BLING
 

I was in Bali recently, and as usual I did the required visit to the Neka Museum in Ubud.

There are quite a few more older keris there now than the last time I went there in 2016. Amongst these older keris are two royal keris from Karangasem.

I apologise for the photos. It is more than a little bit difficult to photograph display items in this museum, unless you are lucky with time of day and light, I've been there a number of times, but I just haven't got the timing figured out yet.

Anyway, these two take the blue ribbon in the bling stakes.

I apologize to everyone but the noise you heard was my eyes hitting the floor. I’ve now put them back into my skull! 😳

Nothing exceeds like excess.


That said, there's room in my collection for these, but insufficient volume in the exchequer.

Javanese keris forever

Well, i happen to be a big fan of Bali keris, but i understand you thought here Marco. I prefer my keris just a bit more understated than these. A bit of gold is one thing, but i am afraid i am simply not royal enough for these. ;)

If ya got it --- flaunt it.

It's gorgeous, though verging on garish! Then again what do I know :P I wonder what those purple gems are.

They're actually reddish, and we would call them "mirah" in Jawa.

They might be sapphires, or garnets, or tourmalines, or --- since this is Bali --- pastes.

Like David I am a big fan of Balinese krisses but much prefer the type of kris shown on the attached pic...
I doubt that these 2 glittering krisses are very old, at least the dress.
Regards

Actually Jean they are old keris.

Read the clipping.

The dress maybe more recent, probably is, but the Balinese ethic in respect of keris dress is very considerably different to the tastes of collectors in the world outside Bali.

Then of course we need to consider what is correct in a hierarchical society:- Kings do not dress in the same way as farmers, and they do not dress their keris in the same way that farmers dress their keris.

Alan,

these are wonderful Keris. Imho a little bit too much decoration but this is subjective and it is most difficult to find the perfect balance. European aristocratic swords of the renaissance are also hopelessly overdecorated in many cases.

I have one question, the Cocetan got a symbol on its base, which looks like an eye in flames, similar to the eye in the pyramid.
Is this an eye and what is the meaning of this detail?


Roland

Roland, this motif is upside down in the larger image, I've cropped it and turned it right way up.

It is the Karang Bintulu motif.

This is a common "fill" motif in Balinese art, the motif consists of a bulging eye above a row of teeth and tusks, above the eye we usually find a mountain. The eye and teeth relate back to the well known Kala or Bhoma motif that we find above gateways, the mountain or rock relates back to the Gunungan, a foundation motif of indigenous belief. F. Bosch believed that the Kala motif was influenced by Surya (The Sun).

In this representation of the Karang Bintulu the Gunungan form is rendered in a form that resembles flames, so the flames are probably indicative of the influence of Surya.

Since the bintulu relates to Bhoma, and Bhoma is a protective motif, the bintulu can also be interpreted as a protective motif, even though it is only a fill motif, never a dominant motif.

The Gunungan motif is perhaps the most frequently encountered motif in Indonesian art, it combines references to Mt. Meru (dwelling place of the Gods), Siwa, The Ancestors, the Meru (the Balinese multi roofed shrine) and combined with a Bhoma reference it completes the foundation stone of Balinese/ Javanese traditional belief, as Bhoma, who is the son of Wisnu and Basundari, is the child of water and of earth, since water and earth result is plant growth, and plant growth for farmers is essential for prosperity, Bhoma is protective of earthly well being. Balinese are mostly farmers.

Alan, thanks for the explanation of the Karang Bintulu motif.
Certainly you are correct that kings do not dress their keris the same way as farmers do. I believe that is way many of us find these keris a little too blingy for our personal tastes. We are farmers...or at least, not kings. ;)
I do actually like the kocetan hilt however, though i find the other one (do you recognize who it represents?) quite ugly. The gold work on the sheaths gives me the impression of new work, though i suppose it could be new goldsmithing done over older wooden sheath. As you say, that doesn't really matter in this context as new dress is a common and expected thing within the culture. It's only us collectors who seem to value preserving old and original dress.
It isn't really easy to get more than an overview of these keris from these photos and there is so much kinatah on the blades that it is difficult to get a good sense of the garap of the blades, but i would image that given the provenance they are probably well conceived beneath all that gold. :)

Alan,

thank you very much for your comprehensive explanation. Your wisdom and knowledge always impresses me!


Roland

Thank you Alan for sharing!

The dress maybe more recent, probably is, but the Balinese ethic in respect of keris dress is very considerably different to the tastes of collectors in the world outside Bali.


This I can confirm! When I have had some years ago the privilege to see the private collection of a Balinese he noticed that the blade of a short pedang get rust because the blade has had contact with the beautiful antique scabbard. He told me that he will throw away this scabbard and will order a new one for his pedang. :eek:
It's a nice story which show the local value of an antique scabbard for a Balinese. ;)

If I like these kerises... a lot, does it make me royal?! At least in tastes?!
:shrug: :D

In this case royal means it comes from a royal aristocratic family and this got nothing to do with personal taste.

A royal Keris can be recognised by his level of artwork and amount of gold.

As far as i know, in ancient times gold was only allowed to aristocratic members of the society. Or as a gift from the aristocracy/nobility for important "normal" people (small amount of gold) or as a gift for other royals/high army representatives from all over the world (often a lot of gold).


Roland

I LOVE THE BLING! The beauty and artwork...........

Perhaps it is also because I am part Filipino. Like the Balinese, Filipinos and Moros love their bling (and they are cousins to all Indonesians).

As to personal tastes in respect of the bling factor.

Almost 30 years ago I was fortunate enough to acquire two royal keris that had been the property of the Raja of Badung. They were not quite as exuberant as the the ones that are shown here in my photos, but both had more than enough gold to make them unmistakable for what they are.

Both these keris always had a very unsettling effect on me. I was uncomfortable handling them, and essentially all I ever did was to maintain and store them.

A few years ago I sold one of these keris, I still have the other.

I am a little more comfortable with slightly less prestigious keris also.

Sajen, I have found that keris literate people in both Bali and Jawa are very well aware of the monetary value of old dress for tosan aji, even down to the value of a single face for a gandar. Even broken wrongko atasans have a value if the material is of very high quality, as most standard Javanese wrongkos can be carved into different forms.

Part of the maintenance process for keris in both Jawa and Bali is that scabbards are periodically cleaned out with a segrek. Over time this results in the scabbard becoming too loose and the mouth of the scabbard needs to be relined to give a close fit to the blade. Dress for keris in particular is regularly changed to reflect the changing circumstances of an owner, or for other reasons. One of the repeated stories I have heard is the dream of the old man asking for new clothes, or a new wife.

One of the advantages of a keris that uses a pendok is that the gandar can be a separate, much lower quality wood. This permits the gandar being changed instead of cleaned, which means the atasan can be cleaned from the bottom instead of the top, and the mouth does not deteriorate so quickly.

David, I do not recognise any specific entity being represented by the bhuta style hilt.

Thanks Alan. On closer inspection it seems to have animal features (snout and hair). I wonder if it might be intended as Hauman.
While we have discussed that many newer hilts are carved with no particular intention of deity or persona, i would think that there might be more intention for a keris that is considered to be of royal lineage. :shrug:

Anything is possible David, I really do not like to get into conjecture in relation to this sort of thing.

I enlarged the pic and David is right. If it depicts Hanuman he should normally have a tail in the back. The style of carving (eyes, eyebrows, beard, ect) looks recent IMO.
Regards

Hanoman is one of the Vanaras from the Ramayana.

Only one of them, yes, perhaps the best known, but only one Vanara.

Some of the others are:-

Bali (Vali), Angada, Kesari, Nala, Nila, Sugriwa.

There are maybe double this many Vanaras again.

Not every figural keris hilt in the form of a monkey is Hanoman.

Different people can have different reasons for wanting some other monkey figure as their personal keris hilt. How can anybody possibly know what was in the mind of the person who ordered that figural hilt in the first place?

It is very incorrect to assume that just because we see a monkey figure used as a Balinese keris hilt, that figure is automatically Hanoman.

This is the reason I will not put names on most of these figures found on Balinese hilts, be they monkeys or otherwise:- I was not privy to the private thoughts of the first owner of that figure, nor to the private thoughts of the man who carved it.

Thank you Alan and you are right but frankly it is not very critical for me to know if the mythical monkey figure is Hanuman or Sugriwa (the 2 most famous ones).
The monkey hilt from Neka Museum has long thumb nails but the feet carving is not very clear (claws or not?).
I attach the pics of 2 Balinese monkey hilts from my collection, the recent wooden specimen should depict Hanuman since he holds a gada (mace) which is the attribute of Hanuman.
Regards

Kinatah on the blade with monkey hilt doesn't seem to be an old one, the motifs are quite adventurous as is their execution; the second, if it's older, is at least refurbished. Also the blades are most probably not older then end of 19th cent. and (besides Kinatah) not really refined.

Thank you Gustav, it is my impression also from the pics but we would need to see the blades for a more accurate assessment. It seems to me that the descriptions from Pande Neka (in his book for instance) are often very enthusiastic.
Regards

Definitely interesting to see these pieces. Personally I'd also feel more comfortable with a more restrained style, but for a raja such keris do seem appropriately lavish.

I actually do like the kinatah on the blades. It's the blink on the jejeran that bothers me somewhat, especially on the right one. It seems to fit the kocetan better as the gold fits more snugly to its contours.

And I love the bintulu motif on the left blade.

Thanks for sharing, Alan.

Here is a summary of the newspaper article:-

Since Keris Ki Baju Rante , a pusaka keris from the Karangasem Kerajaan, came to the Neka Museum, other keris from the Karangasem Kerajaan have followed.
At the present time the Neka Museum has Ki Taman Mayura, Ki Taman Ujung, Ki Baju Upas, Ki Baru Bengkel, Ki Baru Kumandang.
The two keris shown in this thread are Ki Taman Mayura and Ki Taman Ujung, they were made by Mpu Keris Kerajaan Karangasem Pande Rudaya who was an 18th century Kerajaan Karangasem pande.

The newspaper article does not say if the kinatah work dates from the 18th century, nor does it say if the dress of these keris dates from the 18th century. What it does most clearly state is that the keris themselves date from the 18th century.

The obsession of western collectors with what they regard as "originality" is not a part traditional Balinese or Javanese cultural values.

We all know that the dress for a keris can be and is changed from time to time.

It is a similar situation with the kinatah work on a keris. Kinatah was and is often bestowed on a keris because of some action or service performed by the custodian of the keris, or by the custodian of the keris to honour the keris for actions performed by the keris that were of benefit to the custodian.

Most old keris with kinatah that we see today did not start life adorned in gold, that gold came later.

It could well be that the kinatah work on Ki Taman Mayura and Ki Taman Ujung has been placed upon these keris at some time later than the time of their being brought into existence. The exuberance of the dress could well be very recent, and could perhaps be viewed from a Balinese perspective as the presentation of two important and highly respected keris in a manner befitting their status.

I have commented a number of times that the value systems of collectors in the various societies outside the traditional societies of Bali and Jawa vary considerably from the value systems of the people who are members of these traditional societies and who own the cultural values espoused by these societies.

Perhaps once again we can see the divide in understanding between the owners of a culture and those who accumulate artifacts from the culture.

If we are to understand the products of a culture other than our own, we do need to have a minimal understanding of the value systems of that culture. In respect of Balinese culture it may assist our understanding if we realise that when something that is associated with the Balinese belief system is made, that work involved in the making is in fact work that is dedicated to God.

A Balinese pusaka keris has a nature that can be likened to a shrine. This characteristic is not unique to Balinese weaponry, it is a nature that is also found in other Hindu weaponry, as noted by Robert Elgood.

Just as the meru is prepared for the visit of a being from the Hidden World, so the keris is also prepared for such a visit. Just as a meru is made more beautiful for the visit of a deity or an ancestor, so the keris can also be made more beautiful for such visits.

I personally believe that it is incumbent upon all those who assert that they have an interest in the Keris to attempt to gain some understanding of the culture that produced the Keris.

I acknowledge that my beliefs may not be the beliefs of others, but the failure to understand that in which we have an interest deprives us of a better enjoyment of that in which we have an interest.

Yes Jean, I agree that if we see a monkey, or monkey-like figure, in Balinese and Hindu art, and that figure carries a gada, then it is reasonable to assume that a representation of Hanoman is intended.

Regarding your extended post before this last one, I concur fully. Taken out of the cultural milieu, any ethnographic piece would lose its meaning and ultimately its true value.

Taking a look at Lambe Gajah of the Keris with monkey hilt, there is no possibility they were done in 18th cent. If they are original (sorry about being so Western), actually also no possibility both Keris were made by the same person.

And yes, re-creating and replacing Pusaka is nothing new.

Gustav, would you be so kind as to enlighten us as to why these two keris were not made in the 18th century, and why the same person could not have made them both?

If you are correct it means that a number of very respected and highly placed people in Bali are either utterly wrong, or (heaven forbid) they are deliberately flim-flaming the public.

I must say that I am enormously impressed by your ability to draw these conclusions upon the basis of my photographs. I actually did not think that these photos were so wonderful.

Thank you Alan and Gustav.
Just for the sake of discussion: Yes, it is very difficult for a Western collector to admit that a kris with an old blade but recent or recently refurbished hilt, scabbard, and kinatah can be legitimately called an old kris....
I can't tell whether these blades date from the 18th century and were made by Pande Rudaya or rather the well-known Empu Tidah Tahu, especially because of the kinatah but otherwise these blades do not look very special. One indicator would be the lenght of the blade as Alan told us before that the long Balinese blades probably did not exist before the 19th century if I remember well? Do we know whether the royal krisses from Karangasem survive from the puputans?
Regards

Yes Jean, you have identified the problem well.

By and large, collectors of keris living in western, and westernised societies do not have the vaguest idea of the value systems that apply to Balinese and Javanese keris in their societies of origin.

In fact, they perhaps do not even understand that the keris is in fact only the ferric material and its supportive nickelous material that has been brought into existence by an empu or pande.

I think that probably most keris collectors are now aware that the keris can be identified as analogous to its custodian, that is to say, man and keris are able to be identified as representative one of the other.
But I also believe that most of the people who are aware of this relationship between man and keris have not yet realised that the clothing of the man possesses the same nature as does the adornment of the keris, be that adornment wrongko, jejeran, wewer or kinatah work.

The wrongko has a feminine nature, and just as a wife can enhance the appearance and position of her husband, so can the wrongko enhance the keris which she protects (yes, "she":- the wrongko is feminine in nature). Just as a man can have a number of wives, either one at a time, or several at the one time, so it is usual for a keris to have more than a single wrongko, and for a wrongko to be replaced when this becomes necessary.

The jejeran almost invariably has a protective nature. This is not exclusive to the keris, but can be identified in other SE Asian weaponry, for example in the mandau and its associated forms. The blade of the keris has the nature of a shrine, and the jejeran has the function of protecting the blade from the possession of evil or undesirable forces.

Those who will only accept a keris as "old" if that keris is in an old wrongko, and is fitted with an old handle, cannot be considered to be either keris collectors, or students of the keris. These people are in fact antique collectors who have a liking for keris. There is, of course, nothing wrong with this, we all have our own preferences; apart from keris I also collect other things, and some of those things must be old or I don't want them. For example, I have not the slightest interest in new English table silver, but I do have a great liking for British table silver that pre-dates 1900. My porridge spoon dates from the 1870's, and my other table cutlery was made before Captain Cook landed in Australia.

So, if a person only finds a keris acceptable if that keris is accompanied by old dress, well, that's fine, that's what he likes. But let not that lover of the antique attempt to redefine the nature of the keris for those who do understand the keris.

Jean, I don't think I have ever claimed that long Balinese blades did not exist prior to the 19th century. If I have I would really appreciate it if you could give me the quote, as perhaps what I wrote was not clearly defined.

What I have said and written, more than once, is that the perceived size of a keris reflects the position in society of the man wearing it. I use the word perceived, because the scabbard could in fact be much longer than the blade, this could be the case where a family pusaka keris is involved, as most very early Balinese keris are in fact of Javanese style, and perhaps of Javanese origin.

Certainly the large beautifully sculpted Balinese keris that we are all familiar with did become more prevalent during the 19th century, and this can be put down to two major factors:- increase in population and easier access to materials.

But large Balinese keris did exist in earlier times, I have several that can be reliably dated to before 1800.

As to the existence of royal keris from Karangasem.

I Gusti Bagus Jelantik who can probably be identified as the last legitimate Raja of Karangasem died in 1966 at the age of 79, he had 12 wives and 31 children. The Puri Karangasem still exists, I have visited it several times, the royal line of Karangasem still exists.

It is reasonable to assume that into the 20th century, and until today, keris having an association with the Puri Karangasem still exist and are still in use by members of the royal line of Karangasem.

However, it should be noted that the two keris under discussion here are not claimed to have come from the Puri Karangasem, but rather from the Kerajaan Karangasem, and they are pusaka keris. Nobody has ever claimed that they are Pusaka Keris from the Puri Karangasem.

Yes, I have said that kings dress differently to farmers, but I have not said that these keris belonged to any king.

In respect of the maker of these two blades under discussion, frankly, I consider it remarkable that anybody could see sufficient detail of either of the two actual keris to permit them to identify the tells of a maker. I could not, and although I was within probably 12 inches of both keris, they were behind glass, I was unable to handle them, and much of the surface of each keris was obscured. If they had been stripped of dress and kinatah, if I could handle them, I might --- only "might" --- be able to form a tentative opinion. Presented as they are, most especially in a photo, well, I have nothing but respect for Gustav's extreme perspicacity.

Incidentally Jean, I believe Empu Tidak Tahu, also known as Mpu Belum Tahu was Javanese, or perhaps Malay, there seems to be some confusion as to his origin, but I'm inclined to regard him as Malay. Possibly one of the best known of the Javanese empus is Mpu Ora Ngerti. I understand that his Balinese equivalent is Pande Nenten Uning also known as Pande Tusing Tawang.

Hello Alan,
Thank you for your very interesting message which should close the discussion about these 2 krisses I think, although there is a legitimate uncertainty regarding the age of these 2 blades as advised by Gustav.
Thank you for your clarification regarding the age of the large balinese blades, your above statement is probably what you told me earlier, sorry for the confusion
I did not know that Empu Tidak Tahu exist :D (it was just a joke) but I believe that he was the maker of most of my krisses!
Regards

And what of the legendary Empu Tempe Tahu?

Actually Jogo, I know Mpu Tempe quite well, he has moved to The Land of Oz now you know, we often have lunch together

Jean, I'm sorry, I did not realise you were joking.

Yes , of course Mpu Tidak Tahu is real, some people call him Mpu Nggak Tau, others Belum Tahu, but he's real right enough, apparently extremely productive, I think he has probably been responsible for most keris in most collections. Most people in Jawa know him as Mpu Ora Ngerti, and swear that these two Mpus are both same person, a bit like Mpu Kodok in the long ago.

But naturally all those Balinese keris that are attributed to Pande Nenten Uning or Pande Tusing Tawang --- depending upon whom one is speaking with --- are the product of somebody else entirely.