Jean, I'm not quite sure where we're going with this discussion.
My assessment of the hilt on the Balinese keris that began this discussion was this:-
Personally I doubt that it is a keris hilt.
A ferrule like this is very, very non-typical for a keris hilt. But it could be a keris hilt, a person who was outside the mainstream may have carved and fitted it.
It looks more like nondescript knife/dagger/tool handle than a keris hilt.
If I could handle it I could form a better opinion, from a photo these things are always difficult.
Nothing I have written since I posted that assessment has altered my original assessment.
Nothing that others have written since my original assessment has altered the available evidence, thus my opinion remains the same:-
1) this type of ferrule is non-typical for a keris hilt; non-typical does not mean that such a thing cannot exist, it means that it is unusual for it to exist. I could also post photos of hilts that have a square cut recess to accept a square top on a selut, however, in the absence of the original selut this would prove absolutely nothing. We know that some seluts do have a square top, but in the case of this particular hilt, do you think a selut would be appropriate? Sketch in a selut and see what it looks like:- the already awkward geometry will become even more awkward.
2) the hilt under discussion does not look like a keris hilt, certainly, this is a very subjective judgement, however, my personal collection of keris hilts numbers in excess of 400 and I have undoubtedly seen and handled many more keris hilts than I have collected. I cannot recall having seen a keris hilt with the geometry of this hilt. However, I have seen many knives and pedangs with similar geometry.
3) we are looking at a photo; if it were possible to handle this keris I could determine if a proper grip could be achieved with this hilt, I cannot do that from a photo.
In respect of the Ganesha hilt of which you have posted a photo. I have not ever seen a Ganesha hilt nor any other North Coast keris hilt that has been fitted with the type of ferrule we find on knives and tools, moreover, the ferrule currently fitted to this Ganesha hilt appears to be an after-thought, or a replacement. The thing is quite simply out of place. Yes, it may be old, but that does not make it correct. What self-respecting man could wear a hilt like this in public? On the other hand, maybe this Ganesha hilt never was fitted to a keris, perhaps it was fitted to a knife or a pedang. There is enormous variation in Javanese weaponry, all we ever see in books is a very tiny sample of mostly items that conform with pre-determined ideas.
Let us not lose sight of exactly what function the keris performs, its primary use as a weapon is in a rapier like fashion, but it is also required to serve as an item of dress, and as an item of dress it represents the wearer.
Let us consider for a moment the type of Balinese selut that has a square top. Yes, it does require a square cut recess to accommodate such a selut, but the actual thickness of the wall of such a selut is not really very thick.
So, where are we going with this discussion?
I agree, the hilt under discussion could be a keris hilt, but personally I can see no way of forming any sort of defensible opinion in this respect in the absence of the physical presence of the hilt --- even then only the possibility of it being a keris hilt could be put forward, and that's exactly where we are now:- yes, possible, but not likely.
|