Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Gustav · 19th February 2011, 09:41 AM

David, what disturbed me was your statement in #19, this keris would well be something pick up in travel. I know, you wrote later, not pick up in the tourist sense.

I would stay away from forming an oppinion about this hilt from online pictures available.

Some time ago I thought, it would be exactly the opposite case - hilt would be done somewhere outside of Bali or Java, copying a Javanese/Balinese hilt. It would be just a guess of a totally uninformed person. Hilt, particulary face, shows signs of wear, which could somewhat change the appearance, and we have probably only a part of a % of figural hilts from the beginning of 17. cent. for comparing.

The hilt has some strange features on it, yet clearly is not depicting a Japanese budhist deity (correct Japanese name for Guanyin is Kannon). The figure has a hairdo called gelung centung, and sumping at the ears. Jensen wrotes, this would be the hilt type depicting Arjuna or Bhima (in this case Arjuna, becouse there is no moustache), yet in my eyes it differs from the Makassar/Gowa golden hilts and the other wooden figural hilt in Vienna both in details and proportions.

About repainting of Gambar, Wahyono Martowikrido, Former Head of the Department of Archaeology and History, Museum Nasional, has stated the oppinion in his article from 1997, painting was changed or repainted by the same craftsman who painted the rest. As I wrote, clear evidence would bring probably only chemical analysis.

19th February 2011, 09:41 AM	#25
Gustav Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,196	David, what disturbed me was your statement in #19, this keris would well be something pick up in travel. I know, you wrote later, not pick up in the tourist sense. I would stay away from forming an oppinion about this hilt from online pictures available. Some time ago I thought, it would be exactly the opposite case - hilt would be done somewhere outside of Bali or Java, copying a Javanese/Balinese hilt. It would be just a guess of a totally uninformed person. Hilt, particulary face, shows signs of wear, which could somewhat change the appearance, and we have probably only a part of a % of figural hilts from the beginning of 17. cent. for comparing. The hilt has some strange features on it, yet clearly is not depicting a Japanese budhist deity (correct Japanese name for Guanyin is Kannon). The figure has a hairdo called gelung centung, and sumping at the ears. Jensen wrotes, this would be the hilt type depicting Arjuna or Bhima (in this case Arjuna, becouse there is no moustache), yet in my eyes it differs from the Makassar/Gowa golden hilts and the other wooden figural hilt in Vienna both in details and proportions. About repainting of Gambar, Wahyono Martowikrido, Former Head of the Department of Archaeology and History, Museum Nasional, has stated the oppinion in his article from 1997, painting was changed or repainted by the same craftsman who painted the rest. As I wrote, clear evidence would bring probably only chemical analysis. Last edited by Gustav; 19th February 2011 at 02:06 PM.