Bali Hilt ID
 

Funny how when you have an interest in something it just follows you everywhere you go. Was visiting my brother-in-law in South Orange, NJ for the holidays when i spotted this Bali keris literally rusting away in the front window of a curio shop. The wood of the hilt was all sun-dried and screaming for help. The maternal instinct in me kicked in and i just needed to save the poor old boy. :) What i am curious about in this thread is the hilt form. It is no great work of art, but is competently carved of a nice dark ebony-like wood. Probably not that old, but not made yesterday. The figure is quite expressive IMO. He seems to have a trunk and small tusks, but he also has very human features including a nose. The ears are also a bit elephant-like, but i don't get the feeling that this is a form of Ganesha. He also carries a rice sheaf behind his back like the Nawasari form. I have seen this form before, but have not seen it IDed. It doesn't seem to me that all elephant-like beings are Ganesha, just as all monkey figures are not necessarily Hanuman.
I have given it an initial cleaning and gifted it with a new uwer and he seems a whole lot happier. Any ideas? :shrug: :)

Dear David
 

Can you put up a frontal image close up. That looks like no Ganesha as you say and looks like a scorpion in the mouth. Shall look up in my iconography material.

Looks closer to the Rakshasa (interpreted by some as demon and by others as protector from the sanskrit word 'Raksha' - to protect).

Anan.

Thanks for your response Anan. My lens focusses no closer, but i enlarged one for a better viewing. It certainly isn't a scorpion in the mouth. The "trunk" attaches to the upper lip just below the human nose. It seems meant to be a hose-like appendage. I see nothing remotely like a rakasa in this figure either. No bulging eyes, no fangs (though there seems to be tusks), nothing demon-like at all IMO. To me the eyes are calm, compassionate and full of wisdom, traits i would expect to see on deity, not demon.

David, the rendering of figures in Bali is very often quite relaxed.

A carver might think it is a good idea to carve an amalgamation of several figures, simply because that takes his fancy on the day, or the material he has suits it, or he thinks it will be commercially viable.

The people who make these things are essentially craftsmen trying to make a living. They are not Brahmin priests, so we shouldn't try to affix a specific identity to all figures.

Even when a specific character is intended to be represented, the Balinese carvers more often than not get it wrong, and have Ganesha with his trunk in the wrong hand, or with an attribute that does not belong to him.

Lets just say they do things a little bit differently in Bali.

Looks like a pretty fair sort of keris.

I understand what you are saying Alan, but it doesn't keep me from wanting to better understand what the carver may have had in mind.
Here is a statue from Bali that was labeled Ganesha. :shrug:

Wow, that statute would suggest that amalgation/reinterpretation of features could have had some history...

Here's a few more images of Ganesha.

The wooden one is a carving by a Balinese master carver from about 25 years ago.

The stone one is in my back yard.

The hilts are in my collection cabinet.

Yes Kai Wee, the freedom of expression of Balinese craftsmen has been recorded from the earliest contact with Bali by outside observers. However, that statue is probably much, much younger than one might think. They carve from very soft stone in Bali, and this, combined with the tropical climate means most stone work is replaced every generation or so. There is no ethic of preservation of images or puris or other art or architectural works. The honour is in the creation, not in the preservation, so if something degrades and needs to be replaced, it simply provides the opportunity to gain more honour.

David,

That's a very handsome find. About the hilt, I agree with Alan. He has certainly a point about the craftsman trying to make a living. Every artist who tries to make a living makes objects that probably will sell best by the audience but he will not forget his own interpretations of the subject.

Looks like a great keris. Would like to see the whole blade and the scabbard as well.

Obviously Ganesha can be depicted in many ways and the form seems to evolve at the whim of the carver somewhat.
The statue i posted might not be anicent, but it does have some age to it and seems to be in a public space where it serves some community purpose. All i am trying to do is understand to the best of my ability the intention of the carver of my hilt. The parallels between the statue and my hilt (body and trunk position, texture of trunk, shape of mouth and position of tusks, presence of human nose as well as trunk, etc.) lead me to believe that the hilt carver based his figure (at least in part) on certain previous aspects depicted in older figures (even if not ancient, i think we must accept this statue as being at least "historical" in some sense). Though i wasn't sure if this hilt was intended as a Ganesha before, based on this statue i would say it was...that is, if this statue was also intended to be Ganesha. ;)
Here is another more modern mask of Ganesha that also shows the same mouth, tusk position and trunk attachment as my hilt.

Sorry Henk, not sheath with this one. And i would like to keep the topic of discussion on the hilt. :)

Hi David
 

Sorry I missed the thread since I had to go out of town. Now with the close up I agree that it is unlikely that it is a raksha solely since the appendage seems attached to the upper lip. As for raksha with bulging eyes etc., there are several aspects to this. Firstly are the physical characteristics of the figures - bulging belly, flaming hair, rounded appearance, the half crouched stance etc., which are distinguishign features as well as the instruments or accessories. Then there are the other factors which are added on to depict certain aspets or even manifestations such as 'raudra' loosely interpreted as ferocious - bulging eyes, open mouth displaying fangs, teeth etc. These are not primary characteristics for distinguishing the figure since they depict emotion etc.... This is however moot since I agree that it probably is not a raksha and since Maisey calrifies that matter further.

Good luck.

Anan, are you talking about rakasa in general, as depicted in all art forms or are you speaking specifically about the depiction of rakasa in keris hilts. Most of the keris hilts that i have seen described as rakasa are depicted with bulging eyes and fanged, but not with flaming hair or a necessarily rounded appearance. I am referring to rakasa only as he appears in keris hilts.

I'd like to suggest here that we are discussing interpretations of a universal (for lack of a better word) form with some 'strictly defined' attributes; ones that make the form unmistakable like tusks and a trunk ...

Could we posit that these attributes are all that's needed to identify and any variants are simply the Artist's interpretation of different aspects of the same deity ?

IOW, that is Ganesha, just a different aspect . :shrug: :confused:

Found on web:

Forms of Ganesha
The idols and temples of Ganesha are found all over the world. We have archeological evidence to suggest that he was worshipped in some temples of northern India as early as first century AD. The Ganapatyam lists 32 iconic forms of Lord Ganesha of which 16 are considered to be the most popular. They are not different Ganeshas but personification of his various aspects and attributes. There are idols and images of Lord Ganesha corresponding to these 16 forms. In each aspect Ganesha is shown with specific color, shape, posture and a variety of objects in his hands. Ganapathi is also symbolically worshipped in the form of a kumbha consisting of a coconut sitting atop the mouth of a round pot or vessel surrounded by five mango leaves. In some places Ganesha is worshipped in the form of lingas, salagramas and yantras. The swastika is also considered to be a symbol of Ganesha because he is a god of luck and auspiciousness. The sixteen forms of Ganesha are shown below:

Bala Ganapathi
Taruna Ganapati
Bhakti Ganapathi.
Maha Ganapathi
Vira Ganapathi
Sakti Ganapathi
Duvija Ganapathi
Ucchistha Ganapathi
Vighnaraja Ganapathi
Kshira Ganapathi
Lakshmi Ganapathi
Siddhi Ganapathi
Urdhava Ganapathi
Heramba Ganapathi
Vijaya Ganapathi
Niruttha Ganapathi

It would be nice to find a related image for all 32 aspect names. :)

G.I.S. Ganesha ??? ;) :D

I am of course referring to Raksha in general. I have little knowledge of the Raksha on keris hilts.

Here is one aspect of Ganapathi Dyanam from the RUPAMALA - a 11-12 century silpasastra or instruction for workmen/artisans originating from Sri Lanka.

The Dhyana of the Three eyed Ganesha

I bow to the Vigna Rajah, distinguished by an elephant face, with sharp tusks, three eyes, a big belly, having the features of a Bhuta, adored by men and gods, of a red colour, a king of gods, son of Isvara.

Gaja vadana vicitram tikshna dantam trinetram
Brahadudaramasesham bhuta rupam puranam
Amara nara supujyam rakta varnam suresam
Pasupati sutamisam vighna rajam namami

Note the reference to bhuta rupam i.e. the appearance of a Bhuta. Refers back to the earlier discussion of 2006 on this forum where Bhuta Nawasari as a Rakshasa king had ben discussed. :)

This is all very edifying, however, here we are talking about Bali.

On Bali the Hindu faith is practiced as "Bali Hindu". It is not mainstream, and I believe that most Brahmin priests from the mainstream would find considerable difference between their interpretation of the faith, and the form practiced in Bali.

In short, in my opinion it is a severe error to try to explain Balinese forms and practices in terms that relate to mainstream Hindu faith.

Most especially in the case of forms, these forms are uniquely Balinese.

As I remarked earlier:- the people who carve these images, particularly the small folk images, such as keris hilts, are not Brahmin priests. They are working cratfmen trying to earn a living. They carve what they hope will sell. Even in the case of a master carver who may have been commissioned to carve an image for a specific client, that master will use an existing pattern and possibly put his own spin on it, but it is extremely unlikely that he will know exactly what the religious import of the carving is.

As for the ogre hilt form.

The word "raksasa" is both Indonesian and Javanese for a giant, mythical ogre.

The female form is "raksasi".

Both these words are generics and refer to a type of being, not a specific being.

There are many variations of form in these ogre hilts, and most especially with the more recent ones, I personally find it virtually impossible to identify any specific character.

Dear Maisey,

Couldn't agree more.

However, the forum may be a good place to at least broadly outline the forms if only to be able discuss them. The published material is confusing with the experts contradicting each other. BY the way on my visit to KL about six months ago the KL Musuem had a large format book on keris written in Malay. Did not get it since it is not my main line and I was not a forum member then. I did visit the National Musuem, the Musuem of Islamic Art and the University Musuem hoping to see a good representative collection of krisses but was usuccessful.

My understanding on Bali is basic. My main liking for the keris lies in its magico spiritual aspects more than utility and aesthetics and the occassional connection to Sri Lanka. :)

Regards.

Anan.