Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post - A Balinese (?)keris for identification please

A. G. Maisey · 25th May 2022, 02:49 AM

Thanks Sid, yes, I guess "marak" will pass with a push.

I don't know the Bali dhapurs, and I've gone to the Neka book too, the characteristics that dhapur marak should have are given as:-

gandhik polos berukir, alis, sogokan arep, reringgitan

I find this a bit confusing because "gandhik polos berukir" means a "plain gandhik that is carved" to my way of thinking the gandhik can be either plain or carved, but it cannot be both.

"alis" is OK, but "tikel alis" would be closer to the mark

"sogokan arep" would be more clear if it were to be "sogokan ngarep" which means "sogokan in front", but I guess that we can assume he means the same thing

"reringgitan" means greneng --- I have no idea what language this is, but the explanation is given under an illustration.

Anyway, I reckon this keris is probably near enough to marak, which I know as a Javanese dhapur, not Balinese. I cannot see a tikel alis in this keris under discussion, the sogokan is maybe there, the gandhik is not carved.

But maybe this keris does pass as marak.

Blade age is pre-1900, the dress probably dates from the 1960's-1970's.

The top of the wrongko(atasan) might not be ivory, as Jean has said, its a bit hard to judge from the photo, but if it is bone it would need to come from something pretty big.

I actually have a similar wrongko that came out of Bali in the early 1970's, the previous owner, who was a well known Australian collector, thought it was ivory, the gentleman who described it for the auction house that sold it in Sydney was another very experienced dealer and he thought it was ivory, but close inspection revealed that it was not. The previous owner had bought it from the original man who brought it out of Bali, this original importer had bought it in Bali, it was sold to him as ivory, and he honestly believed it was ivory.

If it does turn out to bone, don't feel too bad about it, a lot of people can make the same error.

I cannot give this hilt as pre-WWII, during the 1940's & 1950's the place was in turmoil, nothing much was going on in the way of art & craft, 1960's Bali & Indonesia in general started to open up again, 1970's the tourists were all coming back looking for a South Sea Island Paradise. I think it was most likely made in the early 1970's.

Battara is dead right, we cannot really rely on silver patina too much as an indicator of age.

25th May 2022, 02:49 AM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,700	Thanks Sid, yes, I guess "marak" will pass with a push. I don't know the Bali dhapurs, and I've gone to the Neka book too, the characteristics that dhapur marak should have are given as:- gandhik polos berukir, alis, sogokan arep, reringgitan I find this a bit confusing because "gandhik polos berukir" means a "plain gandhik that is carved" to my way of thinking the gandhik can be either plain or carved, but it cannot be both. "alis" is OK, but "tikel alis" would be closer to the mark "sogokan arep" would be more clear if it were to be "sogokan ngarep" which means "sogokan in front", but I guess that we can assume he means the same thing "reringgitan" means greneng --- I have no idea what language this is, but the explanation is given under an illustration. Anyway, I reckon this keris is probably near enough to marak, which I know as a Javanese dhapur, not Balinese. I cannot see a tikel alis in this keris under discussion, the sogokan is maybe there, the gandhik is not carved. But maybe this keris does pass as marak. Blade age is pre-1900, the dress probably dates from the 1960's-1970's. The top of the wrongko(atasan) might not be ivory, as Jean has said, its a bit hard to judge from the photo, but if it is bone it would need to come from something pretty big. I actually have a similar wrongko that came out of Bali in the early 1970's, the previous owner, who was a well known Australian collector, thought it was ivory, the gentleman who described it for the auction house that sold it in Sydney was another very experienced dealer and he thought it was ivory, but close inspection revealed that it was not. The previous owner had bought it from the original man who brought it out of Bali, this original importer had bought it in Bali, it was sold to him as ivory, and he honestly believed it was ivory. If it does turn out to bone, don't feel too bad about it, a lot of people can make the same error. I cannot give this hilt as pre-WWII, during the 1940's & 1950's the place was in turmoil, nothing much was going on in the way of art & craft, 1960's Bali & Indonesia in general started to open up again, 1970's the tourists were all coming back looking for a South Sea Island Paradise. I think it was most likely made in the early 1970's. Battara is dead right, we cannot really rely on silver patina too much as an indicator of age.