Next keris from Polish Museum

Tim Simmons · 17th June 2005, 08:01 AM

I agree whole heartedly with a lot of what you say,I obviously got all my information from a Batman comic.Thanks Tim

BluErf · 17th June 2005, 12:51 PM

Actually, I must admit I only read about the hilt form being Durga in Kerner's book. Well, I suppose that's another fallacy to be dispelled, and what this forum is for.

wolviex · 17th June 2005, 06:47 PM

marto suwignyo: well, I must admit you entered with lightning and thunders. So...what we were talking about

. Should I ask moderators to delete all the posts and should we start discussion from the beginning. Or maybe someone will rescue all of this saying just: "it is traditionally believed that it is Durga"

Thank you for your post because it will let us think about all of this once more

nechesh · 17th June 2005, 07:26 PM

Wolviex, why on earth would you want any of these posts deleted?

The whole conversation has all been pretty interesting. Marto's post certainly put things in perspective and Blu is right to point out that the Durga reference to this hilt seems to have only been mentioned in one book, Kerner's.
If it makes you feel better, Marto points out that this hilt could represent ANY female form, so it is still POSSIBLY that it MIGHT be Durga.

It would be nice to know for sure, but as is often the case with these things, we might never know.

But that shouldn't dicourage us from digging, discussing and making guesses (educated of course

).

wolviex · 17th June 2005, 07:35 PM

No worries nechesh - even if I asked moderators they wouldn't hear

... and I only tried to dramatize all the situation

And to be honest - I really enjoy the discussion!

And now serious - I really believe it might be Durga/Kali - maybe those Tim's pictures with two fingers visible on sculptures will lead us to some serious arguments. Anyway, those two fingers, as it was said before, aren't accidental!

marto suwignyo · 18th June 2005, 06:28 AM

The wadon handle under discussion is of Javanese origin. Not Central Javanese, but probably East Java .

In about 1525 the ruler of the last Hindu-Javanese kingdom of Majapahit died, but by that time Majapahit had already lost control of its former realm to the Islamic trading kingdom of Demak.Except for a small enclave of Hindu faith at the far Eastern tip of Jawa, and which was effectively an extention of Bali, all of Java was under the control of Islamic rulers by the middle of the 16th. century.

Under Islam the handles of Javanese keris became abstract forms, in most cases unrecogniseable as being distilled from humanoid forms. In those cases where a recogniseable humanoid form persisted this form was, as far as I am aware, in all cases associated with indigenous Javanese belief and tradition, rather than with specific identifiable Hindu deities. The wadon handle under discussion does not appear to pre-date 1525, which it would need to do in order to have a clear association with Hindu-Javanese beliefs.The form itself definitely continued into at least the 19th. century, as I have handled examples which could not have been any older than the 19th. century. It is difficult to accept that a Hindu goddess who does not have a position of unusual importance in indigenous Javanese belief could continue to be represented in abstract form on keris handles that were carved 300 years after the disappearance of the last Hindu-Javanese kingdom.

The left hand of the figure depicted in this wadon handle is not shown with four separate fingers, only two finger separations can be identified, rather than three, additionally, in the index finger position , the finger shown is much heavier than fingers shown on the right hand. Continuing from the termination of this index finger position is an irregular, slightly bulbous area of carving, which does not align with the flowing lines that form the base of the rest of this panel. Is it possible that what is intended is a representation of the middle finger over the index finger, with something---perhaps a blossom--- being held between the two?
Or are we indeed looking at what is supposed to be a hand position with some religious significance?
Whatever the case, I do not believe that we can identify who, or what this figure is supposed to represent upon the basis of one rather unclear feature.
I have seen two examples of this handle form that do not have the hands in the position shown on the handle under discussion. On these other two handles, one has the hands raised to cover the breasts, the other has the arms straight down by the sides, with the fingers extended. It is clear that the hand position for the figure depicted in this handle form , is not a constant. If it is not a constant, how can it be used to support an argument that this handle form represents any specific being, because of the hand position?

We may all believe what we will, but if our beliefs are to be convincing, we must provide evidence or logical argument.Currently niether one nor the other has been presented which would allow us to assign a name to the character depicted in this handle form.

nechesh · 18th June 2005, 02:40 PM

Though i don't think it should kill the dicussion on this beautiful keris, i think Marto's arguments are basically correct. I will point out that representative hilts such as the raksasa were produced in Jawa well past the establishment of Islam there. However, i agree that this hilt form in question probably isn't Durga.

17th June 2005, 08:01 AM	#1
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,855	I agree whole heartedly with a lot of what you say,I obviously got all my information from a Batman comic.Thanks Tim Last edited by Tim Simmons; 17th June 2005 at 12:31 PM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

17th June 2005, 12:51 PM	#2
BluErf Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,180	Actually, I must admit I only read about the hilt form being Durga in Kerner's book. Well, I suppose that's another fallacy to be dispelled, and what this forum is for.

17th June 2005, 06:47 PM	#3
wolviex Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Poland, Krakow Posts: 418	marto suwignyo: well, I must admit you entered with lightning and thunders. So...what we were talking about . Should I ask moderators to delete all the posts and should we start discussion from the beginning. Or maybe someone will rescue all of this saying just: "it is traditionally believed that it is Durga" Thank you for your post because it will let us think about all of this once more

17th June 2005, 07:26 PM	#4
nechesh Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 940	Wolviex, why on earth would you want any of these posts deleted? The whole conversation has all been pretty interesting. Marto's post certainly put things in perspective and Blu is right to point out that the Durga reference to this hilt seems to have only been mentioned in one book, Kerner's. If it makes you feel better, Marto points out that this hilt could represent ANY female form, so it is still POSSIBLY that it MIGHT be Durga. It would be nice to know for sure, but as is often the case with these things, we might never know. But that shouldn't dicourage us from digging, discussing and making guesses (educated of course ).

17th June 2005, 07:35 PM	#5
wolviex Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Poland, Krakow Posts: 418	No worries nechesh - even if I asked moderators they wouldn't hear ... and I only tried to dramatize all the situation And to be honest - I really enjoy the discussion! And now serious - I really believe it might be Durga/Kali - maybe those Tim's pictures with two fingers visible on sculptures will lead us to some serious arguments. Anyway, those two fingers, as it was said before, aren't accidental!

18th June 2005, 06:28 AM	#6
marto suwignyo Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 52	The wadon handle under discussion is of Javanese origin. Not Central Javanese, but probably East Java . In about 1525 the ruler of the last Hindu-Javanese kingdom of Majapahit died, but by that time Majapahit had already lost control of its former realm to the Islamic trading kingdom of Demak.Except for a small enclave of Hindu faith at the far Eastern tip of Jawa, and which was effectively an extention of Bali, all of Java was under the control of Islamic rulers by the middle of the 16th. century. Under Islam the handles of Javanese keris became abstract forms, in most cases unrecogniseable as being distilled from humanoid forms. In those cases where a recogniseable humanoid form persisted this form was, as far as I am aware, in all cases associated with indigenous Javanese belief and tradition, rather than with specific identifiable Hindu deities. The wadon handle under discussion does not appear to pre-date 1525, which it would need to do in order to have a clear association with Hindu-Javanese beliefs.The form itself definitely continued into at least the 19th. century, as I have handled examples which could not have been any older than the 19th. century. It is difficult to accept that a Hindu goddess who does not have a position of unusual importance in indigenous Javanese belief could continue to be represented in abstract form on keris handles that were carved 300 years after the disappearance of the last Hindu-Javanese kingdom. The left hand of the figure depicted in this wadon handle is not shown with four separate fingers, only two finger separations can be identified, rather than three, additionally, in the index finger position , the finger shown is much heavier than fingers shown on the right hand. Continuing from the termination of this index finger position is an irregular, slightly bulbous area of carving, which does not align with the flowing lines that form the base of the rest of this panel. Is it possible that what is intended is a representation of the middle finger over the index finger, with something---perhaps a blossom--- being held between the two? Or are we indeed looking at what is supposed to be a hand position with some religious significance? Whatever the case, I do not believe that we can identify who, or what this figure is supposed to represent upon the basis of one rather unclear feature. I have seen two examples of this handle form that do not have the hands in the position shown on the handle under discussion. On these other two handles, one has the hands raised to cover the breasts, the other has the arms straight down by the sides, with the fingers extended. It is clear that the hand position for the figure depicted in this handle form , is not a constant. If it is not a constant, how can it be used to support an argument that this handle form represents any specific being, because of the hand position? We may all believe what we will, but if our beliefs are to be convincing, we must provide evidence or logical argument.Currently niether one nor the other has been presented which would allow us to assign a name to the character depicted in this handle form.

18th June 2005, 02:40 PM	#7
nechesh Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 940	Though i don't think it should kill the dicussion on this beautiful keris, i think Marto's arguments are basically correct. I will point out that representative hilts such as the raksasa were produced in Jawa well past the establishment of Islam there. However, i agree that this hilt form in question probably isn't Durga.