Here is a summary of the newspaper article:-
Since Keris Ki Baju Rante , a pusaka keris from the Karangasem Kerajaan, came to the Neka Museum, other keris from the Karangasem Kerajaan have followed.
At the present time the Neka Museum has Ki Taman Mayura, Ki Taman Ujung, Ki Baju Upas, Ki Baru Bengkel, Ki Baru Kumandang.
The two keris shown in this thread are Ki Taman Mayura and Ki Taman Ujung, they were made by Mpu Keris Kerajaan Karangasem Pande Rudaya who was an 18th century Kerajaan Karangasem pande.
The newspaper article does not say if the kinatah work dates from the 18th century, nor does it say if the dress of these keris dates from the 18th century. What it does most clearly state is that the keris themselves date from the 18th century.
The obsession of western collectors with what they regard as "originality" is not a part traditional Balinese or Javanese cultural values.
We all know that the dress for a keris can be and is changed from time to time.
It is a similar situation with the kinatah work on a keris. Kinatah was and is often bestowed on a keris because of some action or service performed by the custodian of the keris, or by the custodian of the keris to honour the keris for actions performed by the keris that were of benefit to the custodian.
Most old keris with kinatah that we see today did not start life adorned in gold, that gold came later.
It could well be that the kinatah work on Ki Taman Mayura and Ki Taman Ujung has been placed upon these keris at some time later than the time of their being brought into existence. The exuberance of the dress could well be very recent, and could perhaps be viewed from a Balinese perspective as the presentation of two important and highly respected keris in a manner befitting their status.
I have commented a number of times that the value systems of collectors in the various societies outside the traditional societies of Bali and Jawa vary considerably from the value systems of the people who are members of these traditional societies and who own the cultural values espoused by these societies.
Perhaps once again we can see the divide in understanding between the owners of a culture and those who accumulate artifacts from the culture.
If we are to understand the products of a culture other than our own, we do need to have a minimal understanding of the value systems of that culture. In respect of Balinese culture it may assist our understanding if we realise that when something that is associated with the Balinese belief system is made, that work involved in the making is in fact work that is dedicated to God.
A Balinese pusaka keris has a nature that can be likened to a shrine. This characteristic is not unique to Balinese weaponry, it is a nature that is also found in other Hindu weaponry, as noted by Robert Elgood.
Just as the meru is prepared for the visit of a being from the Hidden World, so the keris is also prepared for such a visit. Just as a meru is made more beautiful for the visit of a deity or an ancestor, so the keris can also be made more beautiful for such visits.
I personally believe that it is incumbent upon all those who assert that they have an interest in the Keris to attempt to gain some understanding of the culture that produced the Keris.
I acknowledge that my beliefs may not be the beliefs of others, but the failure to understand that in which we have an interest deprives us of a better enjoyment of that in which we have an interest.
|