inarguable identification.

A couple of years ago, Bapak Sutejo Neka, owner of the Neka Gallery in Ubud, a member of the Pande Clan, and one of Bali's acknowledged authorities on Balinese art, wrote a little book on Balinese keris (Understanding Balinese Keris). When he describes Balinese keris hilts, his identifications of the characters very often become something like:- "a royal figure", "a representation of a king". If this is the best that one of the leading authorities on Balinese keris art can do, I rather feel that people such as ourselves should not expect to always be able to fix a name on a character depicted in a Balinese keris hilt.

[mariusgmioc]

Yes, it appears to be the same "Bayu" guy! Thank you! :)

[mariusgmioc]

I understand, and that explains why there is so much confusion about this topic. Thank you very much!

In May I will go to Indonesia and I am planing to get a few kerises from there. Can you please give me some hints where I can find some? What about this "Neka" gallery in Ubud. Do they have kerises for sale as I will be in Ubud for at least a couple of days?

[mariusgmioc]

I think many might describe him as Bayu the father of Bhima. Here is my own example in brass with a gold wash.

Thank you very much for your help! It certainly looks very similar so I guess it might be Batara Bayu. :)

[David]

Marius, one of the problems in identification of the characters depicted in Balinese hilts is that very often these characters are not sculpted in a way that will permit identification by the use of the traditional indicators.
While i do understand your reluctance to ID this figure i do have to say that this hilt does indeed have indicators that should allow us (or somebody) to identify it. While i certainly agree that the artists of many new Bali hilts tend to use a good deal of "poetic" license in their design, the hilt shown here by Marius does seem to follow fairly closely to the design of a commonly accepted Balinese hilt form which i believe has been around at least since pre-WWII times and perhaps earlier. The common indicators on these hilts are generally the body position, jeweled crown, right arm across the body holding a stylized fan (or mirror?), left hand in a mudra position usually with extended fingers (or nails?). Since this figure appears again and again with all of these same features i can only presume that there was originally some intention as to his identity beyond "royal figure". I have heard this figure referred to as Bayu for quite some time, but i am unaware of the exacting reasons for this identification. Bayu is a wind god AFAIK so perhaps people have regarded the fan as an indicator of that persona. Perhaps the mudra connects the figure as a godly one due to the ritual nature of the hand sign. I write this not to defend the attribution of Bayu per se since i cannot personally be sure that is correct from my own researched information, but only to point out that this particular figure has been used and portrayed in pretty much this same exact manner for enough time that it seems most likely to me that there must be some original intention as to the identity of this character, even if he has been mistakenly identified as Bayu all this time. :shrug:

[A. G. Maisey]

David, I do not suggest for one moment that this hilt under discussion can be described as a royal figure, I used this term simply to demonstrate that one of Bali's foremost authorities on the art of his homeland is frequently unable to give a positive identification of the figures depicted in totogan hilts.

Speaking for myself, these days I am extremely hesitant to give a positive identification of a Balinese hilt unless the indicators are inarguable.

I cannot disagree that both of the hilts shown might be Bayu.

Equally, I am not able to agree that both hilts definitely are intended to be Bayu, in spite of the long standing identification of this hilt form by keris collectors, as Bayu.

Maybe Bayu, may not be Bayu. I simply do not know for certain, so I reserve my opinion.

Actually, the way I read your initial post, you are saying pretty much the same thing:-

"--- many might describe him as Bayu ---"

Here is another of the same form.

[Jean]

David, I do not suggest for one moment that this hilt under discussion can be described as a royal figure, I used this term simply to demonstrate that one of Bali's foremost authorities on the art of his homeland is frequently unable to give a positive identification of the figures depicted in totogan hilts.



Hello Alan,
In his previous book "Keris Bali Bersejarah" Pande Wayan Suteja Neka does identify most of the "royal" figures depicted on togogan hilts (Prabu Ratmaja, Dewa Indra, etc.), however he just describes few of them as Prabu or Prabu kreasi baru (new creation). It is surprising that none of these figures is identified as Bayu although many of the figures which he calls Prabu Ratmaja are very similar to the ones attributed to Bayu. What a confusion!
Regards :)

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Jean, agreed:- confusion, but more than this, in fact a very deep lack of honesty and understanding at many levels.

The puputans changed many things.

You've read Wiener?

look at the confusion and contradictions that permeate her discussions with Balinese people.

The problem is perhaps that people who are outside a society imagine that the state within the society is as they imagine it to be from readings of times past. In fact, where Bali and Jawa are concerned, this is seldom the case.

In respect of the ID of hilts and other things in "Bali Bersejarah". Yes, this book was published under Pak Sutejo Neka's name, but exactly how much of it did he write? I've tried to work this out, and quite simply, I cannot.

[mariusgmioc]

Thank you all for your assistance!

After a further and thorough search I found the book "The Gods of War: Sacred Imagery and the Decoration of Arms and Armor" by Donald J. LaRocca, published by Metropolitan Museum. In the book, a very similar figure is described as Batara Bayu (God of Winds). The author also briefly describes the atributes that allow this positive ID.

The book is available for reading online and free downloading at the link below:

http://www.metmuseum.org/research/metpublications/The_Gods_of_War_Sacred_Imagery_and_the_Decoration_ of_Arms_and_Armor

[David]

Maybe Bayu, may not be Bayu. I simply do not know for certain, so I reserve my opinion.

Actually, the way I read your initial post, you are saying pretty much the same thing:-

"--- many might describe him as Bayu ---"

Here is another of the same form.
Indeed you are correct Alan, i was taking this approach simply because i simply do not possess any solid evidence myself that allows me to describe this character as Bayu with any sense of certainty. However, that said it is clear that this particular fellow has been identified by at least a segment of the keris collecting world as Bayu for some time. Why? It is also clear that the hilts that are IDed as Bayu all share the same indicators that i mentioned before in their form so it does seem most likely that all these hilts, Marius' example, my example and your exceptional example are indeed all intended to depict the same character. I kind of felt that your approach at this point is to throw up your hands and count this as an unsolvable mystery where as my thought is that perhaps through continued inquery we might eventually be able to come to terms with the question. I am curious, for instance, when this hilt style may have first been identified as Bayu and what reasoning that person may have had for making that assessment. Dies anybody have a clue? As i have already stated, there are indeed quite a number of indicators in the form of these hilts that repeat again and again in each example. The fan in the right hand, the mudra sign on the left hand, the jeweled crown, even the garments the figure wears are pretty much the same in each and every one of the example of this hilt that i have seen. So i don't think we can look at Marius' hilt and say that it does not follow a traditional pattern of some sort simply because it is a recently made hilt. It follows the same pattern as the others before it. I remain fairly convinced that whoever this figure is he is supposed to be a particular representation that is clearly the same in all these examples. It is, of course, possible that we might never get to the bottom of this, but i don't think we should completely drop the inquiry simple because Bapak Sutejo Neka chooses not to place a specific ID on this figure. :shrug:

[A. G. Maisey]

I used Pak Neka as an easy example.

The hard example I considered to be too long, but maybe I should give it anyway.

I first went to Bali in 1966. Hell of a trip at a hell of time. Tried to buy keris and get info on keris. At that time I could not find anybody who was prepared to talk to an ignorant bule about things as sacred as keris.

Between 1966 and about 1982 I went to Bali and Jawa about 12 times (that's counting the inevitable double visits to Bali as single visits), by the late 1970's I had learnt to speak passable BI (Bahasa Indonesia) so I was in a position for at least some of this time to be able to communicate with people in their own language --- or at least their own public language. I had access to a Brahmin from about 1978, and this man did give me more than a little bit of information and insight into the Balinese keris and attitudes towards it. At that time there was much that he gave me that I did not understand, but over the following years that understanding did come, but pretty slowly.

From 1982 through to 2014 I visited Indonesia more than 35 times, always with the double visit to Bali, on the way in, and on the way out.

I had many more informants in Jawa than in Bali, but I did actively seek information and understanding every time I was in Bali. My Brahmin contact passed away in the mid-1980's, so I lost that source, but I did develop relationships with a few people who had either a specific keris interest, or a cultural interest or talent.

So, that's the background that has helped form my opinions in this hilt character matter. It goes without saying that I have also covered a lot of printed material, but we won't go into that.

Based only upon my own personal experience, what I have found is that amongst Balinese people who have some knowledge of the way in which various deities are represented, and/or some knowledge of the keris, it is very difficult to get unvarying opinions that are in agreement. Even from the same person there can be day to day variation --- well, maybe not day to day, but rather year to year.

Apart from the variation, there is the inescapable problem of Balinese representations of Hindu deities. As an example. look at Ganesha. The Ganesha figure that almost always appears in keris hilts would never in a million years be accepted as a valid representation of Ganesha by any Hindu from India.

Two arms? Incorrect attributes? Naw, that's not Ganesh --- it might be somebody else, but its sure not Ganesh.

But in Bali it is accepted as Ganesha.

Why?

Because that's who it is intended to be.

Correctness is not a part of the game.

Intention is.

So, if we look at a hilt such as this beautiful silver hilt that Marcus has shown us, we need to ask:- 'when this was made, what was the intention?'

There are a number of reasons that can be provided for the making of a keris hilt:-

1) as personal deity, the function of which is to protect

2) as the representation of an ancestor, the function of which is to protect

3) as an ancestor represented as a deity, the function of which is to protect

4) as a folk figure, the function of which is to either protect the wearer or provide a negative aura towards the opponent

5) as a prescribed form to permit the wearing of a keris in prescribed situations

6) as a work of art, either stand alone, or for fitting to a keris.

This is what I can present without thinking about it. These possibilities are in the front of my mind, so to speak; with thought and research we can probably come up with more reasons to make a keris hilt in a particular way.

To me, it seems probable that Marcus' hilt is able to be categorised as fitting into #6 category:- a work of art; of course, this does not necessarily rule out categories 1 to 3, but since this is a very recent hilt, inclusion in one of those categories does seem to be unlikely.

Whatever I may say in this matter is purely opinion, but personally, I feel that it is pretty well grounded opinion, however, being opinion it can always be wrong.

It is not so much that I have thrown my hands into the air and declared Balinese hilts to be an unsolvable mystery.

It is more that my experience tells me that it is best to be cautious in giving opinions on the characters in any hilt, and foolish to be positive.

The maker and the person for whom a hilt was made are truly the only people who can say with any certainty what a particular figure is supposed to be.

The rest of us are best to quality our opinions, as David has done in his initial post.

[Jean]

To me, it seems probable that Marcus' hilt is able to be categorised as fitting into #6 category:- a work of art; of course, this does not necessarily rule out categories 1 to 3, but since this is a very recent hilt, inclusion in one of those categories does seem to be unlikely.


I tend to agree with Alan. Although Marius' hilt shows similar features to Alan's exceptional specimen, the craftsmanship is much poorer and there are some deviations such as the attribute in the right hand (which is supposed to be a vase containing the immortality fluid according to many sources) and the fancy decoration of the legs, etc. I attach the pics of another silver hilt supposed to depict Bayu also, it is at least 30 years old and it is interesting to notice the evolution of the design and workmanship as compared to Marius' recently made hilt.
Regards

[apolaki]

What are your impressions on this one in the center?

[mariusgmioc]

From all the posts and the knowledge I gained over the last few days, after hours and hours of reading and internet searching, I can sumarize that in this case one cannot assume with certainty who the figure of the hilt is. Although there are some aspects that may point it to Bayu, there isn't enough factual evidence to support it (as I found quite interesting and educating arguments suggesting the figure might be depicting Bhima, who shares several attributes with Bayu, his father). In other words, one cannot accurately proclaim something to be black or white when in fact it is grey.

I will go to Indonesia in April-May and I will try to find out more about this subject.

[Jean]

Although there are some aspects that may point it to Bayu, there isn't enough factual evidence to support it (as I found quite interesting and educating arguments suggesting the figure might be depicting Bhima, who shares several attributes with Bayu, his father).

Bima is normally depicted with a different style of hairdo (a curled crest at the back of the head), you can check it on Dr Google. :)

[mariusgmioc]

Bima is normally depicted with a different style of hairdo (a curled crest), you can check on Dr Google. :)

Thank you! :)

[Jean]

What are your impressions on this one in the center?

A common quality specimen made from copper and with a bit of age, similar figure as Marius' one but the attribute in the right hand is not clearly visible on the pic.
Regards :)

[A. G. Maisey]

Several more.

Gilt on brass, colour under glass, estimate late 19th century

Gilt on silver, natural stones, early 1980's

Gilt on brass, glass & natural stone, estimate early 20th century

[Sajen]

Gilded brass with gem stones, I think that it is from beginning of 20th century.

[Sajen]

Kayu arang (ebony) with silver applications and gem stones, bought in the late 90th in Klungkung.

[Sajen]

Wood with gold paint and gem stones, late 19th century (?)

[Jean]

Several more.

Gilt on brass, colour under glass, estimate late 19th century

Gilt on silver, natural stones, early 1980's

Gilt on brass, glass & natural stone, estimate early 20th century

The first figure seems to depict another god as he has fangs, his crown is in a different style, and he holds someting in his left hand rather that showing his long nails...
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Jean, there are some differences, and the remarkable (?) thing is this:-

the more carefully we look at these supposedly identical figures, the more we find minor variation.

Identical figures, or similar figures?

Who are they?

Does anybody really know?

With anything made in recent times, did even the makers have any real idea what they were making?

With keris hilts in Bali we have a number of influences, and since the puputans, those influences have been very strongly orientated towards European artistic influences and the need to earn a living.

Bali from 1920 to 2010 is a very great deal different to Bali from 1820 to 1910.

[Jean]

Does anybody really know?

With anything made in recent times, did even the makers have any real idea what they were making?


Maybe the few remaining hilt master carvers such as Ida Bagus Pastika or old Balinese collectors? Some members may have met them? :confused:
Regards

[mariusgmioc]

I have been busy for a couple of days and did not access the net. Regarding the figures, from I have read recently the figures that have fangs represent demons, as opposed to the others that represent gods or heroes. However, I find it interesting how demons appear to have attributes of gods, so I guess the maker either didn't know or didn't care what was he making.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Jean, maybe an experienced specialist hilt carver will have some knowledge.
Or an interested Brahman priest.
Or an academic specialising in this subject.

However, even if we get a supposedly accurate response from somebody --- anybody --- we must ask:-

"how do you know? who told you this"

To come to some sort of an understanding of the depiction of characters in Balinese keris hilts there are several things that need to be taken into consideration.

To begin with, there are the variations that occur between Balinese interpretations of Hindu deities, and the way in which these deities are represented on the sub-continent of India.

Prior to the early 20th century Bali had been very largely insulated from the influences of the outside world. Throughout society there was an acceptance of the traditional beliefs, including the ever present involvement of the Gods, the Ancestors, and the natural and super-natural forces in the doings of people who were still living on earth.

The people of Bali, most especially the ruling classes of Bali (the Tri Wangsa:- Brahmana, Satria, Wesia) were brutally introduced to the world outside Bali with the Dutch invasions that culminated in the puputans. The story is well known, so I won't repeat it here, however, there are several things that must be understood when we are talking about the puputans.

Firstly, there is the meaning of the word itself:- puputan means to bring to an end. It is a finishing. When the Balinese court in Badung walked into the Dutch guns and were slaughtered, or alternatively, committed suicide with their own weapons, they were bringing to an end a time in the world that had become untenable. The Badung Puputan occurred in 1906.

In Klungkung there was second puputan that occurred in 1908. The popular story is that Dewa Agung Jambe, the Raja of Klungkung, and the acknowledged senior ruler of Bali confronted the invading Dutch forces with his most powerful pusaka keris in his hand, and struck the earth with it. He believed that he held in his hand the combined power of all of his ancestors, and his expectation was that the earth would open and the Dutch forces would be swallowed. Well, it did not happen. There was a puputan in Klungkung too. Another finishing.

Badung and Klungkung were the two major events of the Dutch invasions, but Dutch forces penetrated and destroyed other areas as well, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly.

When the Dutch occupied Bali they introduced political reforms that effectively reduced the powers of the old Balinese courts. There was difficulty in finding exactly who should lead a court, since there had been such massive losses of the elite classes, most especially of the K'satriyas, the class that provided the actual ruler.

The common people (Sudras) had lost faith in the ability of the Triwangsa to guide and protect them, and their faith in the traditional ways of their ancestors had been shaken.

By the 1920's, Bali was on the "grand tour of the east" map for those who could afford it. European and American society ladies and gentlemen were touring through Jawa and Bali by automobile, horse and carriage, and on horseback.

Amongst these Europeans was a young German, Walter Spies. In 1923 he was in Central Jawa, and then in 1927 he moved to Bali and settled in the Ubud area. At the outbreak of WWII Spies was deported from the Dutch East Indies, because he was a German national. The boat he was on was bombed and he drowned at sea. However, Spies, and other German artists who followed him had a monumental influence on Balinese art, and the way in which Balinese artists saw and told of their world.

Spies was perhaps the most influential person from a western culture to awaken the world to Bali. Many people give credit for this awakening to Miguel Covarrubias , but Covarrubias got most of his information from Spies.

In short, without Walter Spies, Balinese art as we know it today would simply not exist. If we want to see indigenous Balinese art we need to look at works that pre-date the 1920's. Something like the paintings on the ceiling of the "Palace of Justice" in Klungkung. These paintings have been refreshed over the years, but they remain true to the indigenous Balinese style.

Walter Spies has to large extent given today's "Ten Day Package Tourists" the Bali that they know and love.

WWII brought the pre-war tourism to an end, and then the struggle of the Indonesian people against European domination made Bali not particularly desirable as a tourist destination until the late 1960's --- 1966 was perhaps the watershed year, after this the tourists began to come back to Bali.

Inevitably these tourists were ready buyers for "Balinese Art" :- an art that had been created to a large degree by the influence of German artists, amongst whom Walter Spies was pre-eminent.

Consider the Balinese experience during the 20th century:-

Dutch invasion, the extermination of the ruling elite, the loss of belief in traditional ways by the common people, the commencement of tourism and the beginning of a second invasion by European and other tourists, the Japanese occupation of WWII, the turmoil and mass executions of the "Struggle for Freedom", the next invasion of tourists which until the present grows ever stronger.

Is it surprising that some aspects of Balinese art and culture have altered to the point where a Balinese time traveller from, say, 1800, would not recognise what he was looking at?

Our primary interest here is the keris, in the current thread, specifically the characters represented in Balinese hilts.

When we attempt to understand the identity of a figure depicted in a Balinese hilt we need to ask ourselves how old the hilt is, who made the hilt, and for whom it was made.

If that hilt is post, say, 1930, there is a very strong possibility that it has been created as an art work, rather than as a work that incorporates belief in an ancestor, or a deity. If it has been created as an art work, the way in which that art has been executed will almost certainly be a way that is calculated to appeal to European tastes.

This, of course, does not mean that the depiction is no longer genuinely Balinese, what it does mean is that the way in which the depiction has been executed, and the artist who created it, have both diverged from traditional roots and are now moving along a path first opened after 1906, when Balinese society and culture was changed forever.

Just as the identification of symbols in European art has to a very great extent been lost, and is now only partially understood by a few specialist scholars, the symbolism in Balinese art is no longer widely understood, if it is understood at all.

Carvers and other artists may copy, or attempt to copy, old forms, but very often they err when depicting attributes of the various characters, especially when they are working from memory. Combine these errors with the well known variations that are inherent in Balinese depictions of Hindu deities, and what we have is often an unsolvable puzzle. We may be able to guess the intended identity of the character, but can we be certain? I rather think not.

[David]

Just to add to the confusion here is a hilt from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC that it also identifies as Bayu. Seems questionable to me for a few reasons, but you would think that a museum of such high reputation would considerer sources and information more cautiously. :shrug:

[Jean]

Just to add to the confusion here is a hilt from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC that it also identifies as Bayu. Seems questionable to me for a few reasons, but you would think that a museum of such high reputation would considerer sources and information more cautiously. :shrug:

I am not a museum curator but this style of hilt is usually identified as Ravana from the leaf or sword in his right hand :)
Regards

[Jean]

Carvers and other artists may copy, or attempt to copy, old forms, but very often they err when depicting attributes of the various characters, especially when they are working from memory. Combine these errors with the well known variations that are inherent in Balinese depictions of Hindu deities, and what we have is often an unsolvable puzzle. We may be able to guess the intended identity of the character, but can we be certain? I rather think not.

Hello Alan,
Thank you for the interesting historical and culltural insight of modern Bali and I agree that the depiction of balinese gods on kris hilts has been progressively corrupted since 1920 although some modern specimens are extremely finely made.
Regards

[David]

I am not a museum curator but this style of hilt is usually identified as Ravana from the leaf or sword in his right hand :)
Regards
Well, i was going to suggest that, but giving the line of our conversation here thought it best just to post it without much comment. ;)

[Battara]

Even keeping in mind Alan's wonderful and insightful history summary (and you did a great job, thank you), I would still say that this Met example is Ravana and well. I'm with you Jean.

[mariusgmioc]

Regarding the example from the Metropolitan, LaRocca identifies a very similar figure featured on the cover of his book, as Rahvana.

http://www.metmuseum.org/research/metpublications/The_Gods_of_War_Sacred_Imagery_and_the_Decoration_ of_Arms_and_Armor

[A. G. Maisey]

I am not arguing against this recent character being Ravana.

However, an opinion without evidence to support that opinion is only as good as the person giving the opinion.

Since none of us here are noted authorities on the identification of the characters shown in Balinese totogan hilts, may I suggest that when we give an opinion, we support that opinion with either evidence or rational argument?

[David]

Regarding the example from the Metropolitan, LaRocca identifies a very similar figure featured on the cover of his book, as Rahvana.
True, people attribute. Even supposedly learned people attribute. That still doesn't mean that they are ultimately correct. I do wonder where that leaves us as collectors though. While i fully understand Alan's reasoning on why we cannot really know the true intention of the maker and the actual purpose behind the creation of any specific figural hilt does that mean that these hilts defy collector categorization completely. There are, of course, good points and bad points to the concept of categorization in this field. We may not know, for instance, if a hilt that appears in this classic form we have in the past IDed as Bayu was intended to actually be Bayu, or perhaps represent the owners ancestor in the form of Bayu or whether it is just an artistic representation that happens to follow this form we know as Bayu. But what about for the sake of communication between collectors. For instance, i am fairly sure that if i said to many of you that i have an interesting Bali Bayu hilt, in all likelihood you would have a pretty good idea of what to expect before i finally present a photo of said hilt. This seems to be the way it goes in most collecting. We name things so that we have a common understanding of what we are talking about with each other. :shrug:

[Rick]

Carvers also make handles that defy classification.
In a hundred years maybe this guy will have a official name. :shrug:

[David]

That fellow is pretty fearsome. We should give him a name before he hurts somebody. ;) :)

[A. G. Maisey]

David, my point in mention of the true original intent of the maker is a fairly extreme example of just how difficult it can be to correctly identify the character depicted in a hilt figure.

I used this example to make a point, and it seems to me that the point has been made.

However, if we take one step back from the extreme we are still left with a figure that bears certain physical characteristics that may permit the identification of that figure as an identifiable character from the Balinese pantheon of gods, or from Balinese folk lore.

Alternatively, if the physical characteristics that a particular figure may bear cannot be aligned with the characteristics associated with a known deity or folk figure, then the figure is no more than artistic drivel:- it bears no association with a deity or a folk character.

Yes, certainly, we can loosely --- mostly very loosely --- refer to some hilt figure as a recognised character, and as collectors we tend to do this without a great deal of critical thought:- if a hilt figure looks more or less like one that we have already given a name to, we tag the new figure with that name too, and as you point out, others understand what we are talking about.

This is using a name, correct, or incorrect, as a device with which to communicate, and that's fair enough, as far as it goes.

Personally, I would prefer to see a slightly more rigorous approach. Using Bayu as an example, I would like to see an approach where if we name a figure as Bayu, we give our reasons for doing this, but more than that :- we name the source that we used to gather the information that permitted us to provide reasons.

I don't believe that any of us simply pull names out of the air and stick them on figures. Not at all, we have reasons for doing so.

Where did those reasons come from?

Perhaps over time we may find that we have that Black Beast of inaccurate information by the tail, where all roads ultimately lead back to one original incorrect or dubious source.

Failure to use the passion to collect as a vehicle by which to gain knowledge only deprives us of the greatest pleasure that a passion to collect can offer.

[David]

Alan, i believe i have already asked these questions. Where does the attribution to Bayu stem from? When was it first assigned this name by a museum curator or collector? What are the clues that first led to that attribution? This certainly wasn't a name that I pulled out of thin air. I have seen hilts with these particular characteristic called "Bayu" pretty much since i started studying the keris. As i clearly stated in my post #7 this does not make that attribution correct. But considering that we seem to be able to find examples of this hilt that do go back to pre-pupatan Bali i'm not sure we can mark this form down as "artistic drivel". If you remember we went through pretty much the same thing when we have discussed the so-called "Durga" hilts.
I am certainly not suggesting that we abandon a more rigorous approach. But frankly, from the way you make it sound, there is not much hope in finding anybody who has any real and verifiable answer to these questions. You seem to be painting this all as "lost information". Perhaps i have misunderstood you there.

[A. G. Maisey]

David, we're not in debate here, we're involved in a non-antagonistic discussion.

We're not scoring points, nor do any of us seem to be holding opposing points of view that we need to convince others to adopt.

In fact, my review of what has been put forward in this thread to date, seems to indicate that we're all pretty much on the same page.

To clarify my opinion in respect of the identification of the characters depicted in Balinese totogan hilts:-

if we survey the entire range of these hilts, what we find is that similar characters appear again and again.

note I have said "similar", I have not said "the same".

these characters for the most part appear to be either some deity or other, or alternatively a character taken from Balinese folk myth or belief

in the case of a deity, we are dealing with religion and religious belief, thus when a deity is shown it should be shown with one or another particular attributes that identify it as a particular deity, such identification is not something that can be open to opinion, it either is a particular deity, or it is not, and in either case the reasons should be able to be given to support the identification

where a folk character is shown, it is possible to have varying interpretations of the same character, sometimes identifying characteristics will be clear, sometimes not, but in any case we should be able to say why we think that a particular folk figure is shown.

I am confident that no serious person is going to randomly attach a name in a haphazard manner to any totogan hilt character, and that being so, it would in everybody's best interests if when we gave a name, we also gave a reference:- all too often somebody will give a name to something and then many others will pick that name up and use it, whether it is correct or not; yes, certainly this assists in communication, but it may not assist in accuracy.

I a previous post I used the term:-

"artistic drivel"

my exact usage was:-

"Alternatively, if the physical characteristics that a particular figure may bear cannot be aligned with the characteristics associated with a known deity or folk figure, then the figure is no more than artistic drivel:- it bears no association with a deity or a folk character."

it seems that my usage here was not clearly understood.

the word "artistic" probably needs no clarification, however the word "drivel" is not now in common usage and perhaps does need to be clarified. In the context in which I have used this word I have implied that an artistic creation that uses as its subject a figure with established attributes, but that fails to show any of those attributes, is like unto the freely flowing empty speech of a child or an idiot. (Oxford on Historical Principles)

In the case of Balinese totogan hilts that are made in the modern era, the art content of the subject is often prioritised at the expense of the symbolic content that is required for clear identification, thus, the art flows freely, but in the absence of the required symbolism, that art lacks meaning. In other words, it is drivel.

My usage was most definitely not associated grammatically nor was it implied in reference to the form of Bayu, but rather with the interpretation given by a maker to any Balinese totogan hilt figure.

I do not accept that it is no longer possible for Balinese totogan hilt characters to be confidently identified. Some characters can be easily and unarguably identified, however because of the inconsistencies in the ways in which other characters are shown, positive identification can become difficult for a person within Balinese society, and close to impossible for somebody who is not a member of that society.

For those of us who are not a part of Balinese society, it is obvious that we rely upon information that has been given to us by either a person, or in print. The information sourced from another person probably cannot be used as a reference, but the information sourced from printed matter certainly can and should be used as a reference.

This identification of keris hilt characters has often cropped up in discussion in this Forum. David has mentioned the Durga discussions, and my memory of those discussions seems to be that nobody had ever heard Durga mentioned in connection with the relevant hilt form, until a particular writer used the name, and failed to provide a reference.

Perhaps a similar situation applies in relation to Bayu:- we all recognise what a Bayu hilt should look like, the name assists communication between a particular group of collectors, but is it an accurate name for this hilt character?

It may be, or alternatively it may not be, but if we continue to accept the name without question we shall never know what is correct and what is not correct.

[mariusgmioc]

Regarding the attributes that would allow us to consider the figure of my hilt as Batara Bayu, what about this?!

Primary features
1. it holds in his right hand the bejeweled receptacle of Water of Life (toya mreta)
2. it holds with his left hand the Sacred Sash (kain poleng) worn around his waist
3. it displays its formidable talon-like nails (panchanaka)

Secondary features
4. strong, burly appearance
5. large mustache
6. benevolent grin
7. elaborate head-dress.

Most of these arguments are in LaRocca's book.

[A. G. Maisey]

Let's look at the formal attributes of Dewa Bayu.

Dewa Bayu is actually the manifestation of Sanghyang Widhi in his power to create the wind. People say Bayu is the "God of the Wind", this is not strictly so, Bayu is actually representative of the power of Sanghyang Widhi to create the wind. We need to think of all these minor deities as manifestations of Sanghyang Widhi's powers. To the Balinese people Sanghyang Widhi is actually three deities, the Trisakti (Holy Trinity):- Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva ( creator, preserver, destroyer)

Bayu is Vedic in origin, and in mainline Hindu belief he is known as Vayu. His charioteer is Indra. In the Vedas he is not particularly outstanding, and although he is not associated with the winds, he supposedly gave birth to them near the rivers of heaven, so he is not "The God of the Winds", he is the "Creator of the Winds". But like all the minor gods, he is actually an abstract idea that in fact is a manifestation of the One God: Sanghyang Widhi.

We know he is handsome in appearance.

In later mythology he is given the guardianship of the north-west part of of the universe. In the Mahabharata he is identified as the father of Bhima and of Hanuman.

Vayu should be represented as a youthful person of powerful build, he should be black in colour and he can have either four or two arms. His eyes are red and he is dressed in white. His brow must be waved and he wears many ornaments.

In his right hand there should be a banner and in his left hand there should be a danda (danda in this context means "stick", it is also the general Hindu word for "punishment").

Some authorities believe that the right hand should be held in the pataka-hasta position, others believe that the right hand should hold an ankusa (angkus).

Vayu's hair should be unordered and untidy, and if seated it should be on a deer or on a simhasana (in this context this word means "throne"). The deer is his vehicle, the throne is an interpretation of the word that also means the house of a high priest.

Vayu moves very quickly, and appears very quickly.

In the Vishnudharmottara it is stated that both the clothing of, and Vayu himself should be sky-blue and that he should carry a chakra and a dhvaja ( a discus and a banner --- 'chakra' has other meanings, but in this context it means 'discus').

Vayu's mouth should be open.

Siwa gave a bow to Vayu.

(Ref.:- Elements of Hindu Iconography-- T.A.G.Rao)

I had hoped i would not need to get into this sort of thing, but maybe it would have saved time if I'd begun my contributions to this thread with what I have written above.

We know that when Hindu deities come into Jawa Hindu, and then into Bali Hindu, their attributes and characters can undergo a process of modification, but generally the major elements are retained. If we consider the above, it can be seen that there is very little in common between Vayu as recognised in mainline Hindu belief and Bayu as many people believe he appears in Balinese totogan hilts.

Mr. La Rocca's arguments just don't seem to get a run anywhere. Admittedly, he does not put himself forward as expert in this field, he has drawn upon information from other people, so then we should ask:- who provided this information to Mr. La Rocca?

Incidentally, a kain poleng is the black and white chequered waist cloth that is draped around statues and worn as a garment by some people on some occasions. It is not the name of a sash or waist band. In art it is shown as the waist cloth worn by the figure in post #21.

I have not "thrown my hands in the air" and decided that everything is "lost knowledge", but I do believe that the necessary information that we need to put forward an informed opinion in respect of the identification of Balinese totogan hilt figures is sadly deficient.

I have tried for years to get some consistent clarity into this matter, but I have been unsuccessful. What we really need is comprehensive reference that gives lots of pictures and lots of explanations. I do not know of such a reference --- I've got a heap of references on Balinese and Indonesian art and culture, but nothing has the sort of information we need.

Perhaps one of us may be able to find such a reference?

[mariusgmioc]

Thank you very much Alan for this very interesting and insightful information! And we go back to square 1. Interesting how different levels of knowledge leads to different interpretations. At a very superficial knowledge, the hilt depicts a strangely looking guy holding something in his arm. Then, if you start inquiring, you find out that the guy is probably Bayu, only to realize that it might not be so once you gain more insight knowledge of the subject.

[A. G. Maisey]

Its a matter of the more one knows, the less one knows.

Was a time I was pretty positive of a lot of things, these days I find I know less with every passing day.

[mariusgmioc]

Its a matter of the more one knows, the less one knows.

Was a time I was pretty positive of a lot of things, these days I find I know less with every passing day.

It's called wisdom! :)

[Rocarnice]

Hi there,

Got interested in this thread as I have a Keris Bali Hilt (Ukiran Pemangku) that seems to have similarly evolved as the silver hilt (Bayu) depicted by Jean on 19.01.
I once asked the forum 10 years ago, but at that time no clear pictures were available to ID the blade with Kinatah; Not much couldn't be said of the Hilt either.
Perhaps someone of you could tell me more about this Hilt?
Hope the pictures attached are clear.

Thanks.

[A. G. Maisey]

Rocanice, you already have the correct name and description for this hilt:- you have called it an "Ukiran Pemangku".

As it is Balinese, it should not be called "ukiran" as this is Javanese terminology, it should be called "danganan", however, the "pemangku" (or more correctly "pamangku") is correct.

A "pamangku" is a priest, or to be completely correct a Balinese temple priest, as there are other types of priest.

This hilt can be given as:-danganan Pemangku.

The figure is identifiable by the beard and moustache, the kindly and/or happy face, the religious implement in the left hand.

The name you have given the photograph is " Keris Bali ukiran Brahmaan":- a pamangku is a member of the Brahman Caste, so this is also an adequate description of the hilt.

[Jean]

Hello Rocarnice,
Nice hilt, made from ebony or buffalo horn?
The style of hair is not common for a hilt depicting a priest, see more standard specimens attached.
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Yep Jean, true:- Balinese priests don't usually sport Siciliano facial hair, but don't doubt for one moment that we are looking at somebody's representation of a pamangku, its just that art trumps tradition. How can you create a hilt like Rocanice's if you don't control the whiskers?

[Jean]

Yep Jean, true:- Balinese priests don't usually sport Siciliano facial hair, but don't doubt for one moment that we are looking at somebody's representation of a pamangku, its just that art trumps tradition. How can you create a hilt like Rocanice's if you don't control the whiskers?

Oops, sorry Alan, I meant the style of hairdressing (kind of diadem versus tiara), not the beard.... :o

[David]

... but don't doubt for one moment that we are looking at somebody's representation of a pamangku, its just that art trumps tradition.
Given our previous discussion on the "Bayu" hilts how can we be sure beyond doubt that the artist's intention was to create pamangku here rather than it merely being an "artistic" work not completely connected to this character?

[A. G. Maisey]

Jean:- artistic expression; this is a hilt that was created purely for art:- if you need to stick gemstones onto it, you need an excuse to accommodate the gemstones.

David:- speaking only for myself, I'm quite confident that I'm looking at a figure that is intended to be a pamangku, my confidence is based in the fact that every figure of this type that I have ever seen and asked about has been identified by a Balinese person as a pamangku, many different Balinese people have been asked. As for everybody else, well, quite obviously they cannot be certain.

I rather feel that this particular pamangku style hilt is a pretty recent creation, I cannot recall ever having seen a truly old one.

[Rocarnice]

Hi all,

Thank you very much for your higly interesting thoughts and insights on this Hilt.
The hilt is made of silver which turned black due to oxidation and is set with gold ornaments. More than 10 years ago an old Indonesian person approached me and gave it to me saying this hilt should be honoured and cared for as only priests of the highest caste (Brahmaan) may have it on the "Wilah" to be used for ceremonial purposes.
Anyway I feel personally strongly attached to it, and it feels like a soul that is with me. There seems to be something mystical about it. Meeting that old guy changed my life and that's what I am doing ever since, taking care of it...

[krissman]

The Arms and Armor Department at the Metropolitan Museum of Art has a number of Indonesian weapons in its collections, even though they are clearly secondary to the scope of its primary collections (European and Japanese arms and armor). Moreover there is no one on the staff who is particularly knowledgeable about the subject. What information they do have comes either from the catalog records created by George Cameron Stone (author of STONE'S GLOSSARY, who left the Indonesian pieces and much of the rest of his personal collection to the Museum), or from staff research in the standard books on the subject. I am pretty sure that any attributions given to a hilt by the Museum would have been based on those sources and not because the curator had any particular expertise in the subject.

My son is a conservator in the Department of Arms and Armor and I try to visit him several times a year. During those trips I spend a day or so in the Department's library, looking at the collections and trying to answer any questions they may have about these "strange" pieces that they don't really know much about. They are gradually photographing all of their collections. Images of all of the Museum's collections are being posted online with whatever information (often minimal) they happen to have. The quality of that information varies widely depending on which department posted it. The public is invited to view the photos; scholars and collectors may suggest changes or improvements to catalog data if they see fit. Priority is given to posting online images of objects found in exhibits or museum publications, so there aren't very many Indonesian weapons up yet. The keris hilt on the cover of the GODS OF WAR book mentioned above is online, identified as a "dagger handle." The Museum avoids using "native" words to identify objects, particularly when two or more terms, such as "keris" vs. "kris", are being used by the collector and scholarly communities. Generic terms--dagger, sword, halberd, etc.--are used instead. To see what has been posted, follow this link and enter your search terms: http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection.

[David]

Thanks for this info Krissman.
The hilt in question was identified elsewhere on the MM of Art as Bayu, in another area. I would have to do some digging to find it again. However i am absolutely sure of that since i am the one who found that entry.
It is possible that they have since taken it down or changed their description.
You are absolutely correct that the museum heavily favors its European arms over Keris. :)