[A. G. Maisey]

David, the way that we are able to understand anything at all depends upon the things that we have already learnt. Sometimes the things we have learnt provide a direct point of reference that permits us to understand something with a high degree of certainty, at other times the things we have learnt permit us to apply a rational or logical approach to understand by way of reason.

Now, in respect of this hilt figure I have only limited information with which to work, this is because I have never seen a similar figural representation. I do not know who, or what the figure represents, and I do not have sufficient points of reference to permit a rational guess, that is to say a guess that I can defend with logic.

I can see a few things that I do not have any problem with, for instance, I think it is reasonable to assume that we are looking at a Javanese carving; that Javanese carving is figural, and stylistically it conforms with similar Javanese hilt figures that stretch over several hundred years. But I cannot place it within any particular period, nor can I place it at any particular geographic point of origin.

I can see a detail at the corners of the mouth of this figure, that based upon Javanese artistic convention may be interpreted as fangs, or perhaps tusks. The more probable interpretation is fangs, but still, perhaps we are looking at tusks. If tusks, then we need to consider Varaha, but here we have a problem that we cannot really address in a rational way unless we can place a time and place of origin on this little figure. So, on the weight of available evidence, it is probably safer to identify those corner-of-the-mouth details as fangs. If they are fangs, we have a demon, or ogre, or raksasa, or rashasa, or buta, or some other probably rather nasty little piece of work.

Now, the thing that we can see on the figure's head. Exactly what is this thing? Frankly, I do not know. Often in Javanese figural carvings the head-gear of a figure will assist in identification of the figure, and that in turn will assist in dating. This is one of the ways in which we can place approximate dates on the figures that form the hilts of keris sajen. Similarly, in the identification of Balinese hilt figures, the crown or head covering of a figure can assist in identification. But the catch 22 is that we need to ID the head covering, and maybe to ID the head covering we need to ID the figure first.

So, this little figure's head covering:- what is it?

Well, it looks to me as if we can see the hair on top of his head, so perhaps this head thing is not a covering, but rather something like a European crown. Not a Javanese crown, but a European one. Javanese crowns? Well, there was the story of the Golden Crown of Majapahit. Did the carver of this hilt know what a Javanese crown looked like?

Varaha, manifestation of Wisnu. What do we know about Varaha? Well, he saved Bhumi Dewi, the Earth Goddess when the evil Hiranyaksha stole her and hid her. Bhumi Dewi is a consort of Vishnu in his Varaha manifestation. Bhumi Dewi is associated with Lakshmi, Dewi Sri is also associated with Lakshmi, but Dewi Sri pre-dates Hindu influence in Jawa. Lakshmi is associated with wealth and prosperity, Dewi Sri is associated with fertility and the product of the soil, she is the Goddess of the rice, rice grows from the Earth, Mother Earth, Bhumi Dewi, no Mother Earth, no Dewi Sri, no Lakshmi, no prosperity, no wealth, no rice.

So now we can see that Varaha is really a pretty important character, because he saved Bhumi Dewi and restored her to her place, by lifting her on his tusks.
Varaha is often represented in mainstream Hindu art motifs wearing a crown.
Just maybe, if we put a figure of Varaha onto our keris, we will prevent its theft by evil doers.

The above is an example of how guessing at an unknown identity can become utterly rabid.

What I have written above can all be supported, it all links together, but in the context of this figure, it is pure nonsense.

The carver knew what he was carving. I do not. And I do not intend to guess. I can only identify what I can see and understand. What I can see and understand is that this figure is probably Javanese and it has fangs or tusks.

I simply do not know enough to permit me to identify any more than this, nor to hazard guesses at things I do not understand.