[A. G. Maisey]

It can be very entertaining to look closely at keris hilts, and other folk carvings from various parts of Indonesia, and to try to discover just exactly what the carver was trying to portray.

Possibly at some point in history it may have been possible to examine a carving , analyse its minute detail, and produce a logically supportable opinion of the subject matter of the carving, including the, for example, five petalled flower held in the left hand at an angle of 22.75 degrees. Perhaps we may even be able to explain the reasons for the flower being held at 22.75 degrees, rather than at 21 degrees, or at 25 degrees.

The artistic conventions of Jawa, Bali, and other parts of maritime SE Asia dictate that certain things represented in a work of art will indicate that other things be understood by that representation. Fangs indicate an essentially evil character, a demon; hairiness indicates lack of refinement, bulging eyes indicates crudity, the long straight nose indicates refinement----and so and so on. We can see all of this in the wayang representations, however, to understand exactly what each portrayal of a particular characteristic means, we need to be educated in the way to understand these meanings.

In wayang, it is relatively easy to learn the distinctions between characters, and this is intentional, because wayang is an entertainment made for the common people, and it would defeat its purpose, if it had been allowed to become abstracted to the point where only the dalangs could understand it.

However, when we move from the arena of easily understood popular art to the expression of ideas, hopes, and characters that have a purpose other than pure entertainment, or perhaps instruction, we move into a different world.There is an inter-relationship between all the cultures of maritime SE Asia and this inter-relationship displays certain recogniseable traits that form a common thread through the cultures. One of the cultures that is closest to its roots is the Iban culture. Until quite recently this culture existed in a form that used art as a social mechanism. In very simple terms, women wove to establish hierarchical position within society, men took heads to establish hierarchical position within society, however, it was understood that not all men could be brilliant takers of heads, so the alternative hierarchical indicator was artistic ability. These indicators established position within society, and the suitability of couples for breeding. The entire fabric of art and aggression was about preservation of the tribal group.

Now, the motifs used by women in their weaving, and by men in their carving were established motifs, but to understand the meaning of the motifs, and how they could be read to understand the story told by the cloth, was something that required great knowledge and experience. A woman moving from one tribal group to another, may have broadly recognised the motifs, but she would have required tuition from weavers within that new tribal group before she could understand the nuances of the cloth.Moreover, a great weaver or carver could create a new form, and only that carver or weaver would know the meaning.

As for the men, the hilts of their swords were carved by the owner of the sword, and the purpose was purely to display the man's virtuosity in rendering an elegant representation of an established motif. The sword handle was on display for all to see, and to know that its carver, although perhaps not a great taker of heads, was certainly a great artist, and thus worthy of consideration as a mate for a daughter. However, it is also probable, that a man carving a sword hilt for his own use would have attempted to incorporate some esoteric elements into that carving.

Both the carving, and the weaving were indicators of intellect. The other elements of head taking, and rice growing, were indicators of ability to protect, and ability to provide.The resultant hierarchical society ensured that breeding would only take place between suitably matched couples, thus in turn ensuring continuance of the group.

As societal groups developed in the various parts of SE Asia, jobs that were once carried out by individual members of the society for societally related purposes, became the jobs of specialists, so weaving moved from having a societally logical foundation, to being something that was done by specialists, for payment.

The same thing happened with carving. Men no longer carved their own weapon hilts to demonstrate artistic ability, but they paid specialists to do this job. It could be argued that the societally logical reason was not lost, as only a successful man could afford to pay for the work of a great artist, thus demonstrating his position within society, and his suitability as a mate.

However, once the carving of objects, including keris hilts, became the job of a specialised group within the society, these artists moved away from the conscious expression of a mystical element in the carving, which would probably have been integral to a carving done by a man for his own use, and developed the artistic elements of the carving, those elements which elevated the artist's standing within his profession, and thus allowed him to charge more for his work.The ability to understand elements of the representation within the confines of the motif that were only able to be understood in the past by carvers and weavers with great knowledge and experience, was now lost. The new carvers and weavers were simply artists, or perhaps craftsmen and craftswomen, who worked at the reproduction of a motif, and embellished that motif to demonstrate virtuosity.

Whereas in the situation where a tribal weaver or carver produced a work, and often that work could only be fully understood by the creator, now we had a situation where even the creator of the work could not understand what it was he was creating.His purpose was to maximise artistic effect, within the bounds of the motif, and in accordance with his ability.

At the present time in Jawa, Bali, and Madura there are a number of extremely talented carvers. They produce carvings, including keris hilts , that are excellent craftwork, and often brilliant art work, but these individual carvers do not understand what it is that they are producing. They no longer work within a tribal framework where each motif variation can have an attached meaning, and where even in that tribal framework, the attached meaning was sometimes understood only by the carver.

The question to be answered is probably this:- at what point in time did the carving of a keris hilt cease to have an esoteric element incorporated into it, and become pure artistic expression?

This question is of course meaningless unless it it is framed within the historical structure of the relevant society, thus in Jawa this point could be argued to have occurred with societal dominance by Islam, whilst in Bali the point in time will be a different one.

Now, if we wish to discuss the interpretation of keris hilts, may I suggest that we first place the keris hilt under discussion into a time frame, and then ask ourselves if it is acceptable, or logical to try to attach an interpretation to it.

I agree that we can broadly classify virtually all keris hilts within one form or another, but to interpret those those hilts in order to give meaning to the features represented in the hilts is something that was probably even beyond the carver of the hilt.