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

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

Got it ?

Good.

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.

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.

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

Empu Kumis where are you??
 

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

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.

Chill Out
 

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:

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.

Let's continue
 

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!

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.

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 :)

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". :)

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

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.

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 :(

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

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???

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.

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.

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?

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

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/v4...appy/durga.jpg

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. :)

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

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

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

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

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!

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

Hello Tim :)

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

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

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 ??

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

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

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.

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"

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

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. :)

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 :)