Bali Hilt ID

David · 3rd January 2009, 11:48 PM

Funny how when you have an interest in something it just follows you everywhere you go. Was visiting my brother-in-law in South Orange, NJ for the holidays when i spotted this Bali keris literally rusting away in the front window of a curio shop. The wood of the hilt was all sun-dried and screaming for help. The maternal instinct in me kicked in and i just needed to save the poor old boy.

What i am curious about in this thread is the hilt form. It is no great work of art, but is competently carved of a nice dark ebony-like wood. Probably not that old, but not made yesterday. The figure is quite expressive IMO. He seems to have a trunk and small tusks, but he also has very human features including a nose. The ears are also a bit elephant-like, but i don't get the feeling that this is a form of Ganesha. He also carries a rice sheaf behind his back like the Nawasari form. I have seen this form before, but have not seen it IDed. It doesn't seem to me that all elephant-like beings are Ganesha, just as all monkey figures are not necessarily Hanuman.
I have given it an initial cleaning and gifted it with a new uwer and he seems a whole lot happier. Any ideas?

Anandalal N. · 4th January 2009, 01:30 AM

Can you put up a frontal image close up. That looks like no Ganesha as you say and looks like a scorpion in the mouth. Shall look up in my iconography material.

Looks closer to the Rakshasa (interpreted by some as demon and by others as protector from the sanskrit word 'Raksha' - to protect).

Anan.

David · 4th January 2009, 02:16 AM

Thanks for your response Anan. My lens focusses no closer, but i enlarged one for a better viewing. It certainly isn't a scorpion in the mouth. The "trunk" attaches to the upper lip just below the human nose. It seems meant to be a hose-like appendage. I see nothing remotely like a rakasa in this figure either. No bulging eyes, no fangs (though there seems to be tusks), nothing demon-like at all IMO. To me the eyes are calm, compassionate and full of wisdom, traits i would expect to see on deity, not demon.

A. G. Maisey · 4th January 2009, 03:25 AM

David, the rendering of figures in Bali is very often quite relaxed.

A carver might think it is a good idea to carve an amalgamation of several figures, simply because that takes his fancy on the day, or the material he has suits it, or he thinks it will be commercially viable.

The people who make these things are essentially craftsmen trying to make a living. They are not Brahmin priests, so we shouldn't try to affix a specific identity to all figures.

Even when a specific character is intended to be represented, the Balinese carvers more often than not get it wrong, and have Ganesha with his trunk in the wrong hand, or with an attribute that does not belong to him.

Lets just say they do things a little bit differently in Bali.

Looks like a pretty fair sort of keris.

David · 4th January 2009, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

David, the rendering of figures in Bali is very often quite relaxed.

A carver might think it is a good idea to carve an amalgamation of several figures, simply because that takes his fancy on the day, or the material he has suits it, or he thinks it will be commercially viable.

The people who make these things are essentially craftsmen trying to make a living. They are not Brahmin priests, so we shouldn't try to affix a specific identity to all figures.

Even when a specific character is intended to be represented, the Balinese carvers more often than not get it wrong, and have Ganesha with his trunk in the wrong hand, or with an attribute that does not belong to him.

Lets just say they do things a little bit differently in Bali.

Looks like a pretty fair sort of keris.

I understand what you are saying Alan, but it doesn't keep me from wanting to better understand what the carver may have had in mind.
Here is a statue from Bali that was labeled Ganesha.

BluErf · 4th January 2009, 06:51 AM

Wow, that statute would suggest that amalgation/reinterpretation of features could have had some history...

A. G. Maisey · 4th January 2009, 07:15 AM

Here's a few more images of Ganesha.

The wooden one is a carving by a Balinese master carver from about 25 years ago.

The stone one is in my back yard.

The hilts are in my collection cabinet.

3rd January 2009, 11:48 PM	#1
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,211	Bali Hilt ID Funny how when you have an interest in something it just follows you everywhere you go. Was visiting my brother-in-law in South Orange, NJ for the holidays when i spotted this Bali keris literally rusting away in the front window of a curio shop. The wood of the hilt was all sun-dried and screaming for help. The maternal instinct in me kicked in and i just needed to save the poor old boy. What i am curious about in this thread is the hilt form. It is no great work of art, but is competently carved of a nice dark ebony-like wood. Probably not that old, but not made yesterday. The figure is quite expressive IMO. He seems to have a trunk and small tusks, but he also has very human features including a nose. The ears are also a bit elephant-like, but i don't get the feeling that this is a form of Ganesha. He also carries a rice sheaf behind his back like the Nawasari form. I have seen this form before, but have not seen it IDed. It doesn't seem to me that all elephant-like beings are Ganesha, just as all monkey figures are not necessarily Hanuman. I have given it an initial cleaning and gifted it with a new uwer and he seems a whole lot happier. Any ideas? Attached Images

4th January 2009, 01:30 AM	#2
Anandalal N. Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 84	Dear David Can you put up a frontal image close up. That looks like no Ganesha as you say and looks like a scorpion in the mouth. Shall look up in my iconography material. Looks closer to the Rakshasa (interpreted by some as demon and by others as protector from the sanskrit word 'Raksha' - to protect). Anan.

4th January 2009, 02:16 AM	#3
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,211	Thanks for your response Anan. My lens focusses no closer, but i enlarged one for a better viewing. It certainly isn't a scorpion in the mouth. The "trunk" attaches to the upper lip just below the human nose. It seems meant to be a hose-like appendage. I see nothing remotely like a rakasa in this figure either. No bulging eyes, no fangs (though there seems to be tusks), nothing demon-like at all IMO. To me the eyes are calm, compassionate and full of wisdom, traits i would expect to see on deity, not demon. Attached Images

4th January 2009, 07:15 AM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	Here's a few more images of Ganesha. The wooden one is a carving by a Balinese master carver from about 25 years ago. The stone one is in my back yard. The hilts are in my collection cabinet. Attached Images

4th January 2009, 03:25 AM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	David, the rendering of figures in Bali is very often quite relaxed. A carver might think it is a good idea to carve an amalgamation of several figures, simply because that takes his fancy on the day, or the material he has suits it, or he thinks it will be commercially viable. The people who make these things are essentially craftsmen trying to make a living. They are not Brahmin priests, so we shouldn't try to affix a specific identity to all figures. Even when a specific character is intended to be represented, the Balinese carvers more often than not get it wrong, and have Ganesha with his trunk in the wrong hand, or with an attribute that does not belong to him. Lets just say they do things a little bit differently in Bali. Looks like a pretty fair sort of keris.

4th January 2009, 06:51 AM	#6
BluErf Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,180	Wow, that statute would suggest that amalgation/reinterpretation of features could have had some history...