Next keris from Polish Museum

[wolviex]

Dear Kerislovers!

This is just the next Keris from my Museum for your consideration. Please feel free to comment this nice piece, while I'm still completely unfamiliar with these beautiful weapons.

First of all, in my opinion, this keris is very beautiful in my eyes. I would like to know more about woman impersonation on the hilt. It is quite good piece of wood-work. Unfortunately the hilt is cracked in the lower part, and it's not fitted on the pin completely. Probably someone couldn't fit this, and it has cracked during the operation. Do you think that it's from other weapon and was refitted, or just someone bungle this work during ordinary cleaning?
Please take a look at the hands of this woman. Right hand looks quite normal, but the left one has very short middle fingers. I'm wondering, is its just carver's error?

Measurments:
overall: 45,7 cm (17,9 inch.)
blade: 36,1 cm (14,4 inch.)
width of the ganja (?): 8,3 cm (3,2 inch.)
hilt: 9 cm (3,5 inch.)

Hope you'll enjoy this one

best regards!

[wolviex]

Just two more pictures

[Lew]

One word STUNNING!!


Lew

[Tim Simmons]

Golly!

[Jens Nordlunde]

It is a lovely piece, but unfortunately I know too little to comment it, none the less I apresiate the pictures very much:).

Jens

[nechesh]

That's a very unusal ukiran you've got there. It reminds me of the work of futurist sculptors like Boccioni and Brancusi. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they were inspired by the more abstract hilt forms of the Indonesian keris. :)
The blade seems well formed, but until you raise the pamor it is difficult to say just how good this keris might be. It looks like late 19thC work to me, probably Javanese. Does it have a sheath?

[BluErf]

I suspect this is an early Javanese piece. The handle, according to Martin Kerner's book, is veiled Durga. The proportions is not quite Balinese, especially with the bottom which seemed to fit a mendak than a Balinese 'hilt receptacle' (I don't know the term for that big round thing studded with gems :D ). But a Hindu Goddess would suggest a pre-Islamic era.

The greneng is the 'out-of-blade-profile' type. Later-day Javanese kerises usually have 'within-the-blade-profile' kind of greneng. And the overall execution of the blade is something reminiscent of the 16th century Javanese kerises in Karsten Jensen's book. If I may add, the execution of this keris is somewhat between a Balinese blade and a N Malayan blade. Both were supposed to have descended from early Javanese keris forms, and retained much of those characteristics. Interestingly enough, Javanese keris forms lost most of those old-style aesthetics and seemed to have moved inexorably into the realm of pamor, pamor, pamor. :)

[BluErf]

Attached examples of 2 Balinese and 1 N Malayan "out-of-blade-profile" greneng and 2 Javanese "within-the-blade-profile" greneng.

[BluErf]

I found a 'brother keris' in Karsten Jensen's book. Note the Shiva hilt. Very similar to the Durga hilt here. Dated to 16th/17th century.

[wolviex]

Thank you for kind words

BluErf and nechesh: thank you for your opinions and photos.

Few answers: there is no sheath :(
I wouldn't be surprised if it was older than 19th century, but I'm not assuming it either. This kris is from the very, very good collection, of one of the famous noble Polish family. "Unfortunately" they gathered mainly European firearms and some Polish weapons, but you can find there also few other things, like this keris. Because they didn't left any clues about these pieces, I can't tell you how they purchased them and when.

Regards!

[Henk]

I would say that the blade of this keris is balinese. The ukiran is lovely and I believe together with the mendak javanese. The crack in the ukiran probably ocurred because the peksi was winded with to much cloth to secure the ukiran. When you still push the ukiran on the peksi it will crack.
Nevertheless it is a beautifull ukiran. Maybe you can remove it and remove some cloth. Probably the ukiran will fit better. Or find an balinese ukiran and display the mendak with ukiran as a javanese piece.

[mhm27]

im new with this but what i`ve seen is absolutely beautiful and blending of the blade colour is undescribable.....wish i was into keris collection earlier :rolleyes:

[Rick]

im new with this but what i`ve seen is absolutely beautiful and blending of the blade colour is undescribable.....wish i was into keris collection earlier :rolleyes:

If you don't mind a fair amount of reading you may find this thread from the old forum enlightening .

Part I
http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000307.html
PartII
http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000402.html

[nechesh]

Kai Wee makes very good points about the greneng profile and i believe he is correct that this is an older piece. Thanks for all those pictures. :)
I would still stick to Javanese origin.
Even without seeing the pamor clearly it is certain that this is a very nice old blade. You should have the museum commission a sheath for it. It is well deserving of one. :)

[tom hyle]

I want to give my initial impressions before becoming confused by those who know more about k(e)ris than I do; I tend to get lost in the terminology and confused sometimes by other people's thoughts. Lovely, and with all the look of a very deadly weapon. I will assay nothing to do with place or age, as I've little doubt others have already told you that quite precisely, and my input would be both irrelevant and superceded. The blade seems to have a fairly crisp etch; probably one you can feel? It is not stained, which I'll just leave as a lone statement. The edge lamination does not appear to be a vastly different alloy from the body of the blade (the etching has not darkened either significantly more, though the main weld is quite visible in places, and we seem to be looking at the usual [but not universal] sandwich mai construction....). The handle carving is beautiful. I find the hollowed depiction of the feet, almost Mexican-Magic-Jesus-style (and the whole statue is in a style that reminds me of more Eastern Pacific work, and even Pacific coastal American Indian work), fascinating. The first thing I see with the left hand is that the line that divides the two middle fingers continues beyond the hand quite far (unlike the right hand), and appears to be a crack or other long flaw in the wood. Does this area seem to be darker and less clearly grained than the rest of the wood? I can't tell from the photos. Several types of such areas (scars, knots, burls, or even just the heart of the wood) can be oddly grained, often extra hard and brittle, and difficult to carve, so all this argues for an accident, likely during production, as you say. The figure is beautiful, but stylized and simplistic; it does not seem to have any intricate detail, and this also may argue for a lower-teir carver who might make such errors (I think I could almost carve this in good carving wood, and they probably wouldn't let me make wooden things and sell them in your country, Wolviex; just guessing based on Germany, actually though; there's still a guild there, last I heard, which was about AD 2002..... ;) ). On the other hand, there are other differences. The thumb is similarly vague and rounded, but the two full length fingers seem strikingly more lifelike and wellformed on the left hand than any of the right. Is this a known meaningful gesture? The crack/flaw would then make sense as something in the wood that the caver blended into the carving.
As for the other crack and the slight protrusion of the tang, I have become intriqued by Laban Tayo's statement that the wedge shaped tang on a sword of his that seems to exhibit a similar situation was pushed out by hilt shrinkage; perhaps that relates in some way? Damage is of course real, but in truth, more of it occurs to swords (at least in these times) from neglect, travel, and exposure to air than from mechanical trauma.
On a linguistic side note, "Woman impersonation" makes a kind of comically out of place phrase in N American English; it's similar to a common vernacular term for male to femal cross-dressers ("female impersonator").

[Tim Simmons]

Hi Tom, it is not just the ability most important is the original concept,glad to hear you are that good .I will email you with some of my work.Tim

[tom hyle]

I totally agree, and the surfacing is real nice, too. I think I want a poster of this statue.

[nechesh]

Tom, i don't believe the lack of intricate detail argues for a lower-tier carver. This may, infact, be a depiction of Durga or some other goddess form, but it is abstracted, IMO, in an attempt to conform to islamic law, so i don't think this is necessarily pre-Islamic. To be a pre-Islamic hilt from Jawa it would have to be at least 16thC or older and that would make this a pretty old chunk of wood. It has a nice patina, but i hardly think it is that old. I actually think the conception and execution of this hilt required an artisan of great skill. IMO it is high art.
I don't think this blade is etched but unstained. I just think it has been a very long time since it's last staining.

[Rick]

This stunning Ukiran perfectly fits the quote of the famous architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe :

" Less is more ."

[tom hyle]

IMO it is high art.


I agree, but that does not imply that there is anything especially difficult about the cuts or anything. The beauty and inspiration of the conception and the skill required for the execution are two pretty much entirely different things. I desire to explain myself as at least two persons seem to have somewhat misunderstood my statement. There is nothing particularly clumsy, amateurish, etc. about the execution of this piece (except perhaps the fingers, but I'm not convinced that's unintentional), however.......however, the cuts are simple, the surfaces are sweeping; there is little to no intricate detail (especially by Oceanic SE Asian terms); thus, everything about the carving, while not showing failure of skill, other than the debatable/unknown situation with the hands (which is exactly what I was pursuing of course), also does not display any especially great carving skill. I don't know this wood, but truly I'm pretty sure I could carve this, or come real close, given time and the will, and with my knives sharp and plenty to smoke, and I am no master carver; I often see carvings on this forum of which I would not say this. This simplicity in no way denigrates this sculpture! It could even be considered to speak of its essence.

[tom hyle]

I don't think this blade is etched but unstained. I just think it has been a very long time since it's last staining.

This is most likely the mechanism by which it became etched but not stained, agreed; the stain probably wore off. That would be my guess, but it didn't look like a Java k(e)ris to me, so I was not entirely sure it would've ever been stained. Actually, and I am a bit surprised by this, it seems there may still be some uncertainty concerning the island/tribe/etc. of origin; I figured it would be all nailed down by now; sometimes I like to leave a k(e)ris thread alone until that stuff is all nailed down, then talk about what interests me about these often lovely dagger-swords. In any event, one point I was trying obliquely to make is that only very slight if any etching would be needed or helpful in resurfacing this piece because it is already pretty well done, while staining, if appropriate, is needed; there seems to be constant confusion between these two technical processes, so the division is good to point out.

[Tim Simmons]

This handle has been carved by a master.An obviously very high status client commisioned this piece ,we do not know what directions were given to the artists that made this,I am sure it was not just whittled on a whim untill it was thought finnished,it was made on request!The fact that it looks so simple and beautiful is because the carver was a master of the highest order, and indeed less is more.Those who are of the opinion that technical abillity is artistic merit need to go back to school.Tim

[BluErf]

We hear that the simplest things are often the most difficult to carve well because there is nothing to hide the flaws with. Its like singing karaoke without the echo, instrumental accompaniment and backup vocals -- the singer has to be damn good in order not to fall flat. :)

Some of the seemingly easy-to-carve bits are actually terribly difficult to carve.

Just a couple of examples:

1. The bugis pistol-grip handle. The form looks easy enough, but it has to feel right when gripped in the hand. Javanese/Madurese knock-offs of Bugis handles looked essentially the same, but is stiffer and doesn't feel right. This is because there should be an almost imperceptible twist in the 'head' of the handle. The other thing is -- notice the lines on the handle, especially the 'u-turn' double-line on the top back of the hilt (2nd pic). This is carved free-hand and on a curving surface, and the carver has only one stroke to do each line of that 'u-turn'. 1 mm off, and the lines don't join with the other lines properly.

2. The 'locust neck' sheath stem bottom. Looks plain and simple, but it is really quite difficult to shape from a square block. The inverted 'v' curves must fit perfectly between the 2 blocks of wood. 0.5mm off for any of the 4 curves on the inverted 'v' on either side and it won't fit.

[BluErf]

Tom, i don't believe the lack of intricate detail argues for a lower-tier carver. This may, infact, be a depiction of Durga or some other goddess form, but it is abstracted, IMO, in an attempt to conform to islamic law, so i don't think this is necessarily pre-Islamic. To be a pre-Islamic hilt from Jawa it would have to be at least 16thC or older and that would make this a pretty old chunk of wood. It has a nice patina, but i hardly think it is that old.

I think Java's conversion to Islam took place over a period of time, and even then, was not complete. The pasisir areas retained much of their rashaksa, ganesha forms even til this day, albeit covered and hidden in floral motifs. E Java still has its tree of life motif with parrot head on top, and sometimes angels by the side. So this hilt could be 17th century or even 18th century.

However, the condition of the piece may not be an indication of age. Looking at the Karsten Jensen example above, who would believe that they are looking at a 16th century keris and hilt. There are other examples in the Karsten Jensen books in which the ivory hilt is still cream coloured, and the sheaths retained their original pigments. Preservation and use (abuse) are important factors in how the hilt would end up looking after centuries. This keris here could have ended up in the collection and hardly handled; "kept in a cool, dry place", I guess.

[wolviex]

Thank you all!

If we are discussing the Ukiran at the moment, I think that these two left hand fingers were made purposely. I can't tell at the moment if the wood is harder in that place, but I would rather think about it as designedly. Writing about carver error I wanted to provoke discussion, beliving that someone saw something similiar, and could tell us, if it is known gesture or meaning.

This is beautiful piece of work, no doubt. I believe that someone will be able to call this deity: Nechesh mentioned Durga, I would like to know something more about her. I know that deities are sometimes problematic to identify, but please go on :) - any other ideas?

Thank you in advance

[Boedhi Adhitya]

Judging keris from it's picture is always very tricky for me, but that's the only way we could do here :( It looks like javanese keris for me, the "nem-neman" perhaps. Nem-neman term attributed to all kerises which were made after the Giyanti Treaty, which divided the mataram kingdom in 1792, until early 20th century. 36cm long is'n't long enough for Bali kerises, but quite long for Java. Here in Java, we measure the blade by "kilan" or "jengkal" traditional unit, that is, the distance between the thumb's point and little finger while you spreading them (mine is 20cm). Average Java keris (and Bugis, perhaps Malay also) have around one and a half kilan long, while bali keris might well over 2 kilans.

"out-of-blade" greneng profile is called "ron dha nunut". Greneng term is only used specifically for those thorn-like shape on ganja's tail. Once it come to the blade, it is called "ron dha nunut" nunut= to follow, ron=daun=leaf, dha=the "W"torn-like shape, which actually resembles the "dha" character on Javanese alphabet. the greneng on the sekar kacang is called "jenggot" or beard. Mpu put/made the greneng, ron dha nunut or jenggot on the blade according to the dhapur/blade shape he wished to made. There were a rule, not just for it's beauty, especially in Java. There always a name and meaning for every ricikan/blade details and luk. But for now, just admire the beauty :D It's true that the greneng shape might be the indicator for the age, but it's the "W" or dha which is used, not the "out-of-blade" or "within-the-blade" profile, at least here in Java, for what I've learnt. Some even believe that the greneng are actually the "hand-signature" of the empu.

I don't hold my opinions as to be the right ones. I just want to share what I've learnt, and to learnt much much more. Please do not feel offended :)

Anyway, good keris, Wolviex. Just wonder, how it could travel to Poland :D The pamor is beras wutah, and the dhapur might be Carita Kanawa, 9 luk. I don't bring the dhapur book, just relying my memory, so I couldn't assure you, sorry :(

[BluErf]

Hi Boedhi, thanks for sharing. I think you may have misunderstood my use of "out-of-blade-profile" and "within-the-blade-profile". In both cases, there are ron dha nunut, its only whether it sticks out of the blade profile like in the Balinese, Malay and the primary Javanese keris in discussion here, or whether it is cut into the blade profile, like in the 2 Javanese keris examples I have posted. I must admit that this out-of-profile and within-profile point is merely my observation of the Javanese kerises I have seen in person and in books. The older pieces (16th-maybe 18th century) had out-of-profile greneng. The recent ones (19th-21st century) had greneng that does not protrude from the blade profile line.

[tom hyle]

Well, other than to point out that some of the lines are actually a little bit wiggly and that this is very likely a traditional design and not invented by the carver, I guess I've said my say on the skill level; believe what you will, but let me ask, can you justify the claim of mastery? What is it that anyone thinks requires a master's hand here? Because I, an experienced cutter of wood, see nothing like that. Why are the fingers so bulbous? If that's master's work then it's intentional and meaningful. Abstract lines, curved or straight, are much easier than fingers. I think the concept of master artisan/first rate work is misunderstood and considerably over-applied by modern people, BTW; to say something is not masterly does not mean it is not good. To hark to the European guild system, journeymen typically must display a level of skill and knowledge that would generally be considered very impressive. The typical professional working craftsman is a journeyman. Most firms in the past (usually family operated of course) did not have a single master craftsman. Most craftsmen never in their lives became masters. Most of us may have never seen master's work outside of musea and books (though there's a confusing and distressing tendency where the boss's name goes on it no matter who made it). Perhaps the term "mpu" is/was given out more lightly, but I somehow doubt it.
Bluerf, I'm not sure what point the hilt you show us is supposed to make about the hilt we're discussing, or at least how it's supposed to make it? The two are quite different.
My point with the whole mastery question was that the general level of carving skill seen here is such that an error of the type proposed, especially in an area of difficult grain, is believeable.
It often seems pointless and almost silly to discuss "quality", since judgements of it tend to be highly cultural and subjective and often do not seem suceptible to logic; Andy Warhol? Terrible painter; no good at all; No skill, no ability, no depth, no soul; recently saw some of his work in person; junk; very poorly made; see? Subjective. There are people that would about throw a brick at me for saying that, and consider it proof positive that I know nothing about art; I might say the same of most of them for saying it's any good.....who paints a million soup cans without learning to depict the curve believably?.....subjective. Therefore, back to the subject: I note something I didn't earlier, and that's that the left leg has many lines, and the right leg none (the lines I'd noticed, of course, but the none I hadn't; in all fairness it was the left hand to which our attention had been directed.). This in mind, and with the thought that these lines represent fabric wrinkles (?), possibly including the one that descends from the hand (is it the same shape of groove?)? The shine on the piece really makes it hard to see the wood or the surface; a fairly common difficulty with photos. She could be reaching two fingers into the fabric to scratch her leg, or to hike up her skirt. I don't know how that would tie in to any myth or standard gesture, but I think I've seen statues of Kali exposing herself, and the fingers do look more like they are disappearing into the skirt than as if they are curled in to the palm. Don't dismiss too quickly; Mjolnir the lightning-hammer has a short handle because an assistant smith got distracted by a biting fly (though it was not actually an ordinary fly, but in art.....). This is a very important part of that myth; one of its main moral points, without which it would almost never be related or depicted. Gods are often scratching their butts in stories....or maybe she's reaching for something. Aren't Durga and Kali the same/aspects of one being/etc?

[Tim Simmons]

I use the word master to driscibe an artist, exprienced, skilled and above all creative.The last thing I meant was any kind of highbrow sanctification.Tim

[tom hyle]

That's more or less what I thought you meant, Tim, and I agree with your opinion about this statue; I love it. I just think it's important to point out the difference between the (arguably incorrect) relatively broad modern N American vernacular use of the term and its traditional, very much rules-bound, European meaning. I'm affraid I'm one of those tiresome persons who is troubled by the changing of language, and almost look at as decay. I can't justify this logically; things change; that's life; it bothers me for whatever reason, though......This is not the first time I've said something isn't master work, or isn't first class work, and gotten responses almost as if I'd said it was not good; this ties in with aspects of modern culture that I'd better not discuss here as I cannot see them in any complimentary light; it's real noticeable when you are a craftsman, and know you're a journeyman at best, and watch others no better (and no few worse) advertise their mastery, and watch the people flock to the balogna.
Eric Clapton didn't just call an album Journeyman; I heard him explain it; after all those years of work, and with all the high opinion people have of his work, that's as high a claim as he was willing to make, and it not very vehemently. (Perhaps in Britain humility is still a virtue, or perhaps the old meanings of the terms are still better known/more used there)

[Tim Simmons]

Here here,though I am not that keen on Eric Clapton.Tim

[wolviex]

Thank you Boedhi Adhitya for your wide description. I can admit that I'm still a little lost in all those terminology, but this is great help. All these name are still sound strange to me, but I'm learning and familiarizing with them... slowly ;). Anyway I found this fascinating.
I don't know how this keris found its way to Poland. There are some possibilities. First of all there were Polish travelers, and some of them were visiting far away Indonesian islands. There are even some journals about their far away travels. I believe that some of them brought few pieces back with them. Second option is, that many examples of these weapons, as spectacular ones, were brought from other countries like Spain, France, England, Germany and other, which were in trade, political and strong cultural contacts with Poland, during 16th-19th centuries. Polish noblemen were often guests in these countries, there were making additions to theirs collections there, and it's for sure, that some of kerises (and maybe this one included) may found its way to Poland through these contacts.

I think that Tom touched serious problem, and he is right writing about Mastery. I don't want to make a discussion about it, but this is obviuos we often understand this word different. In this case, while this keris is from much different culture than I am, I can't tell is it good or not. I can tell only this is nice through my cultural experience. People who are more familiar with these weapons are able to judge about it more properly, so I believe that our kerislovers are somehow right, knowing more pieces than I do. Of course, we have to look and judge from a different points of view i.e. 16th century European drawer (like Albrecht Durer), and from the other peasant artist from the same period. Both might be the "masters", but judging their works quality depends on that what we are looking for, and what are our expactations and knowledge about them. I hope I'm clear. English for me is illegible but different cultural too :D

[wolviex]

Boedhi Adhitya and BluErf: please explain to me one thing! I know that dating kerises is sometimes very problematic, but you are judging two different things.
BluErf, judging from the greneng is dating this keris earlier (16th-18th c.)
Boedhi Adhitya moved this date "after the Giyanti Treaty" (late 18th-20th c.)

Sorry for bothering, but I think this discrepancy is in need of explanation :)

Regards!

[nechesh]

Well Tom, i'm with you you on Warhol, i think he was a fake and a user who had a few good concepts that he execured ad nauseum. So they can let the rocks fly at both of us. :) But i also think Clapton's greatness is a bit exaggerated too. Good Rock/Blues guitarist with very little originality. No humility there, just being the honest journeyman that he is.
Of Warhol, i have yet to encounter fans of his work referring to him as a "master". It is also well known that much of his work was actually executed by apprentices in his infamous "Factory", with his oversight of course. Now Picasso might be a better comparison because i HAVE heard him referred to as a "master". Much of his best known work is in cubist form, an abstraction of reality just as this particular hilt is. It sometimes looks childish and even simple, but i wouldn't assume i could do it with the same power and meaning. Being a master isn't always in the details. This hilt is meant to look this way and wasn't necessarily carved as an abstraction because the artist was incapable of depicting a realistic figure. This was the artist's intent. Now i certainly wouldn't say he is a "master" based on this one piece of work. But likewise i couldn't say he is not. :)
Personally i find this type of abstraction to be far ahead of it's time and we know that the cubists amongst other "modern" artists were all looking at so-called "primative" art when they were developing their ideas.
Tom, this is not a challenge, but since you have stated more than once that you could carve this as well, i for one would love to see it. You might actually get some business out of it. ;)
Wolviex, dating of keris is almost ALWAYS problematic :) especially when trying to do it just from photographs. A big part of the problem is that some of these keris forms can linger for centuries with very little change in appearance. Still, i thing that BluErf has perhaps applied a bit too much age to this piece and i personally would feel more comfortable with late 18th - early 19thC as Boedhi Adhitya suggests. Without any real provenence it is hard to say for sure. I am surprised that the museum has none at all. I would expect that at least getting info like where and when a piece was collected would be standard for any museum.
Of course, whether this keris is 17thC or 18thC matters little in the end, especially since we will probably never know for sure. What matters is that this is a fine example of an "older" (pre-late19th or 20thC) form with a fairly rare hilt form and that it should be prized by you and your museum. :)

[nechesh]

Aren't Durga and Kali the same/aspects of one being/etc?

I think it would be an over simplification to say this. They are very different aspects of the same supreme mother, yes, but in this respect then ALL goddess forms would be the same goddess ultimately. They do share a certain ferocity. In other words, dont mess with them! :eek:
I agree with Tom that the Shiva hilt on the Kerner example bears absolutely no resemblence to the "Durga" hilt we have here. The Shiva hilt is mean as a "realistic" depiction of the deity, not the abstraction of the Durga hilt. Different gods, different genders, different treatments.

[wolviex]

Without any real provenence it is hard to say for sure. I am surprised that the museum has none at all. I would expect that at least getting info like where and when a piece was collected would be standard for any museum

You're absolutely right, but... this piece wasn't purchased by the museum directly, but it is after big, famous, noble family, which gave all their collection to the museum. Because objects from these collection were gathered by the family from 17th century up to 20th, many of them is without provenience, many of them were just "after grandpa", and to be honest, treated as family mementos, no one was care where and what was purchased :( .

As for the feeling - it's hard to get for me this keris just for feeling, while it's from different culture. So if I could say I can feel, I would guess 18th-19th century too.

[tom hyle]

I knew someone would say it and guessed it would be you; $15 an hour for that kind of work, buddy, and it will take a while; I ain't do nothing to prove nothing to nobody. ;) And I actually don't take carving work for hire; professionalism is the death of art. I do things I don't love so much for hire (though I guess it is a complex issue; I'd still be at the custom door job if my back could take the work.....).
Since two people don't get the Clapton reference though it seems off topic (and being a metaphor, isn't), I must elucidate further upon it. I actually never liked Eric Clapton much. I wouldn't call him lowest common denominator, but I just was never very impressed by his work, and most of all was indeed annoyed by the "rock god" vicarious arrogance of his fans. Furthermore, I think his best work was early on and he never should have abandoned his earlier style for the more derivitive work everyone seems so impressed by. But what turned me around on the man as an artist is the interview; the arrogance isn't his; it's his fans' and the derivitiveness is what is called learning by imitation, and though I'd've rather seen him pursue art by inspiration and individuality, his is a path I can respect; a bit prosaic, and nothing to expect artists to have the patience for, but respectable; learn the tradition THEN break/supercede it. Still learning a lot, he said; not ready to supercede. Just a journeyman; a competent working bluesman. IMHO a fairly accurate assessment, and a concept he has evidently pursued quite sincerely and at the expense of doing his own thing musically (and if you listen to his early work it is clear he had his own thing). You don't have to be a fan to respect such clarity and humility.
BTW, Two things I didn't say are that I could definitely carve this quite as well (I hedged my bets, you may notice, especially as it may for all I know be a difficult wood.), or that it couldn't have been carved by a master (only no particular sign it was; far from the same. On further examination I have spotted what seem to be minor flaws, but that doesn't lock things down or anything, and at least some of them may be deliberate and not flaws at all, such as the bulbous fingers.).
Picasso was a better painter than Warhol, but I don't care for his personality either. His followers/devotees do not call him a master. They call him "The Master", kind of like Jesus or something.
Interesting to say that this kind of work is out of placely modern, or ahead of its time; a total misperception, begging your pardon; in fact the "modern" Western art that resembles it is itself consciously imitative of "primitive" art; consciously behind its time, if you will. A lot of "Modern Art" is actually a reinjection of the primitive, and the concepts of beauty and form it expresses, if they are advanced, are not the advancement of the modern society/overculture/industrial age, but it trying to get back to the advancement or whatever term you prefer of earlier, more "natural" human cultures. The assumption that history and society are improving or are moving forward in anything but time has no basis in reality, though it is very common.....
If you ever get to Houston, you'd better not gamble and you'd better not fight, just like the song says, but then take yourself to a museum called the Menil Collection. A modern art museum. For one thing they have a bad ass beautiful deadly giant wooden Polynesian sword/spear in one of the corners, kind of behind a case, and for another they have a back room stocked with traditional art from the collections of famous modern artists, to show some of what they were studying.

[wolviex]

Lingering Eric Clapton's plot, you'll guys will be able soon to write the epochal work titled "Eric Clapton's music and its influence on the kerises ukirans in 19th and 20th century" :rolleyes: :D
or "Reminescences of keris pamor in Andy Warhol's works" (LOL)

Regards ;)

[tom hyle]

Ha ha. Really though, music is one of the most widely/publicly appreciated/discussed arts in N America, and the one that most people know the most about and the most about the business of, so it almost always serves as a very rich source of metaphor when discussing art with N Americans, and so is quite appropriate. Painting is different; still trying to use widely known arts/artists as examples though. How many N Americans can name one wood carver? But musicians, actors, and painters........so good metaphors/examples of how things go down in the arts.

[Tim Simmons]

When in a hole stop digging.Tim

[tom hyle]

I'm not sure what that means; am I in danger of setting off the humans?

[Rick]

As the only Silverback here I would suggest that we get this thing back on topic immediately .

Got it ?

Good.

[Boedhi Adhitya]

BluErf, I do apologize for misunderstanding. ron dha nunut is quite unusual on old blade in Java, except the very old one, usually have no pamor at all with greenish iron, which would be a very rare one. IMHO, "within the blade profile" ron dha nunut on Java keris resemble the average quality pieces, while "the out of blade" one is better. But there is different approach for this. Bali keris would look sharper and rougher, while Java keris would tend to be smoother, making the transition between the plain edge to the ron dha/greneng looks smoother.

Wolviex, judging keris age would be very problematic, especially if you have only the pictures. If we agree that this keris from Java, 16-18th Cent. would be the era of Mataram kingdom and Kartasura. I wish to believe it from Mataram, but the ricikan/details and proporsion isn't right. The lambe gajah (lambe=lips, gajah=elephant, that is, the small lips-like projection on the lower part of gandhik, near the sekar kacang point) isn't Mataram neither Kartasura. It has a fine line connected and through the gandhik, suggesting nem-neman era. The ganja and gandhik are too thick for mataram, while the luk/waves not deep enough for Kartasura. The sekar kacang also looks too "fat" for Mataram and Kartasura. The details and shape just like the newly made keris today by a very capable keris maker, but the iron in use suggest it's old. So, for now, I would vote for nem-neman ;) , but to make sure, i've to handle it myself :( Bad idea. Anyway, it is a good one, hard to find even here in Java. Just cleaned and put some etch, you may love it more :)

About the handle, well, I know nothing about it. Sorry. The handle's shape quite unusual in Java, in fact, I've never see it, but from the wood and finish I believe it's Java. The crippled finger seems to be the carver intention. The wood might be Tayuman, stained with pacar leaf, the common finish in Java. To make sure about the wood, if you can put it off, just drown it in the bowl of water. The tayuman might submerge, while other wood may float. Just make sure the hole filled with water.
As we know, keris still a living art here. People may change the handle and sheath to the newer one. So it is unusual in Java to judge the blade's age from it's handle.

[BluErf]

I agree with Tom that the Shiva hilt on the Kerner example bears absolutely no resemblence to the "Durga" hilt we have here. The Shiva hilt is mean as a "realistic" depiction of the deity, not the abstraction of the Durga hilt. Different gods, different genders, different treatments.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. :o The similarity I was trying to point out was that both are Balinese-esque hulus that have not quite reached the large proportions of typical Balinese hulus and both sit on a mendak rather than a bulbous selut and mendak ring. I am of the opinion that these are attributes of earlier era (16-18th century) Javanese handle forms. Yes, both the Shiva and Durga are very different, and the realistic/abstract treatment too. But looking at Martin Kerner again, even with the Balinese handles, we see both realistic and a smaller number of abstract forms. And it has been said that the Balinese keris blades and handle forms are descendants of the earlier Javanese archetypes, which this Durga hilt keris could be one such keris.

As for the point I was trying to pull with my earlier pictures -- things that look simple does not necessarily mean it is simple to do well. Special emphasis is on the 'do well'. Mastery does not mean carving something that is very flashy and catches attention like some fancy full-carved handles do.

Everyone can make an attempt to make a simple form, but whether it is done well is another different matter. The difference between the work of a skilled tukang (journeyman, if you like) and a master is in the subtlety. To people who have not gained a deep appreciation of the art, the hilts made by a tukang and a master all look alike. To the connoisseur, it can mean thousands of dollars in price difference. Its all in the "air tangan" (Malay: literally "hand water". crudely translates into 'x-factor in carving') of the carver.

To add to nechesh's request, apart from attempting to carve this Durga hilt, maybe Tom could attempt to carve the Bugis handle I have posted, with all the surface lines, especially the u-turn double line on the back of the hilt. I would gladly supply more photos. :) Also, another good experiment would be to carve the inverted v sheath bottom. Again, I also emphasize this is not a spiteful challenge; I believe that the proof of the cake is in the eating, and in this case, the proof of mastery (or not) is in the ability to carve. I'm not trying to put you down Tom, but carvers in Madura have been trying to copy the Bugis keris hilts and they have not been able to do it convincingly, and these guys are professional carvers who carve every day.

Wolviex -- this is the problem with keris; its so uncertain. :D Anyway, it is true that handles can be swapped, but its just the combination of this old-style hilt with an old-style blade which made me think it really is an older form. Like I mentioned before, the physical condition of the keris is a poor indicator of age. If this keris was found in Java today, I would say 19th or even 20th century. But given that it was found in Poland (presumably drier and cooler than Indonesia) and collected in the earlier centuries, I do think this keris has considerable age to it.

[BluErf]

BluErf, I do apologize for misunderstanding. ron dha nunut is quite unusual on old blade in Java, except the very old one, usually have no pamor at all with greenish iron, which would be a very rare one. IMHO, "within the blade profile" ron dha nunut on Java keris resemble the average quality pieces, while "the out of blade" one is better. But there is different approach for this. Bali keris would look sharper and rougher, while Java keris would tend to be smoother, making the transition between the plain edge to the ron dha/greneng looks smoother.



Hi Boedhi,

I am looking at Karsten Jensen's book with many Javanese kerises provenanced to the 16th and 17th century. Nearly all of them had "out-of-the-blade-profile" ron dha nunut. How is that congruent with the statement that they are quite unusual in old Javanese keris blades please?

Also, looking at the 16th/17th century Shiva keris on the 1st page of this thread, it would seem to me that the ganja and gandik and sekar kacang and greneng are all very similar. What do you classify the 16th/17th Shiva keris as please? Are 19th century Javanese kerises like this?

Also, I thought Balinese kerises should be smoother than Javanese kerises because they are polished before etching. In my collection, my Javanese kerises are rougher-surfaced than all my Balinese kerises.

Many questions, very little answers. :D

[BluErf]

Empu Kumis, if you are reading this, do give us your opinion please. Thanks!

[tom hyle]

Everyone can make an attempt to make a simple form, but whether it is done well is another different matter....To people who have not gained a deep appreciation of the art, the hilts made by a tukang and a master all look alike. To the connoisseur, it can mean thousands of dollars in price difference. Its all in the "air tangan" (Malay: literally "hand water". crudely translates into 'x-factor in carving') of the carver.

To add to nechesh's request, apart from attempting to carve this Durga hilt, maybe Tom could attempt to carve the Bugis handle I have posted, with all the surface lines, especially the u-turn double line on the back of the hilt. I would gladly supply more photos. :) Also, another good experiment would be to carve the inverted v sheath bottom. Again, I also emphasize this is not a spiteful challenge; I believe that the proof of the cake is in the eating, and in this case, the proof of mastery (or not) is in the ability to carve. I'm not trying to put you down Tom, but carvers in Madura have been trying to copy the Bugis keris hilts and they have not been able to do it convincingly, and these guys are professional carvers who carve every day.

OK, Rubbing my head in consternation, but once more to try to explain: A/ I don't do nothing to prove nothing to nobody; I don't care that much what you think; I do not enjoy obsessive carving, especially the polishing; and you nor anyone else has nor is welcome to try to exercise such power over me. Is that hard to understand in some way?
B/ The one I said I could ALMOST carve under ideal conditions is the Durga one, not the stripey Bugis one: What I said about the two is that they are quite different, and I would think that in the absense of any further comment the implication that I make no claims regarding the Bugis hilt would be obvious. Both the angling and the parrallel lines might be hard, though I would make the parrallel lines with jigs or a special knife of some kind I'd probably have to invent if for some reason I had to make them perfect-perfect; then again I might be able to pull it off with a gun checquering knife. In any event, what I can make, what I have made for hire (for instance, perfectly flat lacquered wood surfaces, which are indeed difficult), and what I enjoy making or choose to make are vastly different; I am a designer; I am interested in structure. The acts of polishing and precision of decoration in producing plastic art are not things I enjoy. That's not because I'm incapable of them; it's because they're boring and painful.
C/ I don't know from spite, but I'm not feeling like all this is real mannerly or respectful of my eye and knowledge, but I'm used to that from humans and not too excited over it; as for my "mastery" I have never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever made any such claim in any feild! Ever ever ever ever. In fact, I cited the fact that I could probably carve the Durga statue as evidence that it does not require a master.
D/ Not sure what was supposedly improper about the Eric Clapton line of metaphor, but I see that, with no further promting from me, the subject is still art.
E/ While I can understand the concept of hiding errors in a profusion of detail, I don't know that I agree with it; first, the more details there are the harder it is OF COURSE for them all to be perfect; second, it is my experience as a craftsman that if you can't do an intricate decoration right you are far better off to not do it at all. Flat flat is indeed hard to make, but other than that flats and surfaces are certainly not harder to make than details; they are easier. This does not impugn the beauty or subtlty that can be expressed in them in any way. The concept that highly detailed carvings are done to hide a lack of skill seems to somehow fit the same myth structure (urban sword legend, anyone?) as the concept that carvings on Japanese blades are done (only or principally) to hide/eradicate forging flaws. Both may have some truth. Certainly, and with full consideration for the artistic traditions of simplicity/form that exist in both Japan and Indonesia, neither is correct as a hard and fast rule.

[Rick]

We are ALL humans here including you Tom !

I have placed one warning to get back on topic .

Any more of this and I am coming back with Fire and Brimstone ! :mad:

[Andrew]

I really want to keep this informative and interesting thread open, gentlemen.

Disagreement and debate is absolutely acceptable. However, lets all try to avoid giving or taking personal offense.


If this can't be done, I will lock this thread very quickly.

[wolviex]

Gentlemen!

Degustibus non est disputandum! So my proposal is cut the discussion about mastery and art, because I see it is pointless and some of you getting confused. I hope you'll forgive me.

Tom, BluErf, Boedhi, Tim, Neschesh - your opinions are very precious to me, because you are the people who bear the knowledge which is out of reach for me. Please continue essential discussion further. I believe I can still learn a lot from you about this beautiful knife.

Regards!

[nechesh]

Also, I thought Balinese kerises should be smoother than Javanese kerises because they are polished before etching. In my collection, my Javanese kerises are rougher-surfaced than all my Balinese kerises.


Kai Wee, it has been my understanding that this is only true of later Javanese tradition. I am not sure exactly when the Javanese stopped polishing their keris, but if you look at examples, say, in the Tropenmuseum in Amsterdam that were collected very early on i think you will find a similar polished finish to that of Balinese keris. Note the apparent smoothness of finish on the unstained Kerner example.
I understand now what you were trying to say about the similarities between the "Durga" and Shiva hilts, but IMO, the first impression that the "Durga" gives me is not Bali-esque at all, but a variation of the classic Javanese planar form. It holds pretty much the same shape, just different details in the carving.

[Boedhi Adhitya]

BluErf,
First of all, I must admit I don't know about "shiva keris" you are talking about. I only understand the keris. No "shiva keris" term here in Java, and I study under traditional keris tradition in Java. Just for information, here in Jogjakarta, we have a keris lovers/connoiseurs' club, called "Pametri Wiji" which is the oldest club in keris/heirloom subject in Indonesia. This club held a keris discussion every month since 1983. I joined this club in 1997, and in 2003 became the 2nd secretary. Every month, the member bring his collection to be discussed. There are at least 20 blade to be discussed every meeting. This club also held yearly keris cleansing ceremony and consultation, which I also became a part of the team since 2000. At least 200 - 400 blade cleaned every year. Since some of the members are a royal family of Jogjakarta court, I have opportunity to see and handle the first class, court made kerises, old and nem-neman ones, with reliable history, which usually unaccesible to common peoples/foreigners. So, I think I have some first-hand experience, especially in Java keris.

Now back to the subject, I haven't read Jensen's book, and I don't know what methods he use to dating the keris age. I've also found the 16th century Mataram keris in Bali, in nearly perfect condition.(In 16th centutry is the Islamic periode in Java. Majapahit had fallen in late 1400) Handling the keris by yourselves with magnifier at hand might means a lot more than just the pictures. So still I would say, the ron dha nunut is quite unusual on the old 16-17th cent. blades. The nem-neman ones, may have it since the empu wasn't follow very strictly to the dhapur's rules anymore. They make some new dhapur, sometimes a combination of two dhapur in one blade, and many of them unwritten in the old book. (dhapur means "face", that is, the blade's shape which is defined by the ricikan/details and luk it has).
The curving line connecting lambe gajah to gandhik cannot be cheated. The 16-17th cent. lambe gajah tend to look more like a torn than the lips. If there is a line, it won't be curved, but flat. Older blades (I mean the Mataram senopaten and older tangguh, late 1500 and before) have no line at all. The gandhik of nem-neman keris may look like a "smilling face", which I've never seen on older blades.

Balinesse usually polish their blade with pulverized brick, which I thought, may "eat" the blade more than lime juices. Etching quite unsual now in Bali for Balinesse themselves, and I think the skill have lost. Now usually Javanese peoples from Surabaya and Madura who done the etching. The rough profile of Java keris in fact, the criteria which is sought after by the Java collector. It's resembles the 5 sharpness (the point, 2 edges and 2 sides), symbolizing the sharpness of 5 senses. Rough blade's side might only appear if good pamor material was used. If phosporus-rich pamor material was used, it will never get rough by etching, because the pamor is also "eaten" by the lime juices, something won't happen to nickleous-rich pamor.
But anyway, a misunderstanding happen again :D The "Rough" which I refered to, isn't the blade, but the transition feeling from the plain sharp edges, to the ron dha nunut/greneng serrated edges. Java keris tend to look (and feel) smoother than Bali. The greneng/ron dha nunut of Bali keris feel like a protruding thorn, ready to catch anything.

Now about carving.. :D
Carving a keris handle is a very specialized skill. A skilled artist would only master one particular shape from his own area. If he tries to copy a handle he don't master, it is not only ended in unproper shape, but also ruining his skill and "proper shape and balance" once he mastered. In the old days, the master handle and sheath makers tried to fit the handle and sheath not only to the keris, but also to the wearer, in such way so sheath and handle would "match" the wearer's character. Today in Jogja, there is only 1, I said one, mastercarver who can carved the simple Jogja handle quite good, but still, not as good as the old one, not even the Bugis, Solo, or Bali. He is only specialized in handle making, and no other. (well, a smoking pipe might be an exception). The old day mastercarver took at least a week to make a handle, if not a whole month. It's an art, not just a handle. Asking any other carver who don't master the skill to copy the handle would never work. So asking Madura carver to copy the Bugis will never work, so does asking Tom :D Sorry Tom. Asking the Bugis carver to copy Madura's Donoriko handle would also never work either. It's a very specialized, state of the art skill, not only a talent, which many of them, unfortunately, have lost.

Someone who don't live in the cultures himselves sometimes make a wrong interpretation. For instance, The Parang Rusak Batik cloth. Westerner tend to interpret "Parang" as a single-edge weapon used to slash someone neck :) while "rusak" interpreted as "broken", by war, of course. So, the wearer, would be interpreted as a "war monger, blood lust" person. Unfortunately, the Java king use it as his formal dress. Interpreting "Parang" as a weapon is true only in Melayu/Indonesian language, but it isn't true in Javanese language, where the Parang Rusak motif originated. In Javanese, "Parang" might means the cliff on the sea. "Parang Rusak" means broken cliff, which might be interpreted as "you might as tough as cliff, but in the end, it is broken anyway", and for the king, interpretation might be "even the tough cliff broken, and you wouldn't be the king forever too"
Just some insight on how the cultural diffences might turn something upside down :)

[nechesh]

Boedhi Adhitya, i have really been enjoying your posts and trust you will keep them coming. Just a note on BluErf's use of the term "Shiva keris". I believe he was referring to the example in Kerner's book that he has shown us which has a ukiran depicting Shiva, not to a specific keris form called "Shiva keris". :)

[mhm27]

If you don't mind a fair amount of reading you may find this thread from the old forum enlightening .

Part I
http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000307.html
PartII
http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000402.html

Hi rick,

thanks for the link and it was a great forum from the past and it`s more energy in the discussion form the seniors ha.....thanks again

[tuancd]

Hi! everyone

Thank you Boedhi for all the precisions you gave us. I sincerely hope to be able to read you more.

Just to mention, Sier (pronounce Sayer) Jensen, whose a good friend, is a Danish University historian. It's a shame is book has not yet been completely translated into English (just a small part of it included in the book) and it makes it difficult to understand. Not everybody speaks Danish.
:D

Never the less, his book is great and his method the best. To date kriss, he has no method, he just read the inventory of the museum and says that if they entered the museum at a recorded date then they must have been forged before. Some other people used the same method to date Japanese suits of armour.

That's why we all have something to learn from his book.


I'll come back later to talk about the marvellous south east Javanese Durga that we have here.

[wolviex]

Boedhi Adhitya: thank you for your most informative post. I will join to the others with hope of leraning more from you in the future.

It's almost unbelievably, that making of keris handle is so difficult, and you that can't imitate it easily. I'm writing this, because if someone could imitate (let's think up)... Mona Lisa, why not ukiran. This is provocative question, because I'm wondering, do you mean literally only the surface of the handle, or there are some other features which are decisive on handle uniqueness. Sorry if this question is too much ignorant :o .

Second question - in the light of your words about uniquess of the ukirans, are there any thoughts you have about my keris' handle? Or, i.e., is it so unusual, as we decided it, that there is no chance to identify it more properly?

tuancd: that method you have mentioned is really great...well, almost...sometimes ;). In my case, it doesn't work properly :(

[tuancd]

Dear Wolviex

Yes the method is good but can only work when the piece is registered for a long time...
In your case you can only work by comparison. But the books like Sier's give that opportunity.
Experts in datation start to be able to date metal by analysis of the crystallisation on the surface. It is still expensive and I'm not yet convinced of their accuracy .
For the model of ukiran you have, yes it's rare. And your model is quite refine. For comparison I'll attach picture of mine.
It's identity is Veiled Durga from East java. Durga beautiful before was punished and became ugly. So she wore a veil in order not to scare humans. You can actually see her unveiled on Bali, holding the veil in her back (see under).
This local adaptation of Durga life is to be compared with the cult of Nyai Loro Kidul or Nyi roro Kidul (goddess of the south sea worshiped in Java) who is also ugly or beautiful.

Any ways, the three Durga veiled I've seen were on east Javanese kriss.
Cedric

[nechesh]

Never the less, his book is great and his method the best. To date kriss, he has no method, he just read the inventory of the museum and says that if they entered the museum at a recorded date then they must have been forged before. Some other people used the same method to date Japanese suits of armour.

That's why we all have something to learn from his book.


Sorry Cedric, but i just can't comprehend how this could possible be the best method of dating. Say a Javanese keris is collected in the early part of the 19thC but is in fact a Keris Mojopahit from the 14thC. To say then that this keris is older than the 19thC, while correct, tells us very little about the blade.

Thank you, BTW, for posting the photos of the other Durga hilts. Seeing these first two clearly point out the subtlties in the carving of Wolviex's example, though i am sure the ivory is a much harder material to work in. Still, the flow of lines is much more dynamic and well proportioned than your examples. I wonder if the hand on the other side of your examples have the same foreshortened middle fingers???

[tuancd]

Dear Nechesh,

museums in Europe have started from the 14th century and even before. Of course, and unfortunately, inventories don't come back to that date and more over regarding keris. :)
nevertheless and since we talk of Durga hulus there are two of them, one from the General Wrangler Samling collection (first traced) in 1676 (p 87 of Den Indonenesiske kris of Seir Jensen) the second and more known, Durga hilt made of rhinoceros horn and decorated with gold and rubies (first traced 1618; Der Deutsche Orden in Vienna) (One of the first inventories that we know with out doubt so far).
So you are absolutely right, you say no one can confirm it is from 14th century. At least I can say it is at least from 14th (ref Candi Suku) to end of 16th. I even can bet on it :cool:

for the second aspect here are the pictures.
the wooden one is also used and slightly damage on the hand. I suppose it is due to a hurting of a stronger material, but it can also be the wear of the thumb
The ivory one is obviously much later 19th or early 20th c, I would say and cannot be compared.

I’ll try to scan the pictures of the book to show the Durgas from Sier’s book I’m talking about.

[Boedhi Adhitya]

Dear Wolviex,
Making a keris handle might be easy, and might be hard, just like the painting :) Every children might be able to draw something on paper, but only master painter who could make a Monalisa. Some good and talented painter might copy the Monalisa, but if we compare it head-to-head, some experts in painting might say something, don't they ? I didn't say that every good painting must look like Monalisa, but it is "the character" which make some artwork different than another. Just like any good song will bring "a mood" to you when you hear it. The same thing applied to the perfect, state-of-the art handle. It is neither the details nor the shape which make it hard to make. It is "the nuance", "proper balance", "character" or anything, you might name it, which is hard to reach. It takes talent, experience, skill, and most of all, it takes times. Old days mastercarvers or sheathmakers were fully supported by the court. They made their work while "on the mood", as any other artworks. Today carver work "on the need", or according to "the market", not the quality. And anyway, only a little, ridiculously paying attention to details collectors / keris' connoiseurs who might (and able to!) appreciate those "state-of-the art" handle, while they very little in quantity and not willing to pay more for newly made handle, so why bother ? :( I believe, by studying a lot of good old handles, a young, capable and talented carver might able to make the good ones. But studying more than one style is very hard, because "the character", "proper balance" or anything (as you name it before :D ) particular to one style might mixed up one-another, and "confuse" the carver. Just like a rocker try to compose some middle-east song might ended up on an alternative ones :eek:

For the second question, well, I do sorry, I have no other opinion than what have been posted here before. Yes, it's unique and rare. I might have seen it, but didn't pay any attention :( Sorry, my fault. Until today, I'm only paying attention to what called "pakem" (conform to the rule) handle, especially Jogja's Pakem. I agree to Meneer Cedric that this hilt might came from east java, the "pasisiran", which considered as "out of the court" in 16th. c. But not the blade ! It might be court made !

About the dating, I agree that Sier Jensen's method is very reliable, althought not accurate enough, it might means a lot. (as long as no one faked the inventory note, of course :D ). I myself do question the traditional dating methods (Tangguh). Is it really as old as it says ? But, well, no other methods. Even the Sonobudoyo Musem in Jogjakarta asked Pametri Wiji to date their keris collections. Wish some experts on dating, Iron dating particularly, might find another, non-destructive preferably, reliable method.

Salam.

[BluErf]

Dear Wolviex,
... it is "the character" which make some artwork different than another. Just like any good song will bring "a mood" to you when you hear it. The same thing applied to the perfect, state-of-the art handle. It is neither the details nor the shape which make it hard to make. It is "the nuance", "proper balance", "character" or anything, you might name it, which is hard to reach. It takes talent, experience, skill, and most of all, it takes times. Old days mastercarvers or sheathmakers were fully supported by the court. They made their work while "on the mood", as any other artworks. Today carver work "on the need", or according to "the market", not the quality. And anyway, only a little, ridiculously paying attention to details collectors / keris' connoiseurs who might (and able to!) appreciate those "state-of-the art" handle, while they very little in quantity and not willing to pay more for newly made handle, so why bother ? :( I believe, by studying a lot of good old handles, a young, capable and talented carver might able to make the good ones. But studying more than one style is very hard, because "the character", "proper balance" or anything (as you name it before :D ) particular to one style might mixed up one-another, and "confuse" the carver.


I absolutely agree with this, Boedhi! You said what I had wanted to say, and so accurately! :)

Hi Tuan Cedric -- I thought the Durga unveiled you posted looked more like Nava Sari. The unveiled Durga I've seen Kerner's book and one that I have handled all had big conspicuous bosoms, which in your example, looked rather muted. :D Actually, how do we tell whether the thing held in the hand was a veil or a sheaf of rice, or a club?

[BluErf]

Here's a Nava Sari from Kerner's book.

[Tim Simmons]

I really do not know anything thing about Indonesian weapons but have enjoyed this topic.This picture, Durga killing the buffalo demon at the temple of Siva, Loro Jonggrang, Prambanan, central Java ,along with other images throughout Asia show her with these many hand gestures.The one with the folded middle fingers must be the most important as this seems to be the only one shown on the handles ,all on the left hand, so I do not think it is damage or a fault in the wood but a diliberate detail.I could be very wrong Tim.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v426/jamhappy/durga.jpg

[nechesh]

Great pictures BluErf. That first ivory (?) Durga with the balls of fire being emitted from her mouth is just too cool. :cool:
I tend to agree that Cedric's Bali example might more likely be Nava Sari. The object held behind the back appears far too stiff to be meant as a vale and looks very much like a stylized grain sheaf. Compare to the obvious fabic material held in Blu's first example.
As for Jensen's method of dating, the major problem with it (aside from it's vagueness) is that the large majority of keris have NOT been collected by museums, so it only allows us to say that a very small precentage of keris are at least this old. Since i have yet to acquire a single keris in my collection from a museum source it is of little help to me in dating my own blades. I have been fortunate to acquire most of my blades from learned sources who have spent many decades researching and studying keris in order to determine age, style, etc. as best they can. Boedhi Adhitya is right to question Tangguh, but for unprovenenced keris it is still the best method available when understood and done correctly. Something i am certainly NOT very good at, but fortunately i have sources that i feel are much more knowledgable than i that i can trust. :)

[Tim Simmons]

I believe the hand gesture is a represention of this, and the duality is further expressed in the hilt and scabbard of keris.Tim

[Battara]

What you have here in this image is the lingam of Shiva, representing his penis for the most part. :eek:

[Tim Simmons]

Indeed set in a yoni, showing the double-sexed nature of the deity Durga or Kali in other parts of Asia.Tim

[Tim Simmons]

These are Indian images of Kali,the great goddess,the terrible goddess {based on the source}seated on the corpse-Siva, again a dualitiy in giving and taking life.Tim

[wolviex]

Sorry for being quite for some time, but I was very busy.

Boedhi Adhitya: thank you for your further explanations. This is just what I expected to hear/read. I could exacerbate this problem, but until it isn't main subject of this discussion, I will leave childish questions "why" "why" for better times :)

Tuancd: thank you for your pictures. I hope they'll help us in discussion. We can clearly see, there are very visible similarities.

Tim: your pictures are great. Great work, and I want to thank you for your commitment. Your reasearches are very helpful. As far as I can understand you, these are only your theories. If so, maybe someone more familiar with mythology could explain us more :)

All the best!

[Tim Simmons]

Hello Woliex, this is a fasinating subjet, I would hope that what I have researched is more than my theories :) In the picture of Durga from the temple in Java, she is not only making the lingam-yoni symbol, she is also holding a shell trumpet on which the creative sound is made.Tim

[wolviex]

Hello Tim :)

I'm tending to believe in your "double-sexed nature of the deity" theory also. :)

[Tim Simmons]

Hello Wolviex, this is a picture of a 19th century emblem of the trumpet of Creative Sound.Tim

[wolviex]

Thanks again.

One question. If Durga, as it is mostly believed, is multi-armed goddess, why on keris handles she is depicted as two arms woman. Why are these differences made, or could an artist made such departure from the rule ??

[Tim Simmons]

This is where I leave the debate.I can only imagine there is cultural dilution, and artistic license to make an ergonomic handle for a weapon I know very little about.Tim

[nechesh]

These are Indian images of Kali,the great goddess,the terrible goddess {based on the source}seated on the corpse-Siva, again a dualitiy in giving and taking life.Tim

Seated, eh? Is that what you blokes call it over over there? ;)

[nechesh]

Thanks again.

One question. If Durga, as it is mostly believed, is multi-armed goddess, why on keris handles she is depicted as two arms woman. Why are these differences made, or could an artist made such departure from the rule ??

Just a note, the last 2 images Tim posted of a multi-armed goddess are of KALI, not Durga. While they are related deities, they are not one in the same and are depicted differently.

[marto suwignyo]

Devi, "The Goddess", or Maha Devi, "The Great Goddess" ,is the wife of the god Siva, and daughter of Himavat, Himavat being the Himalaya Mountains.

Devi has many personifications, far too many to list and explain here, however, two of these personifications are Durga and Kali.

In her terrible form she is Durga , "The Inaccessible", and takes the form of a beautiful young, yellow woman , riding on a tiger and with a fierce and threatening attitude.

As Kali or Kalika, she is black, has a hideous and terrible face , dripping with blood, encircled by snakes and wearing skulls and human heads.

We are not talking about duality here, we are talking about two ways in which the same being, Devi, is represented. Devi is also represented in many other forms, for example, as Uma, "The Light". As the wife of Siva she is the female energy of Siva, and has these two characters, one mild, the other fierce, but the two characters can be represented in many forms, all with different attributes and different actions.

The keris handle form currently under discussion is an abstract representation of a female. To extend that female representation into a representation of a Hindu goddess when the representation has none of the attributes of the goddess is a pure flight of fancy.

If one wished to hypothesise about who , or what, this female handle form may represent, one has a multitude of female associations to choose from, such as a female ancestor figure, or Sri, "Prosperity", the wife of Visnu, or even the philosophical representation of the hidden male nature of the blade, wilah, inside the observed female nature of the warangka, with the female handle form completing an external female nature concealing a hidden male nature. One could play with these sort of ideas all day.

Regretably for those who wish to make this handle form into a representation of Durga, none of Durga`s attributes are present to support this.All we have is a female form which could represent anything or anybody. Pak Boedhi has already mentioned that this handle form is unknown to him, and indeed , in Jawa this is a very rare form these days, however, those who are familiar with the form, including the only tukang jejeran I know who has carved this form in recent times, refer to it simply as "wadon"="woman", or "female".

For those with an interest in pursuing relationships within Hindu mythology, an easily accessible text is John Dowson`s "Classical Dictionary of Hindu Mythology"

[Tim Simmons]

I agree whole heartedly with a lot of what you say,I obviously got all my information from a Batman comic.Thanks Tim

[BluErf]

Actually, I must admit I only read about the hilt form being Durga in Kerner's book. Well, I suppose that's another fallacy to be dispelled, and what this forum is for. :)

[wolviex]

marto suwignyo: well, I must admit you entered with lightning and thunders. So...what we were talking about :). Should I ask moderators to delete all the posts and should we start discussion from the beginning. Or maybe someone will rescue all of this saying just: "it is traditionally believed that it is Durga" :o

Thank you for your post because it will let us think about all of this once more :)

[nechesh]

Wolviex, why on earth would you want any of these posts deleted? :eek: The whole conversation has all been pretty interesting. Marto's post certainly put things in perspective and Blu is right to point out that the Durga reference to this hilt seems to have only been mentioned in one book, Kerner's.
If it makes you feel better, Marto points out that this hilt could represent ANY female form, so it is still POSSIBLY that it MIGHT be Durga. :)
It would be nice to know for sure, but as is often the case with these things, we might never know. :( But that shouldn't dicourage us from digging, discussing and making guesses (educated of course ;) ).

[wolviex]

No worries nechesh - even if I asked moderators they wouldn't hear :)... and I only tried to dramatize all the situation :D

And to be honest - I really enjoy the discussion!

And now serious - I really believe it might be Durga/Kali - maybe those Tim's pictures with two fingers visible on sculptures will lead us to some serious arguments. Anyway, those two fingers, as it was said before, aren't accidental!

[marto suwignyo]

The wadon handle under discussion is of Javanese origin. Not Central Javanese, but probably East Java .

In about 1525 the ruler of the last Hindu-Javanese kingdom of Majapahit died, but by that time Majapahit had already lost control of its former realm to the Islamic trading kingdom of Demak.Except for a small enclave of Hindu faith at the far Eastern tip of Jawa, and which was effectively an extention of Bali, all of Java was under the control of Islamic rulers by the middle of the 16th. century.

Under Islam the handles of Javanese keris became abstract forms, in most cases unrecogniseable as being distilled from humanoid forms. In those cases where a recogniseable humanoid form persisted this form was, as far as I am aware, in all cases associated with indigenous Javanese belief and tradition, rather than with specific identifiable Hindu deities. The wadon handle under discussion does not appear to pre-date 1525, which it would need to do in order to have a clear association with Hindu-Javanese beliefs.The form itself definitely continued into at least the 19th. century, as I have handled examples which could not have been any older than the 19th. century. It is difficult to accept that a Hindu goddess who does not have a position of unusual importance in indigenous Javanese belief could continue to be represented in abstract form on keris handles that were carved 300 years after the disappearance of the last Hindu-Javanese kingdom.

The left hand of the figure depicted in this wadon handle is not shown with four separate fingers, only two finger separations can be identified, rather than three, additionally, in the index finger position , the finger shown is much heavier than fingers shown on the right hand. Continuing from the termination of this index finger position is an irregular, slightly bulbous area of carving, which does not align with the flowing lines that form the base of the rest of this panel. Is it possible that what is intended is a representation of the middle finger over the index finger, with something---perhaps a blossom--- being held between the two?
Or are we indeed looking at what is supposed to be a hand position with some religious significance?
Whatever the case, I do not believe that we can identify who, or what this figure is supposed to represent upon the basis of one rather unclear feature.
I have seen two examples of this handle form that do not have the hands in the position shown on the handle under discussion. On these other two handles, one has the hands raised to cover the breasts, the other has the arms straight down by the sides, with the fingers extended. It is clear that the hand position for the figure depicted in this handle form , is not a constant. If it is not a constant, how can it be used to support an argument that this handle form represents any specific being, because of the hand position?

We may all believe what we will, but if our beliefs are to be convincing, we must provide evidence or logical argument.Currently niether one nor the other has been presented which would allow us to assign a name to the character depicted in this handle form.

[nechesh]

Though i don't think it should kill the dicussion on this beautiful keris, i think Marto's arguments are basically correct. I will point out that representative hilts such as the raksasa were produced in Jawa well past the establishment of Islam there. However, i agree that this hilt form in question probably isn't Durga.

[Rick]

Now let us talk more about this beautiful almost pristine blade . I think this blade was collected fairly early in its existence . I have been told that the quality of this blade rivals those in other very early European collections .

[wolviex]

Thank you marto suwignyo for your reply, especially for your cold logical thinking, which explained some things straight and easy. If there are really no others evidences for this handle so far, I would tend to Rick's proposal and focus on the blade (if there is anything to add). Beside - what do you think about mendak between the blade and handle?

Thank you in advance!

ps. for easy navigation I decided to repeat some of the photos

[tuancd]

Hi! everybody

I've been away, sorry to have miss the discussion.
I've read that you have buried Durga in a collective agreement.

I still wanted to show you the two pictures and "argue" a little bit more about what have been said and stated.

First Kerner is not the only one. Sier Jensen present two keris with Durga hulu
(the pictures attached)
the one with stones is before 1618 (date of collection)
the second one collected 1676.

So according what Marto says it could be earlier than 1525...

And Gaspar de Marval (author of "le monde du kriss") talks also about it and has one.

Not to mention your servitor in my article about keris Handles in Kaos n°1.

Now about the fact that it is Durga or not.

Hinduism in java as always been adapting it self from the India Hinduism mixing it with local believes and ancestor traditions. Now It is also true that al statues of Durga have a different "look" from this handle. cf the very good study about Durga (http://www.asianart.com/articles/durga/index.html).
But one statue from the 15th century has only two arms. it come from java east and should be earlier than our handle.

Now if we talk about the veil. Only two goddess have a veil in the Javanese syncretism. Loro Kidul (mostly found in south and East java) and Durga. Nobody will make me believe that it is just a veil to follow Islam rule regarding women (to modern to apply and more over in java). The said goddess wear veil
because they have been stricken by a bad spell or a plague as punishment.

Now about the fingers position. You have two kind of interpretation
first it the Indian Durga image coming from India
illustration n°3
second is the Karana mudra to expel demons and other bad spirits that I have observed on many handles.
illustration n°4

[Tim Simmons]

Well done tuancd, this is the only picture I have at home of a Durga statue with two arms, admittedly it is not from Indonesia but the National Museum. Phnom Penh. It is described as Durga, sanctuary 9, northern group, Sambor Prei Kuk, first half of 7th century. Thus illustrating a wide acceptance of a natural representation of Durga in south east Asia at one time. The hand symbol is a fact in Asia

[Tim Simmons]

Some of you may find these pictures interesting.Tim

[marto suwignyo]

Interesting.
But I think that in essence we have no advance in our understanding. Simply because several authors say the same thing, does not make that thing correct.There is a tendency, even in academia, to continue to quote previously published works, even when those works may be demonstrably inaccurate, and popular writings on the keris are not subjected to the same close critical scrutiny as are academic writings.

We still have only a female figure, with no facial features. This has been interpreted as Durga, which it may be, but it may equally be something else entirely.

I have had a look at Knick-Bumke`s article, and quite frankly, I feel that it argues against the case for this handle being a representation of Durga.

There is no dispute that Durga can be represented as a normal woman. As I stated earlier, the most common representation of Durga is as a beautiful young yellow woman riding a tiger.However, I do not know of any representation of Durga in this form in Java.

Even if it could be shown that there this an association between this handle form, and the later classical period in Java, that does not provide any evidence that the figure shown is a representation of Durga.

The hand position is still ill defined.
To interpret this hand position as anything would require a giant leap of faith. We still only have possibilities. But let us suppose that it can be interpreted as a definite, religiously symbolic hand position, that in itself would not allow us to state that the figure is a representation of Durga.Apart from which, as I advised earlier, this hand position is not a constant in all handles of this form.

On the subject of the "veiled Durga".
We can find this idea repeating itself again and again in writings about the keris, however, can we find a single monumental representation of a "veiled Durga" anywhere in Java, or in mainland India, or anywhere else?

Can we find mention of and explanation of the idea of "veiled Durga" in any religious work? Anthropological work?

The Hindu faith is not one of my strong points, and is really only a fringe interest for me in my study of the keris, so I would welcome it if somebody more well versed in this faith could direct me to some representations of a "veiled Durga" in monumental works, or to a credible religious work with explanation of this form. I rather suspect that the phrase "veiled Durga" is actually a reference to the female element represented by the Great Mother---Durga--being the source of all wisdom.

In the Hindu faith the Supreme being can be worshipped as a Male God, or as a Female God, or simply as Transcendental Bliss. We must realise that nothing we think we see is actually what we do see.

For instance, just as Durga is one of the names of Dewi, or Parvati, so Kali is another of her names. Kali is seen as a bloodthirsty character, but Kali`s activities are not destructive to the cosmic order, rather they preserve the cosmic order, as her aim is to destroy the demonic forces before these forces can cause danger to that cosmic order.

We have wandered into a discussion on religious symbolism here, and this is something that really is best left to those with training in the field. What we need to do is to find the writings of these experts and quote those writings to substantiate the existence and form of "veiled Durga".

When we begin to examine the keris in Java, we undertake the examination of a cultural artifact. For legitimate opinion to be expressed on aspects of this artifact we need to turn to the elements of the culture to allow us to understand that which we wish to come to terms with. We need to turn to history, religion, and the structure of the society itself.
So, if we would like to confirm that this handle presently under discusion is in fact a representation of Durga, I would suggest that as a bare minimum we need to satisfy the following :-
1) demonstrate the existence of a physical representation of Durga that is accepted by authorities in an academic field, or religion, as the vieled form of this Goddess.
2) provide reference to credible published works that substantiate the existence of Durga in a physically veiled form.
3) demonstrate that this veiled form of Durga was known and existed in Java.
4) demonstrate that the handle form under discussion is in fact a representation of this form.

If the "veiled Durga" truly does exist, this should not be too big an ask.
My own knowledge in this field is totally inadequate to allow me to provide such proofs, and I will welcome the veil of ignorance being lifted from my eyes by those equipped to do so.

[Tim Simmons]

Thats better, thanks Tim

[marto suwignyo]

Tim:-
since your post of 4.44pm directly follows my post of 11.57am I am assuming that your comment:-

"Thats better, thanks, Tim"

is directed at me.

Would you be so kind as to explain exactly what I have written in my post of 11.57am to generate this comment from you.

I have re-examined what I have written in all three of my posts to this thread, and I cannot detect any significant difference in the stance I have taken in my first post, to that which I have take in my third post.

My position remains that there is no evidence on the table that this wadon handle is a representation of Durga.

If I am in error that you have directed your remarks to me , please accept my most humble apologies for daring to presume.

[Tim Simmons]

Hello Marto, it was in appreciation of the less strident assertion of your valued opinion.Tim

[tuancd]

Hi everybody

the thread is getting hot! :D

Thanks to Durga :cool:

More seriously, I'll be very pleased if anybody can fulfil Marto's wishes. I doubt it, but i'll sincerely appreciate any clue (and moreover with pics) about a monumental veiled durga.

By the way, if you can get some pics of a monumental statue of Hinduist god in java post 16th and pre 20th, I'm very interested. (Panji is also welcome as are the Pandawa, Korawa etc...)

It's not because there's not a big statue that this handle is not what we say it is. And there are no big statues because of the Islamic rules. Wayang has hardly survived because the Wayang kulit was far enough of the human form representations. You will notice that this have not even been the case for wayang Golek (try to find the same heroes in Wayang kulit and golek and you will realise that some are missing, even for the same stories)

And this does not means that the Hinduism influence has totally disappeared from the Javanese culture. There are plenty of examples of popular art and precisely related to keris that show the evolutions of the sculpture between the 16th and now.

Marto
Doubting your reading is good and sane. At least it means you have read something. By the way, Marto, if you are interested in the subject I humbly suggest that you read the article rather than go trough it.
And before stating that M Kerner, Jensen, de Marval have no credit for their work you'd better read their books before.
;)
I personally do not agree with all of what they say, but I recognise that their work is professional and valuable.
A forum like our is to share opinions and the more we can push the limits of knowledge, the better. Just mind a little respect, that will make the discussion more constructive.

Now regarding the beautiful yellow skin girl…
DURGA
In the ancient Vedic texts, Durga was the consort of Shiva and some Hindu sects regard her as the personification of the primeval creative force, the Divine Mother. She is sometimes referred to as Durga, sometimes as Kali or Shakti. These sects worship Durga as a frequently benevolent, but occasionally unforgiving and destructive, all-powerful goddess, able to punish or bestow grace on mortals to enable them to comprehend (he transparent nature of God.
The Javanese and Balinese variants of Hinduism give a different interpretation of Durga. For them, she is the Goddess of Evil, Darkness and Destruction. Where the origins of the Indian Durga are shrouded in mystic cosmology the Javanese world of wayang has created its own complex stories
about Durga and Guru's other consorts.
The most common story is that Bathara Guru had become angry with his wife, Dewi Umayi, after she had foiled his attempt to have an affair with a young goddess. Guru cursed Umayi, declaring that he would turn her into an ugly ogress. The curse was soon fulfilled in a strange way. Guru and Umayi came across a young ogress deep in meditation. Her name in the Yogyakarta tradition was Dewi Pramuni (elsewhere she is known as Dewi Danupati or Dewi Tendana). Pramuni aspired to be at least as beautiful as the nymphs of Heaven. Guru granted her wish but only on condition that her spirit enter the body of the beautiful Dewi Umayi. Dewi Umayi's spirit in turn was to enter the ugly ogress body of Dewi Pramuni. Pramuni's new-found beauty did not last; she soon adopted all the most dreadful attributes of an ogress and was given the name Durga. Which means 'disappointed' or 'never content". Guru then forced Durga to marry Bathara Kala, the ogre son of his spilled seed. In other versions, it was Dewi Umayi, in her new shape as an ogress, who became Bathari Durga; and Kala married the now beautiful Dewi Pramuni.
As a goddess, Durga lived in Setragandamayi, a lonely place filled with evil spirits and the stench of decaying corpses. She acquired the divine ability to bestow blessings upon all who worshipped her.
Durga is the incarnation of evil in many Javanese wayang stories. With her husband, Bathara Kala, Durga was forever meddling in the affairs of the gods and men, sowing discord between friends and spreading misfortune. She had a particular dislike for Arjuna and his Pandawa brothers, seeking on many occasions to ruin them.
In puppet form as Bathari Durga, her barefooted puppet is oversized, with a hideous face, bulging devils eyes, a wide flat nose and the fangs of a vicious dog. Tell me if it reminds you of something…
That will be all
for today :D

[Tim Simmons]

Why are so called scholars happy to accept the Hindu origin of the "sarpa tapa" and "sarpa lumaka" and a whole host of other Hindu cultral icons such as Naga,Singa,Genesha often shown on the base of the blade.I even have pictures of a Ganesha, carved bone handle from Bali, and yet we are having problems with this handle which as far as I can see is clearly making a sign with her hand, if other Hindu deities are in accepted use why not Durga?Tim

[marto suwignyo]

Thank you for your response, Tim.

I regret that you found my writing style excessively and unpleasantly forceful, most especially so as I am keenly aware of the sometimes quite distasteful remarks which have been exchanged in discussions regarding the keris, and I have attempted to keep my own contributions purely objective. I will apologise in advance for any future offence I may cause to you, as I have already taken several steps back from my normal style of discussion, and have difficulty in identifying how I can make a point in a less forceful manner.


You raise the question:-
Why are so called scholars happy to accept the Hindu origin of the "sarpa tapa" and "sarpa lumaka" and a whole host of other Hindu cultral icons such as Naga,Singa,Genesha often shown on the base of the blade.I even have pictures of a Ganesha, carved bone handle from Bali, and yet we are having problems with this handle which as far as I can see is clearly making a sign with her hand, if other Hindu deities are in accepted use why not Durga?Tim


I think I understand your confusion in this matter, but if we look carefully at the points you have raised, I believe we will come to realisation that we are looking at entirely different questions.The Hindu symbolism that we find in motifs or iconology associated with the keris are often very clear, and have been accepted within Javanese society for extended periods of time. In the case of our wadon handle we have a female figure that we wish to claim as a representation of Durga, but which is not generally recognised within Javanese society as a representation of Durga. I have spent a very long time involved in the study of the keris, and much of that time has been spent in Java. I had never heard the concept of a "veiled Durga" applied to this wadon handle until perhaps about ten years ago, and when I did hear it, it was not in Java, but in a western context.

I have no objection to keris enthusiasts in western societies referring to this handle style as a veiled Durga. We have plenty of precedents for the giving of names concocted in a western context, to keris and components of keris, so if western collectors want to call this handle style a "veiled Durga", let us by all means do so. At least we will all know what we are talking about.

However, if we set out to demonstrate that this handle style was intended by the people who used it, to represent Durga, then we have an entirely different problem.

To provide the evidence needed to allow us to mount a reasonable argument that this handle style is in fact a represenation of Durga, then we need to apply the tools of academic enquiry, as much as those tools may interfere with our fondly held beliefs.
There is a difference between opinion and proof, and to date, all we have in respect of this handle is opinion.

TUAN CD

Please permit me to thank you most sincerely for your well intentioned advice.

Undoubtedly it will come as a surprise to you that not only did I read the Knick-Bumke article, but I also carried out analysis of that article in an attempt to determine how the content could be used to substantiate the claim that the wadon handle is in fact a representation of Durga. Regretably I was unable to extract such proof from my analysis.

I do not believe that I stated that Jensen, Kerner and de Marval should not be given credit for their work. In fact I hold Martin Kerner in high regard, and count him as a friend. I actually collaborated with him in a minor way in the production of his brilliant analytical work on the origin of early keris.
I accept that you feel you are doing me a service by illuminating my percieved inadequacies, but I would ask that if you wish to continue to try to assist me in this way that you please refrain from misquoting me.

Allow me to compliment you upon your erudition in respect of the wayang. Perhaps you may care to continue our education by outlining the way in which the original Javanese dieties were given Hindu names and the new wayang characters became a syncretic representation of both the old Javanese dieties and the new Hindu ones.Then of course we had the influence of Islam, the influence of the courts , the influence of Christianity, and in latter days the influence of the new Indonesia. Fascinating stuff. The wayang serves as an almost perfect example of the ability of the Javanese to absorb, alter, combine and create something new. Just as the Durga of the early classical period was changed into the Betari Durga of the wayang. Possibly you may care to open a new thread, so that the thread content will be relevent to the matter under discussion?

I recognise that the typical Javanese representation of Betari Durga since Kediri has incorporated Kali, however, I fail to see how this is material in the identification of the wadon handle as Durga.

In my earlier post I suggested several criteria that could be satisfied if we wish to demonstrate that this wadon handle is a representation of Durga.

In fact, I believe we should be willing to accept any evidence that this handle is a representation of Durga, provided that the evidence supplied is credible, objective and verifiable.Not just opinion.

[Andrew]

Gentlemen:

This comment is intended for the membership at large, and not to any particular individual.

Allow me to direct everyone's attention, once again, to this thread:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=4

Please pay particular attention to this:
3. FLAMES, INSULTS, BIGOTRY & THREATS

Flames or insults are strictly against the rules. If you disagree with another member's point of view, do so in a mature and civil manner. Civility and respect towards other participants are unconditionally expected.

If you find yourself being flamed or insulted by another member, please do not dignify that person with a response. Notify a moderator and let us handle it. If you feel you must respond to a flame or insult directly, please do NOT do so on the board - use private messages or e-mail.

Suggestion: If you are consistently or particularly irritated by another member's posting habits and are constantly fighting the urge to flame them, you can click on that person's profile, and select "Add to ignore list." This will make that person's posts invisible to you.

This is an international discussion group, a fact that the Staff is particularly proud of. Threads or replies promoting or expressing intolerant views towards any group (e.g., culture, race, religion, national origin, etc.) are never appropriate and will not be allowed. Please keep in mind that, while communications on the forum are to be conducted in English, many members are not communicating in their native language, and misunderstandings can occur. The forum is home to members from varied nations and cultures, so it is important to remember that how you say something is often as important as what you say.

Threatening other members will not be tolerated. This includes threats of physical violence, threats of property damage, death threats, terrorist threats, or threatening to hack another person's online identity or computer.

Keris threads, in particular, seem to be riddled with veiled insults, challenges and innuendo. Please don't participate in that fashion.

Thank you for your support.

Andrew

[tuancd]

Dear Andrew

Thanks for the moderation you bring to this enthusiast discussion


Dear Marto

I'm pleased that we have clarified our common appreciation of the valuable work that has been done. More over I'm pleased to know you have contributed to Kerner's work. He was by the way one of the first to associate this kind of hulu to Durga veiled or unveiled. (cf The keris Sudamala 1999)

If I have made you feel misquoted, I apologised It was not my intention. It’s probably my French way of talking English that misled you.

Now if I read again all your posts,
You would only consider evidences as credible, objective and verifiable if
They don’t come from Wayang (the only iconographic art that survived the iconoclasts)
If it is not related to Kerner’s , Jesen’s ,de Marval’s or my own work. (not bad works but westerner)
If they are from a local point of view
And ultimately if there is a big statue from java that shows it.

I must admit it’s going to be difficult.

For my part and until I can convince you or that you can explain me the origin of a senseless hulu, I’ll keep my opinion on the Durga representation.
best regards
Cedric

[tuancd]

To come back from where we started

This Mendak looks like half one from Solo. Time and wear may have done some damages to it, but it does not seem much space for an other half. It fits the handle properly and could be of the same age. It looks to be in a mixed alloy of brass with a lot of copper. It could be interesting to analyze it. Brass is an alloy of copper and zinc, as everybody knows, but before the 16th it was copper and tin…
Best regards
Cedric

[wolviex]

Keris threads, in particular, seem to be riddled with veiled insults, challenges and innuendo. Please don't participate in that fashion.

I think that’s another magical feature of the kerises – to set people in variance with each other :D

Marto and tuancd – I would like to thank you both for this discussion. Marto as usually expounded very logically what was his point in this discussion, and I appreciate it. It is very valuable, and I hope to hear/read more from you about kerises – especially if you will see that we are wandering in the subject. Do not apologize for your sometimes harsh posts – maybe we are in need of something like this. I really hope that tuancd didn’t mention to hurt you in any matter, and vice versa. We have got here a hot discussion anyway, so Gentlemen, please keep the high level!

Marto, I will play like an obnoxiously child, because I will once again put some arguments on Durga hilt. Well, to be honest, I’m not sure we can call it evidence, but I’m sure it is good to mention it just for the order. There was an article in German magazine “Zeitschrift fur Historische Waffen- und Kostumkunde” (1966, heft 1) by Eugen v. Philippovich titled „Indonesische Furstenwaffen“, where we can find similar handle (pictures below). He is also calling this handle as a depiction of Durga (Doerga), and he put only one, but simple explanation. Author has even pointed that she is easily recognizable, among the others, thanks to the abstract depiction of the head. It is abstract because she covered it with veil (didn’t we talk about it?). So my question is, is there any other goddess/deity covering herself? I’m not sure if I can ask Marto for another (repeated) crushingly ;) explanation against it, but I hope it was worth to mention.

Tim: as always you have interesting pictures. Can you explain what do our fingers mean, according to the pictures of hands you’ve posted? Even if it is no evidence in this discussion, it is good to know.

Regards!

[tuancd]

Nyai Loro Kidul
or
Nyi roro kidul
she also is veiled because of a curse which made her ugly. Here is her story

Pajajaran kingdom was located in West Java from 1333 AD to 1630 AD and it was conquered by the Islamic kingdom of Mataram from Central Java. Pajajaran's greatest ruler was Prabu Siliwangi. He had a bride in one his harems and she bore him a very beautiful daughter. The girl was called Dewi Kadita. The beauty of Dewi Kadita and her mother made the other harems jealous, and they formed a conspiracy against them.

The harems used black magic to make the bodies of Dewi Kadita and her mother be filthy, ugly and disgusting. Prabu Siliwangi got angry at Dewi Kadita and her mother and forced them to get out of the palace, as they were thought to be bad luck for the kingdom. While they were wandering around the country, the mother died. Dewi Kadita was walking in deep sadness, until she reached the southern sea (the shore of Indian Ocean).

She sat above a stove-shaped rock and when she was sleeping, she had a vision that she should jump into the water to release herself from the curse. When she woke up, with no second thought, Dewi Kadita jumped into the sea. She once again became very beautiful, but then she realized that she was not a human anymore. She had turned into a supernatural form of life. She then ruled all creatures off the southern coast of Java Island, and was known as Nyi Roro Kidul (queen of the southern sea). As revenge on her father, she became the primary bride for Mataram kings (the rival of the Pajajaran kingdom).

The river of Bengawan Solo, which started from the mystical mountain of Merapi in Central Java and leads to the Indian Ocean, is said to be the tunnel used by Nyi Roro Kidul to access Java. In a green costume, she traps males who are walking on the shore. They are swallowed by the waves and are thought to be missing or dead but will actually become her guard or mate.

[marto suwignyo]

TUAN CD

Thank you for your apology. It is unnecessary, as even though I did consider that I had been misquoted, I have at no time taken offence at anything you have written. I understand that you are working with a foriegn language, but that apart, there is really nothing in anything you have written that could cause offence to a reasonable person. I assure you, that were some of the meetings that I need to attend conducted with the same level of civility that you and other contributors to this Forum regularly display, the participants in those meetings would be laughed out of the room.

Yes, I am aware of what Martin has written in his Sudamala work.
Martin was the head of a Swiss government instrumentality responsible for calibration and audit of weights, measures and so forth. I forget the name of the instrumentality, but Martin`s professional background and training is in mathematics and statistics. His work on the origin of early keris utilised his professional skills, and the result is , in my opinion, a landmark work in the study of the keris. However, when Martin wrote in other fields, such as he did with the Sudamala work, he regretably did not provide references for the material presented in his text. Thus we are left with anthropological works written by a mathmatician . What Martin has presented may be factual, or it may not, but without the references it will never be accepted by academia as authoritative.
I am not degrading Martin`s work here:- it is good, popular reference material by an experienced collector, and I have said no more above than I have expressed to Martin himself. In fact, I have said much less than I have said to Martin.

In so far as proofs are concerned.
Let me try to explain my position on this by way of analogy.
If I and my wife produce a child, we have the right to give that child a name.
If I and my wife die immediately after the birth of the child and somebody else raises the child, that other person has the right to give the child a name.
If we die after the child has grown a little, and another person adopts the child, depending on circumstances, the adopter may or may not have naming rights to the child.
In any case, the family to which the child belongs will know the name of the child, and it would be quite incorrect for somebody from outside the family to address the child by another name.
However, let us say that a neighbour has a fondness for the child. That neighbour may well give the child his own pet name, recognised by the child, recognised by the neighbour, but not used by the child`s family.
The child`s official name remains the name given it by its parents.
Now, one day a stranger notices the child, and because of certain features that remind the stranger of some other child that he once knew, the stranger decides that the child`s name is different again from the official name.
But this stranger does not have the right to affix to the child the name upon which he has decided .
The child may forever have a particular name for that stranger, but it is not the child`s official name, nor is it the name by which the child is known to those close to him.

So it is with our wadon handle, or for that matter with any object from any culture or belief system of which we are not a part :-
we are strangers to the culture from which the handle bearing this figure comes, if we wish to know the name by which the figure is known within its own culture, we must have somebody from the culture, who posses this knowledge, pass the knowledge to us. If such a person does not exist, then to establish the true identity of the figure we must employ the tools of academic enquiry. To interpret this figure from our own cultural base, from our own understanding of things which are perhaps beyond our understanding, is not acceptable.

However, just as with the stranger who knew not the name of the child, there is nothing to stop us giving this handle, or any other object, our own name for it, provided that we do not delude ourselves into believing that the name we have given is the name by which this object was known in its culture of origin.

Tuan CD, I am not taking a stance against the wayang:- an understanding of the wayang is essential to an understanding of the keris, and to Javanese culture in general, however, it is vital that we recognise that wayang is popular entertainment, and it undergoes continual change, even today, it is still changing. If we wish to use something from the wayang to make a point, we must try to relate the same space in time occupied by the wayang to the point that we are trying to make. What I mean by this is, that the wayang as it is in 2005 cannot be used to substantiate something that applied in 1605, and of course, vice versa.

WOLVIEX

I thank you for drawing our attention to the Phillipovich use of the Durga attrubution in 1966.

I was not aware of this earler usage.

If you have access to this work, can you advise if Phillipovich`s usage of the term is referenced, and if not, is Phillipovich a trained professional in a relevant field and does she substantiate her usage?

The argument for a Durga attribution that you have precised seems to indicate that Phillipovich is using a similar style of logic to that which others have applied in naming this form "Durga". For instance, I have in front of me eight handles with a female form.Three are variations of the wadon form which we have been discussing, one is an abstract but unmistakeably female form,another is an even more abstract form, one is Rangda, one a more or less normal female, the last is a nightmare with female characteristics.Of all these figures, only Rangda is easily identifiable. The others could be anything, and an argument could be constructed to support almost any attribution. In fact, I could probably construct a more convincing argument that any one of these figures is in fact Little Red Riding Hood, than any argument I have yet heard to support the Durga attribution for our original handle form.

Wolviex, you ask:-

"So my question is, is there any other goddess/deity covering herself?"

I`m not at all certain that this is the right question, Wolviex.
Do we yet have a proof that the figure depicted is in fact covering herself? I think not.
Do we yet have a proof that the oft mentioned veil is in fact a veil? I think not.
Do we yet have a proof that the depictation is indeed a deity? I think not.
Do we yet have a proof that we are in fact looking at Durga? I think not.

As far as I can see, we are back at square one:- we have a female figure that somebody has chosen to call Durga, but we do not yet have any evidence available that this is the name that would have been applied to this figure in the culture from which it has come, and at the time when it was produced.
I`m sorry if my standards are too demanding to allow me to be in agreement with this Durga thing, but I have spent better than 50 years watching the fumbled misinterpretation of a cultural icon that many people within Javanese culture believe sits at the center of that culture. Very few people have taken a serious approach to the keris, and speaking for myself, I would very much like to see a stop put to the perpetuation of erroneous supposition.

[Andrew]

I assure you, that were some of the meetings that I need to attend conducted with the same level of civility that you and other contributors to this Forum regularly display, the participants in those meetings would be laughed out of the room.


What do you mean, please?

[marto suwignyo]

Andrew
In response to your enquiry.
I regularly attend meetings involving both business matters and political matters.
The people who attend these meetings, are in the case of the business meetings, mature professionals in several business related fields, and in the case of the politically orientated meetings the committee memberships are comprised of people from a wide variety of backgrounds, including academic, military, political and business.
From time to time discussion at the meetings which I attend becomes quite spirited.On these occasions the language used and the comments made could easily cause offence to people who were unused to this type of environment. If a person attending these meetings attempted to put his point of view in the extremely civil and delicate manner which is usually observed by contributors to this forum, that person would be laughed out of the room by his fellows.
My comment was intended as praise, not in a derogatory fashion.
I regret that my intent was unclear to you.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain to me how my words could be interpreted in any other than a complimentary way. If there is a defect in my English expression I would be very glad to be made aware of it.

[Andrew]

Andrew
In response to your enquiry.
I regularly attend meetings involving both business matters and political matters.
The people who attend these meetings, are in the case of the business meetings, mature professionals in several business related fields, and in the case of the politically orientated meetings the committee memberships are comprised of people from a wide variety of backgrounds, including academic, military, political and business.
From time to time discussion at the meetings which I attend becomes quite spirited.On these occasions the language used and the comments made could easily cause offence to people who were unused to this type of environment. If a person attending these meetings attempted to put his point of view in the extremely civil and delicate manner which is usually observed by contributors to this forum, that person would be laughed out of the room by his fellows.
My comment was intended as praise, not in a derogatory fashion.
I regret that my intent was unclear to you.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain to me how my words could be interpreted in any other than a complimentary way. If there is a defect in my English expression I would be very glad to be made aware of it.

Marto,

Thank you, very much, for the explanation. The plain language of your post was clear. I'm just not yet familiar with your internet "personality".

Best regards,
Andrew

[marto suwignyo]

Thank you for your clarification, Andrew.

[wolviex]

If you have access to this work, can you advise if Phillipovich`s usage of the term is referenced, and if not, is Phillipovich a trained professional in a relevant field and does she substantiate her usage?

Unfortunately I don't know nothing about Phillipovich and other works of this author. Describing this Keris Phillipovich mentioned only two references:
B. Dudik, Kleinodien des Deutschen Ritterordens, S. 46, Nr. 211

W.O.J. Nieuwenkamp, Beeldhouw-Kunst von Bali, Tf. 42. s’Gravenhage 1937,

and I don't know if there you can find any other Durga hints - I suppose no. So for now, I feel quite convinced that we shouldn't call this handle Durga. But this is causing other problems. Why the handles like this were called this way - was it just European idea, because this goddes was well known? Was there any tradition? And what is more important, somone who made handles like this, was probably making concrete goddess, not just a woman handle, am I right? Is this tradition lost for good? Or are there any chances to discover the meaning of this handles?

This Mendak looks like half one from Solo. Time and wear may have done some damages to it, but it does not seem much space for an other half. It fits the handle properly and could be of the same age.

Thank you for this hint. It is true that medak fits handle very well. Because there are no other different opinions, I understand this is all true ;)

Regards

[marto suwignyo]

Thank you for your response, Wolviex.

Regretably I do not understand the language in which the references are written. Perhaps somebody with knowledge of this language could track down the references and verify if use of the Durga attribution has any basis in fact.

I feel sure that at the time these handles were made and used, there was some symbolic intent:- Durga? or some other female figure? I don`t know, but what I do know is that some people associated with the world of the keris in Java at the present time refer to this handle as "wadon"---just "female".What it may have been known as originally I do not know, and without good, solid proofs I am not prepared to put forward an opinion.

The provision of evidence to allow this handle form to be named as a representation of any particular deity could well use a lifetime of research.

To call it "Durga" in the first place may well have been a bit of European invention. Look at the "keris Mojopahit". Javanese people never knew that the keris sajen was called a keris Mojopahit until a European told them. Who was right? The European, or the Javanese people?

I think that as far as this handle goes, for the time being we might have to acknowledge that we just do not know who, or what, it is supposed to represent.