Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David
I am admittedly no expert on these, however, when i searched out the "real" ancestral figures from this part of the world they are pretty much ALL "crude" carvings. It does seem that they are most often carved of ironwood, so that might be one clue to actual intent. While i do realize that people fake all kinds of things this item at least appears to have spent some real time in the elements as a true ancestral figure would. So i am not yet convinced this is a tourist item. Being a crude carving does not seem to be a sign of fakery with such item though. 
https://www.google.com/search?q=hamp...w=1401&bih=838 |
Hello David,
...searching out the "real" figures...
Are you referring to GOOGLE pictures ? hence probably the "... "
Google will show you everything and includes, old / new / genuine / fake etc.
Hampatongs are as far as I know always made of iron wood or similar extreme heavy hardwood, and indeed I fully agree that they are generally crude carvings.
There is difference in quality and style.
And this statue is IMVHO not a very estetically attractive example.
The fangs and protruding tongue are typical dayak, as well as the style of the forehead and eyes.
What seems abnormal on this statue are the hands. they are very big compared to hands on other dayak statues.
1 hand around the torso is also something I have never seen before.
It indeed looks like it has spent a lot of time outside. yet it also looks like somebody has varnished it, is this correct ?
Best regards,
Willem