Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

A. G. Maisey · 19th January 2016, 02:26 AM

I used Pak Neka as an easy example.

The hard example I considered to be too long, but maybe I should give it anyway.

I first went to Bali in 1966. Hell of a trip at a hell of time. Tried to buy keris and get info on keris. At that time I could not find anybody who was prepared to talk to an ignorant bule about things as sacred as keris.

Between 1966 and about 1982 I went to Bali and Jawa about 12 times (that's counting the inevitable double visits to Bali as single visits), by the late 1970's I had learnt to speak passable BI (Bahasa Indonesia) so I was in a position for at least some of this time to be able to communicate with people in their own language --- or at least their own public language. I had access to a Brahmin from about 1978, and this man did give me more than a little bit of information and insight into the Balinese keris and attitudes towards it. At that time there was much that he gave me that I did not understand, but over the following years that understanding did come, but pretty slowly.

From 1982 through to 2014 I visited Indonesia more than 35 times, always with the double visit to Bali, on the way in, and on the way out.

I had many more informants in Jawa than in Bali, but I did actively seek information and understanding every time I was in Bali. My Brahmin contact passed away in the mid-1980's, so I lost that source, but I did develop relationships with a few people who had either a specific keris interest, or a cultural interest or talent.

So, that's the background that has helped form my opinions in this hilt character matter. It goes without saying that I have also covered a lot of printed material, but we won't go into that.

Based only upon my own personal experience, what I have found is that amongst Balinese people who have some knowledge of the way in which various deities are represented, and/or some knowledge of the keris, it is very difficult to get unvarying opinions that are in agreement. Even from the same person there can be day to day variation --- well, maybe not day to day, but rather year to year.

Apart from the variation, there is the inescapable problem of Balinese representations of Hindu deities. As an example. look at Ganesha. The Ganesha figure that almost always appears in keris hilts would never in a million years be accepted as a valid representation of Ganesha by any Hindu from India.

Two arms? Incorrect attributes? Naw, that's not Ganesh --- it might be somebody else, but its sure not Ganesh.

But in Bali it is accepted as Ganesha.

Why?

Because that's who it is intended to be.

Correctness is not a part of the game.

Intention is.

So, if we look at a hilt such as this beautiful silver hilt that Marcus has shown us, we need to ask:- 'when this was made, what was the intention?'

There are a number of reasons that can be provided for the making of a keris hilt:-

1) as personal deity, the function of which is to protect

2) as the representation of an ancestor, the function of which is to protect

3) as an ancestor represented as a deity, the function of which is to protect

4) as a folk figure, the function of which is to either protect the wearer or provide a negative aura towards the opponent

5) as a prescribed form to permit the wearing of a keris in prescribed situations

6) as a work of art, either stand alone, or for fitting to a keris.

This is what I can present without thinking about it. These possibilities are in the front of my mind, so to speak; with thought and research we can probably come up with more reasons to make a keris hilt in a particular way.

To me, it seems probable that Marcus' hilt is able to be categorised as fitting into #6 category:- a work of art; of course, this does not necessarily rule out categories 1 to 3, but since this is a very recent hilt, inclusion in one of those categories does seem to be unlikely.

Whatever I may say in this matter is purely opinion, but personally, I feel that it is pretty well grounded opinion, however, being opinion it can always be wrong.

It is not so much that I have thrown my hands into the air and declared Balinese hilts to be an unsolvable mystery.

It is more that my experience tells me that it is best to be cautious in giving opinions on the characters in any hilt, and foolish to be positive.

The maker and the person for whom a hilt was made are truly the only people who can say with any certainty what a particular figure is supposed to be.

The rest of us are best to quality our opinions, as David has done in his initial post.

19th January 2016, 02:26 AM	#13
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,697	I used Pak Neka as an easy example. The hard example I considered to be too long, but maybe I should give it anyway. I first went to Bali in 1966. Hell of a trip at a hell of time. Tried to buy keris and get info on keris. At that time I could not find anybody who was prepared to talk to an ignorant bule about things as sacred as keris. Between 1966 and about 1982 I went to Bali and Jawa about 12 times (that's counting the inevitable double visits to Bali as single visits), by the late 1970's I had learnt to speak passable BI (Bahasa Indonesia) so I was in a position for at least some of this time to be able to communicate with people in their own language --- or at least their own public language. I had access to a Brahmin from about 1978, and this man did give me more than a little bit of information and insight into the Balinese keris and attitudes towards it. At that time there was much that he gave me that I did not understand, but over the following years that understanding did come, but pretty slowly. From 1982 through to 2014 I visited Indonesia more than 35 times, always with the double visit to Bali, on the way in, and on the way out. I had many more informants in Jawa than in Bali, but I did actively seek information and understanding every time I was in Bali. My Brahmin contact passed away in the mid-1980's, so I lost that source, but I did develop relationships with a few people who had either a specific keris interest, or a cultural interest or talent. So, that's the background that has helped form my opinions in this hilt character matter. It goes without saying that I have also covered a lot of printed material, but we won't go into that. Based only upon my own personal experience, what I have found is that amongst Balinese people who have some knowledge of the way in which various deities are represented, and/or some knowledge of the keris, it is very difficult to get unvarying opinions that are in agreement. Even from the same person there can be day to day variation --- well, maybe not day to day, but rather year to year. Apart from the variation, there is the inescapable problem of Balinese representations of Hindu deities. As an example. look at Ganesha. The Ganesha figure that almost always appears in keris hilts would never in a million years be accepted as a valid representation of Ganesha by any Hindu from India. Two arms? Incorrect attributes? Naw, that's not Ganesh --- it might be somebody else, but its sure not Ganesh. But in Bali it is accepted as Ganesha. Why? Because that's who it is intended to be. Correctness is not a part of the game. Intention is. So, if we look at a hilt such as this beautiful silver hilt that Marcus has shown us, we need to ask:- 'when this was made, what was the intention?' There are a number of reasons that can be provided for the making of a keris hilt:- 1) as personal deity, the function of which is to protect 2) as the representation of an ancestor, the function of which is to protect 3) as an ancestor represented as a deity, the function of which is to protect 4) as a folk figure, the function of which is to either protect the wearer or provide a negative aura towards the opponent 5) as a prescribed form to permit the wearing of a keris in prescribed situations 6) as a work of art, either stand alone, or for fitting to a keris. This is what I can present without thinking about it. These possibilities are in the front of my mind, so to speak; with thought and research we can probably come up with more reasons to make a keris hilt in a particular way. To me, it seems probable that Marcus' hilt is able to be categorised as fitting into #6 category:- a work of art; of course, this does not necessarily rule out categories 1 to 3, but since this is a very recent hilt, inclusion in one of those categories does seem to be unlikely. Whatever I may say in this matter is purely opinion, but personally, I feel that it is pretty well grounded opinion, however, being opinion it can always be wrong. It is not so much that I have thrown my hands into the air and declared Balinese hilts to be an unsolvable mystery. It is more that my experience tells me that it is best to be cautious in giving opinions on the characters in any hilt, and foolish to be positive. The maker and the person for whom a hilt was made are truly the only people who can say with any certainty what a particular figure is supposed to be. The rest of us are best to quality our opinions, as David has done in his initial post.