Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nechesh
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.
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.
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.