[A. G. Maisey]

David, we're not in debate here, we're involved in a non-antagonistic discussion.

We're not scoring points, nor do any of us seem to be holding opposing points of view that we need to convince others to adopt.

In fact, my review of what has been put forward in this thread to date, seems to indicate that we're all pretty much on the same page.

To clarify my opinion in respect of the identification of the characters depicted in Balinese totogan hilts:-

if we survey the entire range of these hilts, what we find is that similar characters appear again and again.

note I have said "similar", I have not said "the same".

these characters for the most part appear to be either some deity or other, or alternatively a character taken from Balinese folk myth or belief

in the case of a deity, we are dealing with religion and religious belief, thus when a deity is shown it should be shown with one or another particular attributes that identify it as a particular deity, such identification is not something that can be open to opinion, it either is a particular deity, or it is not, and in either case the reasons should be able to be given to support the identification

where a folk character is shown, it is possible to have varying interpretations of the same character, sometimes identifying characteristics will be clear, sometimes not, but in any case we should be able to say why we think that a particular folk figure is shown.

I am confident that no serious person is going to randomly attach a name in a haphazard manner to any totogan hilt character, and that being so, it would in everybody's best interests if when we gave a name, we also gave a reference:- all too often somebody will give a name to something and then many others will pick that name up and use it, whether it is correct or not; yes, certainly this assists in communication, but it may not assist in accuracy.

I a previous post I used the term:-

"artistic drivel"

my exact usage was:-

"Alternatively, if the physical characteristics that a particular figure may bear cannot be aligned with the characteristics associated with a known deity or folk figure, then the figure is no more than artistic drivel:- it bears no association with a deity or a folk character."

it seems that my usage here was not clearly understood.

the word "artistic" probably needs no clarification, however the word "drivel" is not now in common usage and perhaps does need to be clarified. In the context in which I have used this word I have implied that an artistic creation that uses as its subject a figure with established attributes, but that fails to show any of those attributes, is like unto the freely flowing empty speech of a child or an idiot. (Oxford on Historical Principles)

In the case of Balinese totogan hilts that are made in the modern era, the art content of the subject is often prioritised at the expense of the symbolic content that is required for clear identification, thus, the art flows freely, but in the absence of the required symbolism, that art lacks meaning. In other words, it is drivel.

My usage was most definitely not associated grammatically nor was it implied in reference to the form of Bayu, but rather with the interpretation given by a maker to any Balinese totogan hilt figure.

I do not accept that it is no longer possible for Balinese totogan hilt characters to be confidently identified. Some characters can be easily and unarguably identified, however because of the inconsistencies in the ways in which other characters are shown, positive identification can become difficult for a person within Balinese society, and close to impossible for somebody who is not a member of that society.

For those of us who are not a part of Balinese society, it is obvious that we rely upon information that has been given to us by either a person, or in print. The information sourced from another person probably cannot be used as a reference, but the information sourced from printed matter certainly can and should be used as a reference.

This identification of keris hilt characters has often cropped up in discussion in this Forum. David has mentioned the Durga discussions, and my memory of those discussions seems to be that nobody had ever heard Durga mentioned in connection with the relevant hilt form, until a particular writer used the name, and failed to provide a reference.

Perhaps a similar situation applies in relation to Bayu:- we all recognise what a Bayu hilt should look like, the name assists communication between a particular group of collectors, but is it an accurate name for this hilt character?

It may be, or alternatively it may not be, but if we continue to accept the name without question we shall never know what is correct and what is not correct.