Next keris from Polish Museum - Page 2

tom hyle · 12th June 2005, 03:35 PM

Well, other than to point out that some of the lines are actually a little bit wiggly and that this is very likely a traditional design and not invented by the carver, I guess I've said my say on the skill level; believe what you will, but let me ask, can you justify the claim of mastery? What is it that anyone thinks requires a master's hand here? Because I, an experienced cutter of wood, see nothing like that. Why are the fingers so bulbous? If that's master's work then it's intentional and meaningful. Abstract lines, curved or straight, are much easier than fingers. I think the concept of master artisan/first rate work is misunderstood and considerably over-applied by modern people, BTW; to say something is not masterly does not mean it is not good. To hark to the European guild system, journeymen typically must display a level of skill and knowledge that would generally be considered very impressive. The typical professional working craftsman is a journeyman. Most firms in the past (usually family operated of course) did not have a single master craftsman. Most craftsmen never in their lives became masters. Most of us may have never seen master's work outside of musea and books (though there's a confusing and distressing tendency where the boss's name goes on it no matter who made it). Perhaps the term "mpu" is/was given out more lightly, but I somehow doubt it.
Bluerf, I'm not sure what point the hilt you show us is supposed to make about the hilt we're discussing, or at least how it's supposed to make it? The two are quite different.
My point with the whole mastery question was that the general level of carving skill seen here is such that an error of the type proposed, especially in an area of difficult grain, is believeable.
It often seems pointless and almost silly to discuss "quality", since judgements of it tend to be highly cultural and subjective and often do not seem suceptible to logic; Andy Warhol? Terrible painter; no good at all; No skill, no ability, no depth, no soul; recently saw some of his work in person; junk; very poorly made; see? Subjective. There are people that would about throw a brick at me for saying that, and consider it proof positive that I know nothing about art; I might say the same of most of them for saying it's any good.....who paints a million soup cans without learning to depict the curve believably?.....subjective. Therefore, back to the subject: I note something I didn't earlier, and that's that the left leg has many lines, and the right leg none (the lines I'd noticed, of course, but the none I hadn't; in all fairness it was the left hand to which our attention had been directed.). This in mind, and with the thought that these lines represent fabric wrinkles (?), possibly including the one that descends from the hand (is it the same shape of groove?)? The shine on the piece really makes it hard to see the wood or the surface; a fairly common difficulty with photos. She could be reaching two fingers into the fabric to scratch her leg, or to hike up her skirt. I don't know how that would tie in to any myth or standard gesture, but I think I've seen statues of Kali exposing herself, and the fingers do look more like they are disappearing into the skirt than as if they are curled in to the palm. Don't dismiss too quickly; Mjolnir the lightning-hammer has a short handle because an assistant smith got distracted by a biting fly (though it was not actually an ordinary fly, but in art.....). This is a very important part of that myth; one of its main moral points, without which it would almost never be related or depicted. Gods are often scratching their butts in stories....or maybe she's reaching for something. Aren't Durga and Kali the same/aspects of one being/etc?

nechesh · 12th June 2005, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tom hyle

Aren't Durga and Kali the same/aspects of one being/etc?

I think it would be an over simplification to say this. They are very different aspects of the same supreme mother, yes, but in this respect then ALL goddess forms would be the same goddess ultimately. They do share a certain ferocity. In other words, dont mess with them!

I agree with Tom that the Shiva hilt on the Kerner example bears absolutely no resemblence to the "Durga" hilt we have here. The Shiva hilt is mean as a "realistic" depiction of the deity, not the abstraction of the Durga hilt. Different gods, different genders, different treatments.

BluErf · 13th June 2005, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nechesh

I agree with Tom that the Shiva hilt on the Kerner example bears absolutely no resemblence to the "Durga" hilt we have here. The Shiva hilt is mean as a "realistic" depiction of the deity, not the abstraction of the Durga hilt. Different gods, different genders, different treatments.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear.

The similarity I was trying to point out was that both are Balinese-esque hulus that have not quite reached the large proportions of typical Balinese hulus and both sit on a mendak rather than a bulbous selut and mendak ring. I am of the opinion that these are attributes of earlier era (16-18th century) Javanese handle forms. Yes, both the Shiva and Durga are very different, and the realistic/abstract treatment too. But looking at Martin Kerner again, even with the Balinese handles, we see both realistic and a smaller number of abstract forms. And it has been said that the Balinese keris blades and handle forms are descendants of the earlier Javanese archetypes, which this Durga hilt keris could be one such keris.

As for the point I was trying to pull with my earlier pictures -- things that look simple does not necessarily mean it is simple to do well. Special emphasis is on the 'do well'. Mastery does not mean carving something that is very flashy and catches attention like some fancy full-carved handles do.

Everyone can make an attempt to make a simple form, but whether it is done well is another different matter. The difference between the work of a skilled tukang (journeyman, if you like) and a master is in the subtlety. To people who have not gained a deep appreciation of the art, the hilts made by a tukang and a master all look alike. To the connoisseur, it can mean thousands of dollars in price difference. Its all in the "air tangan" (Malay: literally "hand water". crudely translates into 'x-factor in carving') of the carver.

To add to nechesh's request, apart from attempting to carve this Durga hilt, maybe Tom could attempt to carve the Bugis handle I have posted, with all the surface lines, especially the u-turn double line on the back of the hilt. I would gladly supply more photos.

Also, another good experiment would be to carve the inverted v sheath bottom. Again, I also emphasize this is not a spiteful challenge; I believe that the proof of the cake is in the eating, and in this case, the proof of mastery (or not) is in the ability to carve. I'm not trying to put you down Tom, but carvers in Madura have been trying to copy the Bugis keris hilts and they have not been able to do it convincingly, and these guys are professional carvers who carve every day.

Wolviex -- this is the problem with keris; its so uncertain.

Anyway, it is true that handles can be swapped, but its just the combination of this old-style hilt with an old-style blade which made me think it really is an older form. Like I mentioned before, the physical condition of the keris is a poor indicator of age. If this keris was found in Java today, I would say 19th or even 20th century. But given that it was found in Poland (presumably drier and cooler than Indonesia) and collected in the earlier centuries, I do think this keris has considerable age to it.

tom hyle · 13th June 2005, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BluErf

Everyone can make an attempt to make a simple form, but whether it is done well is another different matter....To people who have not gained a deep appreciation of the art, the hilts made by a tukang and a master all look alike. To the connoisseur, it can mean thousands of dollars in price difference. Its all in the "air tangan" (Malay: literally "hand water". crudely translates into 'x-factor in carving') of the carver.

To add to nechesh's request, apart from attempting to carve this Durga hilt, maybe Tom could attempt to carve the Bugis handle I have posted, with all the surface lines, especially the u-turn double line on the back of the hilt. I would gladly supply more photos.

Also, another good experiment would be to carve the inverted v sheath bottom. Again, I also emphasize this is not a spiteful challenge; I believe that the proof of the cake is in the eating, and in this case, the proof of mastery (or not) is in the ability to carve. I'm not trying to put you down Tom, but carvers in Madura have been trying to copy the Bugis keris hilts and they have not been able to do it convincingly, and these guys are professional carvers who carve every day.

OK, Rubbing my head in consternation, but once more to try to explain: A/ I don't do nothing to prove nothing to nobody; I don't care that much what you think; I do not enjoy obsessive carving, especially the polishing; and you nor anyone else has nor is welcome to try to exercise such power over me. Is that hard to understand in some way?
B/ The one I said I could ALMOST carve under ideal conditions is the Durga one, not the stripey Bugis one: What I said about the two is that they are quite different, and I would think that in the absense of any further comment the implication that I make no claims regarding the Bugis hilt would be obvious. Both the angling and the parrallel lines might be hard, though I would make the parrallel lines with jigs or a special knife of some kind I'd probably have to invent if for some reason I had to make them perfect-perfect; then again I might be able to pull it off with a gun checquering knife. In any event, what I can make, what I have made for hire (for instance, perfectly flat lacquered wood surfaces, which are indeed difficult), and what I enjoy making or choose to make are vastly different; I am a designer; I am interested in structure. The acts of polishing and precision of decoration in producing plastic art are not things I enjoy. That's not because I'm incapable of them; it's because they're boring and painful.
C/ I don't know from spite, but I'm not feeling like all this is real mannerly or respectful of my eye and knowledge, but I'm used to that from humans and not too excited over it; as for my "mastery" I have never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever made any such claim in any feild! Ever ever ever ever. In fact, I cited the fact that I could probably carve the Durga statue as evidence that it does not require a master.
D/ Not sure what was supposedly improper about the Eric Clapton line of metaphor, but I see that, with no further promting from me, the subject is still art.
E/ While I can understand the concept of hiding errors in a profusion of detail, I don't know that I agree with it; first, the more details there are the harder it is OF COURSE for them all to be perfect; second, it is my experience as a craftsman that if you can't do an intricate decoration right you are far better off to not do it at all. Flat flat is indeed hard to make, but other than that flats and surfaces are certainly not harder to make than details; they are easier. This does not impugn the beauty or subtlty that can be expressed in them in any way. The concept that highly detailed carvings are done to hide a lack of skill seems to somehow fit the same myth structure (urban sword legend, anyone?) as the concept that carvings on Japanese blades are done (only or principally) to hide/eradicate forging flaws. Both may have some truth. Certainly, and with full consideration for the artistic traditions of simplicity/form that exist in both Japan and Indonesia, neither is correct as a hard and fast rule.

Rick · 13th June 2005, 06:12 PM

We are ALL humans here including you Tom !

I have placed one warning to get back on topic .

Any more of this and I am coming back with Fire and Brimstone !

Tim Simmons · 12th June 2005, 04:07 PM

I use the word master to driscibe an artist, exprienced, skilled and above all creative.The last thing I meant was any kind of highbrow sanctification.Tim

tom hyle · 12th June 2005, 04:24 PM

That's more or less what I thought you meant, Tim, and I agree with your opinion about this statue; I love it. I just think it's important to point out the difference between the (arguably incorrect) relatively broad modern N American vernacular use of the term and its traditional, very much rules-bound, European meaning. I'm affraid I'm one of those tiresome persons who is troubled by the changing of language, and almost look at as decay. I can't justify this logically; things change; that's life; it bothers me for whatever reason, though......This is not the first time I've said something isn't master work, or isn't first class work, and gotten responses almost as if I'd said it was not good; this ties in with aspects of modern culture that I'd better not discuss here as I cannot see them in any complimentary light; it's real noticeable when you are a craftsman, and know you're a journeyman at best, and watch others no better (and no few worse) advertise their mastery, and watch the people flock to the balogna.
Eric Clapton didn't just call an album Journeyman; I heard him explain it; after all those years of work, and with all the high opinion people have of his work, that's as high a claim as he was willing to make, and it not very vehemently. (Perhaps in Britain humility is still a virtue, or perhaps the old meanings of the terms are still better known/more used there)

wolviex · 12th June 2005, 05:11 PM

Boedhi Adhitya and BluErf: please explain to me one thing! I know that dating kerises is sometimes very problematic, but you are judging two different things.
BluErf, judging from the greneng is dating this keris earlier (16th-18th c.)
Boedhi Adhitya moved this date "after the Giyanti Treaty" (late 18th-20th c.)

Sorry for bothering, but I think this discrepancy is in need of explanation

Regards!

nechesh · 12th June 2005, 09:43 PM

Well Tom, i'm with you you on Warhol, i think he was a fake and a user who had a few good concepts that he execured ad nauseum. So they can let the rocks fly at both of us.

But i also think Clapton's greatness is a bit exaggerated too. Good Rock/Blues guitarist with very little originality. No humility there, just being the honest journeyman that he is.
Of Warhol, i have yet to encounter fans of his work referring to him as a "master". It is also well known that much of his work was actually executed by apprentices in his infamous "Factory", with his oversight of course. Now Picasso might be a better comparison because i HAVE heard him referred to as a "master". Much of his best known work is in cubist form, an abstraction of reality just as this particular hilt is. It sometimes looks childish and even simple, but i wouldn't assume i could do it with the same power and meaning. Being a master isn't always in the details. This hilt is meant to look this way and wasn't necessarily carved as an abstraction because the artist was incapable of depicting a realistic figure. This was the artist's intent. Now i certainly wouldn't say he is a "master" based on this one piece of work. But likewise i couldn't say he is not.

Personally i find this type of abstraction to be far ahead of it's time and we know that the cubists amongst other "modern" artists were all looking at so-called "primative" art when they were developing their ideas.
Tom, this is not a challenge, but since you have stated more than once that you could carve this as well, i for one would love to see it. You might actually get some business out of it.

Wolviex, dating of keris is almost ALWAYS problematic

especially when trying to do it just from photographs. A big part of the problem is that some of these keris forms can linger for centuries with very little change in appearance. Still, i thing that BluErf has perhaps applied a bit too much age to this piece and i personally would feel more comfortable with late 18th - early 19thC as Boedhi Adhitya suggests. Without any real provenence it is hard to say for sure. I am surprised that the museum has none at all. I would expect that at least getting info like where and when a piece was collected would be standard for any museum.
Of course, whether this keris is 17thC or 18thC matters little in the end, especially since we will probably never know for sure. What matters is that this is a fine example of an "older" (pre-late19th or 20thC) form with a fairly rare hilt form and that it should be prized by you and your museum.

wolviex · 12th June 2005, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nechesh

Without any real provenence it is hard to say for sure. I am surprised that the museum has none at all. I would expect that at least getting info like where and when a piece was collected would be standard for any museum

You're absolutely right, but... this piece wasn't purchased by the museum directly, but it is after big, famous, noble family, which gave all their collection to the museum. Because objects from these collection were gathered by the family from 17th century up to 20th, many of them is without provenience, many of them were just "after grandpa", and to be honest, treated as family mementos, no one was care where and what was purchased

.

As for the feeling - it's hard to get for me this keris just for feeling, while it's from different culture. So if I could say I can feel, I would guess 18th-19th century too.

tom hyle · 12th June 2005, 10:18 PM

I knew someone would say it and guessed it would be you; $15 an hour for that kind of work, buddy, and it will take a while; I ain't do nothing to prove nothing to nobody.

And I actually don't take carving work for hire; professionalism is the death of art. I do things I don't love so much for hire (though I guess it is a complex issue; I'd still be at the custom door job if my back could take the work.....).
Since two people don't get the Clapton reference though it seems off topic (and being a metaphor, isn't), I must elucidate further upon it. I actually never liked Eric Clapton much. I wouldn't call him lowest common denominator, but I just was never very impressed by his work, and most of all was indeed annoyed by the "rock god" vicarious arrogance of his fans. Furthermore, I think his best work was early on and he never should have abandoned his earlier style for the more derivitive work everyone seems so impressed by. But what turned me around on the man as an artist is the interview; the arrogance isn't his; it's his fans' and the derivitiveness is what is called learning by imitation, and though I'd've rather seen him pursue art by inspiration and individuality, his is a path I can respect; a bit prosaic, and nothing to expect artists to have the patience for, but respectable; learn the tradition THEN break/supercede it. Still learning a lot, he said; not ready to supercede. Just a journeyman; a competent working bluesman. IMHO a fairly accurate assessment, and a concept he has evidently pursued quite sincerely and at the expense of doing his own thing musically (and if you listen to his early work it is clear he had his own thing). You don't have to be a fan to respect such clarity and humility.
BTW, Two things I didn't say are that I could definitely carve this quite as well (I hedged my bets, you may notice, especially as it may for all I know be a difficult wood.), or that it couldn't have been carved by a master (only no particular sign it was; far from the same. On further examination I have spotted what seem to be minor flaws, but that doesn't lock things down or anything, and at least some of them may be deliberate and not flaws at all, such as the bulbous fingers.).
Picasso was a better painter than Warhol, but I don't care for his personality either. His followers/devotees do not call him a master. They call him "The Master", kind of like Jesus or something.
Interesting to say that this kind of work is out of placely modern, or ahead of its time; a total misperception, begging your pardon; in fact the "modern" Western art that resembles it is itself consciously imitative of "primitive" art; consciously behind its time, if you will. A lot of "Modern Art" is actually a reinjection of the primitive, and the concepts of beauty and form it expresses, if they are advanced, are not the advancement of the modern society/overculture/industrial age, but it trying to get back to the advancement or whatever term you prefer of earlier, more "natural" human cultures. The assumption that history and society are improving or are moving forward in anything but time has no basis in reality, though it is very common.....
If you ever get to Houston, you'd better not gamble and you'd better not fight, just like the song says, but then take yourself to a museum called the Menil Collection. A modern art museum. For one thing they have a bad ass beautiful deadly giant wooden Polynesian sword/spear in one of the corners, kind of behind a case, and for another they have a back room stocked with traditional art from the collections of famous modern artists, to show some of what they were studying.

Tim Simmons · 12th June 2005, 04:34 PM

Here here,though I am not that keen on Eric Clapton.Tim

wolviex · 12th June 2005, 05:00 PM

Thank you Boedhi Adhitya for your wide description. I can admit that I'm still a little lost in all those terminology, but this is great help. All these name are still sound strange to me, but I'm learning and familiarizing with them... slowly

. Anyway I found this fascinating.
I don't know how this keris found its way to Poland. There are some possibilities. First of all there were Polish travelers, and some of them were visiting far away Indonesian islands. There are even some journals about their far away travels. I believe that some of them brought few pieces back with them. Second option is, that many examples of these weapons, as spectacular ones, were brought from other countries like Spain, France, England, Germany and other, which were in trade, political and strong cultural contacts with Poland, during 16th-19th centuries. Polish noblemen were often guests in these countries, there were making additions to theirs collections there, and it's for sure, that some of kerises (and maybe this one included) may found its way to Poland through these contacts.

I think that Tom touched serious problem, and he is right writing about Mastery. I don't want to make a discussion about it, but this is obviuos we often understand this word different. In this case, while this keris is from much different culture than I am, I can't tell is it good or not. I can tell only this is nice through my cultural experience. People who are more familiar with these weapons are able to judge about it more properly, so I believe that our kerislovers are somehow right, knowing more pieces than I do. Of course, we have to look and judge from a different points of view i.e. 16th century European drawer (like Albrecht Durer), and from the other peasant artist from the same period. Both might be the "masters", but judging their works quality depends on that what we are looking for, and what are our expactations and knowledge about them. I hope I'm clear. English for me is illegible but different cultural too

Boedhi Adhitya · 15th June 2005, 06:13 AM

Dear Wolviex,
Making a keris handle might be easy, and might be hard, just like the painting

Every children might be able to draw something on paper, but only master painter who could make a Monalisa. Some good and talented painter might copy the Monalisa, but if we compare it head-to-head, some experts in painting might say something, don't they ? I didn't say that every good painting must look like Monalisa, but it is "the character" which make some artwork different than another. Just like any good song will bring "a mood" to you when you hear it. The same thing applied to the perfect, state-of-the art handle. It is neither the details nor the shape which make it hard to make. It is "the nuance", "proper balance", "character" or anything, you might name it, which is hard to reach. It takes talent, experience, skill, and most of all, it takes times. Old days mastercarvers or sheathmakers were fully supported by the court. They made their work while "on the mood", as any other artworks. Today carver work "on the need", or according to "the market", not the quality. And anyway, only a little, ridiculously paying attention to details collectors / keris' connoiseurs who might (and able to!) appreciate those "state-of-the art" handle, while they very little in quantity and not willing to pay more for newly made handle, so why bother ?

I believe, by studying a lot of good old handles, a young, capable and talented carver might able to make the good ones. But studying more than one style is very hard, because "the character", "proper balance" or anything (as you name it before

) particular to one style might mixed up one-another, and "confuse" the carver. Just like a rocker try to compose some middle-east song might ended up on an alternative ones

For the second question, well, I do sorry, I have no other opinion than what have been posted here before. Yes, it's unique and rare. I might have seen it, but didn't pay any attention

Sorry, my fault. Until today, I'm only paying attention to what called "pakem" (conform to the rule) handle, especially Jogja's Pakem. I agree to Meneer Cedric that this hilt might came from east java, the "pasisiran", which considered as "out of the court" in 16th. c. But not the blade ! It might be court made !

About the dating, I agree that Sier Jensen's method is very reliable, althought not accurate enough, it might means a lot. (as long as no one faked the inventory note, of course

). I myself do question the traditional dating methods (Tangguh). Is it really as old as it says ? But, well, no other methods. Even the Sonobudoyo Musem in Jogjakarta asked Pametri Wiji to date their keris collections. Wish some experts on dating, Iron dating particularly, might find another, non-destructive preferably, reliable method.

Salam.

BluErf · 15th June 2005, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boedhi Adhitya

Dear Wolviex,
... it is "the character" which make some artwork different than another. Just like any good song will bring "a mood" to you when you hear it. The same thing applied to the perfect, state-of-the art handle. It is neither the details nor the shape which make it hard to make. It is "the nuance", "proper balance", "character" or anything, you might name it, which is hard to reach. It takes talent, experience, skill, and most of all, it takes times. Old days mastercarvers or sheathmakers were fully supported by the court. They made their work while "on the mood", as any other artworks. Today carver work "on the need", or according to "the market", not the quality. And anyway, only a little, ridiculously paying attention to details collectors / keris' connoiseurs who might (and able to!) appreciate those "state-of-the art" handle, while they very little in quantity and not willing to pay more for newly made handle, so why bother ?

I believe, by studying a lot of good old handles, a young, capable and talented carver might able to make the good ones. But studying more than one style is very hard, because "the character", "proper balance" or anything (as you name it before

) particular to one style might mixed up one-another, and "confuse" the carver.

I absolutely agree with this, Boedhi! You said what I had wanted to say, and so accurately!

Hi Tuan Cedric -- I thought the Durga unveiled you posted looked more like Nava Sari. The unveiled Durga I've seen Kerner's book and one that I have handled all had big conspicuous bosoms, which in your example, looked rather muted.

Actually, how do we tell whether the thing held in the hand was a veil or a sheaf of rice, or a club?

BluErf · 15th June 2005, 02:36 PM

Here's a Nava Sari from Kerner's book.

Tim Simmons · 16th June 2005, 01:18 PM

I believe the hand gesture is a represention of this, and the duality is further expressed in the hilt and scabbard of keris.Tim

Battara · 16th June 2005, 07:10 PM

What you have here in this image is the lingam of Shiva, representing his penis for the most part.

Tim Simmons · 16th June 2005, 07:21 PM

Indeed set in a yoni, showing the double-sexed nature of the deity Durga or Kali in other parts of Asia.Tim

Tim Simmons · 16th June 2005, 07:35 PM

These are Indian images of Kali,the great goddess,the terrible goddess {based on the source}seated on the corpse-Siva, again a dualitiy in giving and taking life.Tim

wolviex · 16th June 2005, 09:23 PM

Sorry for being quite for some time, but I was very busy.

Boedhi Adhitya: thank you for your further explanations. This is just what I expected to hear/read. I could exacerbate this problem, but until it isn't main subject of this discussion, I will leave childish questions "why" "why" for better times

Tuancd: thank you for your pictures. I hope they'll help us in discussion. We can clearly see, there are very visible similarities.

Tim: your pictures are great. Great work, and I want to thank you for your commitment. Your reasearches are very helpful. As far as I can understand you, these are only your theories. If so, maybe someone more familiar with mythology could explain us more

All the best!

nechesh · 16th June 2005, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Simmons

These are Indian images of Kali,the great goddess,the terrible goddess {based on the source}seated on the corpse-Siva, again a dualitiy in giving and taking life.Tim

Seated, eh? Is that what you blokes call it over over there?

Tim Simmons · 16th June 2005, 09:43 PM

Hello Woliex, this is a fasinating subjet, I would hope that what I have researched is more than my theories

In the picture of Durga from the temple in Java, she is not only making the lingam-yoni symbol, she is also holding a shell trumpet on which the creative sound is made.Tim

wolviex · 16th June 2005, 09:52 PM

Hello Tim

I'm tending to believe in your "double-sexed nature of the deity" theory also.

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.

Tim Simmons · 20th June 2005, 07:28 PM

Some of you may find these pictures interesting.Tim

marto suwignyo · 21st June 2005, 02:57 AM

Interesting.
But I think that in essence we have no advance in our understanding. Simply because several authors say the same thing, does not make that thing correct.There is a tendency, even in academia, to continue to quote previously published works, even when those works may be demonstrably inaccurate, and popular writings on the keris are not subjected to the same close critical scrutiny as are academic writings.

We still have only a female figure, with no facial features. This has been interpreted as Durga, which it may be, but it may equally be something else entirely.

I have had a look at Knick-Bumke`s article, and quite frankly, I feel that it argues against the case for this handle being a representation of Durga.

There is no dispute that Durga can be represented as a normal woman. As I stated earlier, the most common representation of Durga is as a beautiful young yellow woman riding a tiger.However, I do not know of any representation of Durga in this form in Java.

Even if it could be shown that there this an association between this handle form, and the later classical period in Java, that does not provide any evidence that the figure shown is a representation of Durga.

The hand position is still ill defined.
To interpret this hand position as anything would require a giant leap of faith. We still only have possibilities. But let us suppose that it can be interpreted as a definite, religiously symbolic hand position, that in itself would not allow us to state that the figure is a representation of Durga.Apart from which, as I advised earlier, this hand position is not a constant in all handles of this form.

On the subject of the "veiled Durga".
We can find this idea repeating itself again and again in writings about the keris, however, can we find a single monumental representation of a "veiled Durga" anywhere in Java, or in mainland India, or anywhere else?

Can we find mention of and explanation of the idea of "veiled Durga" in any religious work? Anthropological work?

The Hindu faith is not one of my strong points, and is really only a fringe interest for me in my study of the keris, so I would welcome it if somebody more well versed in this faith could direct me to some representations of a "veiled Durga" in monumental works, or to a credible religious work with explanation of this form. I rather suspect that the phrase "veiled Durga" is actually a reference to the female element represented by the Great Mother---Durga--being the source of all wisdom.

In the Hindu faith the Supreme being can be worshipped as a Male God, or as a Female God, or simply as Transcendental Bliss. We must realise that nothing we think we see is actually what we do see.

For instance, just as Durga is one of the names of Dewi, or Parvati, so Kali is another of her names. Kali is seen as a bloodthirsty character, but Kali`s activities are not destructive to the cosmic order, rather they preserve the cosmic order, as her aim is to destroy the demonic forces before these forces can cause danger to that cosmic order.

We have wandered into a discussion on religious symbolism here, and this is something that really is best left to those with training in the field. What we need to do is to find the writings of these experts and quote those writings to substantiate the existence and form of "veiled Durga".

When we begin to examine the keris in Java, we undertake the examination of a cultural artifact. For legitimate opinion to be expressed on aspects of this artifact we need to turn to the elements of the culture to allow us to understand that which we wish to come to terms with. We need to turn to history, religion, and the structure of the society itself.
So, if we would like to confirm that this handle presently under discusion is in fact a representation of Durga, I would suggest that as a bare minimum we need to satisfy the following :-
1) demonstrate the existence of a physical representation of Durga that is accepted by authorities in an academic field, or religion, as the vieled form of this Goddess.
2) provide reference to credible published works that substantiate the existence of Durga in a physically veiled form.
3) demonstrate that this veiled form of Durga was known and existed in Java.
4) demonstrate that the handle form under discussion is in fact a representation of this form.

If the "veiled Durga" truly does exist, this should not be too big an ask.
My own knowledge in this field is totally inadequate to allow me to provide such proofs, and I will welcome the veil of ignorance being lifted from my eyes by those equipped to do so.

Tim Simmons · 21st June 2005, 07:44 AM

Thats better, thanks Tim

marto suwignyo · 21st June 2005, 11:38 AM

Tim:-
since your post of 4.44pm directly follows my post of 11.57am I am assuming that your comment:-

"Thats better, thanks, Tim"

is directed at me.

Would you be so kind as to explain exactly what I have written in my post of 11.57am to generate this comment from you.

I have re-examined what I have written in all three of my posts to this thread, and I cannot detect any significant difference in the stance I have taken in my first post, to that which I have take in my third post.

My position remains that there is no evidence on the table that this wadon handle is a representation of Durga.

If I am in error that you have directed your remarks to me , please accept my most humble apologies for daring to presume.

12th June 2005, 03:35 PM	#1
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	Well, other than to point out that some of the lines are actually a little bit wiggly and that this is very likely a traditional design and not invented by the carver, I guess I've said my say on the skill level; believe what you will, but let me ask, can you justify the claim of mastery? What is it that anyone thinks requires a master's hand here? Because I, an experienced cutter of wood, see nothing like that. Why are the fingers so bulbous? If that's master's work then it's intentional and meaningful. Abstract lines, curved or straight, are much easier than fingers. I think the concept of master artisan/first rate work is misunderstood and considerably over-applied by modern people, BTW; to say something is not masterly does not mean it is not good. To hark to the European guild system, journeymen typically must display a level of skill and knowledge that would generally be considered very impressive. The typical professional working craftsman is a journeyman. Most firms in the past (usually family operated of course) did not have a single master craftsman. Most craftsmen never in their lives became masters. Most of us may have never seen master's work outside of musea and books (though there's a confusing and distressing tendency where the boss's name goes on it no matter who made it). Perhaps the term "mpu" is/was given out more lightly, but I somehow doubt it. Bluerf, I'm not sure what point the hilt you show us is supposed to make about the hilt we're discussing, or at least how it's supposed to make it? The two are quite different. My point with the whole mastery question was that the general level of carving skill seen here is such that an error of the type proposed, especially in an area of difficult grain, is believeable. It often seems pointless and almost silly to discuss "quality", since judgements of it tend to be highly cultural and subjective and often do not seem suceptible to logic; Andy Warhol? Terrible painter; no good at all; No skill, no ability, no depth, no soul; recently saw some of his work in person; junk; very poorly made; see? Subjective. There are people that would about throw a brick at me for saying that, and consider it proof positive that I know nothing about art; I might say the same of most of them for saying it's any good.....who paints a million soup cans without learning to depict the curve believably?.....subjective. Therefore, back to the subject: I note something I didn't earlier, and that's that the left leg has many lines, and the right leg none (the lines I'd noticed, of course, but the none I hadn't; in all fairness it was the left hand to which our attention had been directed.). This in mind, and with the thought that these lines represent fabric wrinkles (?), possibly including the one that descends from the hand (is it the same shape of groove?)? The shine on the piece really makes it hard to see the wood or the surface; a fairly common difficulty with photos. She could be reaching two fingers into the fabric to scratch her leg, or to hike up her skirt. I don't know how that would tie in to any myth or standard gesture, but I think I've seen statues of Kali exposing herself, and the fingers do look more like they are disappearing into the skirt than as if they are curled in to the palm. Don't dismiss too quickly; Mjolnir the lightning-hammer has a short handle because an assistant smith got distracted by a biting fly (though it was not actually an ordinary fly, but in art.....). This is a very important part of that myth; one of its main moral points, without which it would almost never be related or depicted. Gods are often scratching their butts in stories....or maybe she's reaching for something. Aren't Durga and Kali the same/aspects of one being/etc? Last edited by tom hyle; 12th June 2005 at 04:35 PM.

13th June 2005, 06:12 PM	#5
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,336	Chill Out We are ALL humans here including you Tom ! I have placed one warning to get back on topic . Any more of this and I am coming back with Fire and Brimstone !

12th June 2005, 04:24 PM	#7
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	That's more or less what I thought you meant, Tim, and I agree with your opinion about this statue; I love it. I just think it's important to point out the difference between the (arguably incorrect) relatively broad modern N American vernacular use of the term and its traditional, very much rules-bound, European meaning. I'm affraid I'm one of those tiresome persons who is troubled by the changing of language, and almost look at as decay. I can't justify this logically; things change; that's life; it bothers me for whatever reason, though......This is not the first time I've said something isn't master work, or isn't first class work, and gotten responses almost as if I'd said it was not good; this ties in with aspects of modern culture that I'd better not discuss here as I cannot see them in any complimentary light; it's real noticeable when you are a craftsman, and know you're a journeyman at best, and watch others no better (and no few worse) advertise their mastery, and watch the people flock to the balogna. Eric Clapton didn't just call an album Journeyman; I heard him explain it; after all those years of work, and with all the high opinion people have of his work, that's as high a claim as he was willing to make, and it not very vehemently. (Perhaps in Britain humility is still a virtue, or perhaps the old meanings of the terms are still better known/more used there) Last edited by tom hyle; 12th June 2005 at 04:48 PM.

12th June 2005, 10:18 PM	#11
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	I knew someone would say it and guessed it would be you; $15 an hour for that kind of work, buddy, and it will take a while; I ain't do nothing to prove nothing to nobody. And I actually don't take carving work for hire; professionalism is the death of art. I do things I don't love so much for hire (though I guess it is a complex issue; I'd still be at the custom door job if my back could take the work.....). Since two people don't get the Clapton reference though it seems off topic (and being a metaphor, isn't), I must elucidate further upon it. I actually never liked Eric Clapton much. I wouldn't call him lowest common denominator, but I just was never very impressed by his work, and most of all was indeed annoyed by the "rock god" vicarious arrogance of his fans. Furthermore, I think his best work was early on and he never should have abandoned his earlier style for the more derivitive work everyone seems so impressed by. But what turned me around on the man as an artist is the interview; the arrogance isn't his; it's his fans' and the derivitiveness is what is called learning by imitation, and though I'd've rather seen him pursue art by inspiration and individuality, his is a path I can respect; a bit prosaic, and nothing to expect artists to have the patience for, but respectable; learn the tradition THEN break/supercede it. Still learning a lot, he said; not ready to supercede. Just a journeyman; a competent working bluesman. IMHO a fairly accurate assessment, and a concept he has evidently pursued quite sincerely and at the expense of doing his own thing musically (and if you listen to his early work it is clear he had his own thing). You don't have to be a fan to respect such clarity and humility. BTW, Two things I didn't say are that I could definitely carve this quite as well (I hedged my bets, you may notice, especially as it may for all I know be a difficult wood.), or that it couldn't have been carved by a master (only no particular sign it was; far from the same. On further examination I have spotted what seem to be minor flaws, but that doesn't lock things down or anything, and at least some of them may be deliberate and not flaws at all, such as the bulbous fingers.). Picasso was a better painter than Warhol, but I don't care for his personality either. His followers/devotees do not call him a master. They call him "The Master", kind of like Jesus or something. Interesting to say that this kind of work is out of placely modern, or ahead of its time; a total misperception, begging your pardon; in fact the "modern" Western art that resembles it is itself consciously imitative of "primitive" art; consciously behind its time, if you will. A lot of "Modern Art" is actually a reinjection of the primitive, and the concepts of beauty and form it expresses, if they are advanced, are not the advancement of the modern society/overculture/industrial age, but it trying to get back to the advancement or whatever term you prefer of earlier, more "natural" human cultures. The assumption that history and society are improving or are moving forward in anything but time has no basis in reality, though it is very common..... If you ever get to Houston, you'd better not gamble and you'd better not fight, just like the song says, but then take yourself to a museum called the Menil Collection. A modern art museum. For one thing they have a bad ass beautiful deadly giant wooden Polynesian sword/spear in one of the corners, kind of behind a case, and for another they have a back room stocked with traditional art from the collections of famous modern artists, to show some of what they were studying. Last edited by tom hyle; 12th June 2005 at 10:30 PM.

12th June 2005, 04:34 PM	#12
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,843	Here here,though I am not that keen on Eric Clapton.Tim Last edited by Tim Simmons; 12th June 2005 at 05:40 PM.

12th June 2005, 04:07 PM	#6
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,843	I use the word master to driscibe an artist, exprienced, skilled and above all creative.The last thing I meant was any kind of highbrow sanctification.Tim

12th June 2005, 05:11 PM	#8
wolviex Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Poland, Krakow Posts: 418	Boedhi Adhitya and BluErf: please explain to me one thing! I know that dating kerises is sometimes very problematic, but you are judging two different things. BluErf, judging from the greneng is dating this keris earlier (16th-18th c.) Boedhi Adhitya moved this date "after the Giyanti Treaty" (late 18th-20th c.) Sorry for bothering, but I think this discrepancy is in need of explanation Regards!

12th June 2005, 09:43 PM	#9
nechesh Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 940	Well Tom, i'm with you you on Warhol, i think he was a fake and a user who had a few good concepts that he execured ad nauseum. So they can let the rocks fly at both of us. But i also think Clapton's greatness is a bit exaggerated too. Good Rock/Blues guitarist with very little originality. No humility there, just being the honest journeyman that he is. Of Warhol, i have yet to encounter fans of his work referring to him as a "master". It is also well known that much of his work was actually executed by apprentices in his infamous "Factory", with his oversight of course. Now Picasso might be a better comparison because i HAVE heard him referred to as a "master". Much of his best known work is in cubist form, an abstraction of reality just as this particular hilt is. It sometimes looks childish and even simple, but i wouldn't assume i could do it with the same power and meaning. Being a master isn't always in the details. This hilt is meant to look this way and wasn't necessarily carved as an abstraction because the artist was incapable of depicting a realistic figure. This was the artist's intent. Now i certainly wouldn't say he is a "master" based on this one piece of work. But likewise i couldn't say he is not. Personally i find this type of abstraction to be far ahead of it's time and we know that the cubists amongst other "modern" artists were all looking at so-called "primative" art when they were developing their ideas. Tom, this is not a challenge, but since you have stated more than once that you could carve this as well, i for one would love to see it. You might actually get some business out of it. Wolviex, dating of keris is almost ALWAYS problematic especially when trying to do it just from photographs. A big part of the problem is that some of these keris forms can linger for centuries with very little change in appearance. Still, i thing that BluErf has perhaps applied a bit too much age to this piece and i personally would feel more comfortable with late 18th - early 19thC as Boedhi Adhitya suggests. Without any real provenence it is hard to say for sure. I am surprised that the museum has none at all. I would expect that at least getting info like where and when a piece was collected would be standard for any museum. Of course, whether this keris is 17thC or 18thC matters little in the end, especially since we will probably never know for sure. What matters is that this is a fine example of an "older" (pre-late19th or 20thC) form with a fairly rare hilt form and that it should be prized by you and your museum.

12th June 2005, 05:00 PM	#13
wolviex Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Poland, Krakow Posts: 418	Thank you Boedhi Adhitya for your wide description. I can admit that I'm still a little lost in all those terminology, but this is great help. All these name are still sound strange to me, but I'm learning and familiarizing with them... slowly . Anyway I found this fascinating. I don't know how this keris found its way to Poland. There are some possibilities. First of all there were Polish travelers, and some of them were visiting far away Indonesian islands. There are even some journals about their far away travels. I believe that some of them brought few pieces back with them. Second option is, that many examples of these weapons, as spectacular ones, were brought from other countries like Spain, France, England, Germany and other, which were in trade, political and strong cultural contacts with Poland, during 16th-19th centuries. Polish noblemen were often guests in these countries, there were making additions to theirs collections there, and it's for sure, that some of kerises (and maybe this one included) may found its way to Poland through these contacts. I think that Tom touched serious problem, and he is right writing about Mastery. I don't want to make a discussion about it, but this is obviuos we often understand this word different. In this case, while this keris is from much different culture than I am, I can't tell is it good or not. I can tell only this is nice through my cultural experience. People who are more familiar with these weapons are able to judge about it more properly, so I believe that our kerislovers are somehow right, knowing more pieces than I do. Of course, we have to look and judge from a different points of view i.e. 16th century European drawer (like Albrecht Durer), and from the other peasant artist from the same period. Both might be the "masters", but judging their works quality depends on that what we are looking for, and what are our expactations and knowledge about them. I hope I'm clear. English for me is illegible but different cultural too

15th June 2005, 06:13 AM	#14
Boedhi Adhitya Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 103	Dear Wolviex, Making a keris handle might be easy, and might be hard, just like the painting Every children might be able to draw something on paper, but only master painter who could make a Monalisa. Some good and talented painter might copy the Monalisa, but if we compare it head-to-head, some experts in painting might say something, don't they ? I didn't say that every good painting must look like Monalisa, but it is "the character" which make some artwork different than another. Just like any good song will bring "a mood" to you when you hear it. The same thing applied to the perfect, state-of-the art handle. It is neither the details nor the shape which make it hard to make. It is "the nuance", "proper balance", "character" or anything, you might name it, which is hard to reach. It takes talent, experience, skill, and most of all, it takes times. Old days mastercarvers or sheathmakers were fully supported by the court. They made their work while "on the mood", as any other artworks. Today carver work "on the need", or according to "the market", not the quality. And anyway, only a little, ridiculously paying attention to details collectors / keris' connoiseurs who might (and able to!) appreciate those "state-of-the art" handle, while they very little in quantity and not willing to pay more for newly made handle, so why bother ? I believe, by studying a lot of good old handles, a young, capable and talented carver might able to make the good ones. But studying more than one style is very hard, because "the character", "proper balance" or anything (as you name it before ) particular to one style might mixed up one-another, and "confuse" the carver. Just like a rocker try to compose some middle-east song might ended up on an alternative ones For the second question, well, I do sorry, I have no other opinion than what have been posted here before. Yes, it's unique and rare. I might have seen it, but didn't pay any attention Sorry, my fault. Until today, I'm only paying attention to what called "pakem" (conform to the rule) handle, especially Jogja's Pakem. I agree to Meneer Cedric that this hilt might came from east java, the "pasisiran", which considered as "out of the court" in 16th. c. But not the blade ! It might be court made ! About the dating, I agree that Sier Jensen's method is very reliable, althought not accurate enough, it might means a lot. (as long as no one faked the inventory note, of course ). I myself do question the traditional dating methods (Tangguh). Is it really as old as it says ? But, well, no other methods. Even the Sonobudoyo Musem in Jogjakarta asked Pametri Wiji to date their keris collections. Wish some experts on dating, Iron dating particularly, might find another, non-destructive preferably, reliable method. Salam.

15th June 2005, 02:36 PM	#16
BluErf Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,180	Here's a Nava Sari from Kerner's book. Attached Images

16th June 2005, 01:18 PM	#17
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,843	I believe the hand gesture is a represention of this, and the duality is further expressed in the hilt and scabbard of keris.Tim Attached Images Last edited by Tim Simmons; 16th June 2005 at 05:47 PM. Reason: putting it in a better way and spelling

16th June 2005, 07:10 PM	#18
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,272	What you have here in this image is the lingam of Shiva, representing his penis for the most part.

16th June 2005, 07:21 PM	#19
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,843	Indeed set in a yoni, showing the double-sexed nature of the deity Durga or Kali in other parts of Asia.Tim

16th June 2005, 07:35 PM	#20
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,843	These are Indian images of Kali,the great goddess,the terrible goddess {based on the source}seated on the corpse-Siva, again a dualitiy in giving and taking life.Tim Attached Images Last edited by Tim Simmons; 16th June 2005 at 07:53 PM.

16th June 2005, 09:23 PM	#21
wolviex Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Poland, Krakow Posts: 418	Sorry for being quite for some time, but I was very busy. Boedhi Adhitya: thank you for your further explanations. This is just what I expected to hear/read. I could exacerbate this problem, but until it isn't main subject of this discussion, I will leave childish questions "why" "why" for better times Tuancd: thank you for your pictures. I hope they'll help us in discussion. We can clearly see, there are very visible similarities. Tim: your pictures are great. Great work, and I want to thank you for your commitment. Your reasearches are very helpful. As far as I can understand you, these are only your theories. If so, maybe someone more familiar with mythology could explain us more All the best!

16th June 2005, 09:43 PM	#23
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,843	Hello Woliex, this is a fasinating subjet, I would hope that what I have researched is more than my theories In the picture of Durga from the temple in Java, she is not only making the lingam-yoni symbol, she is also holding a shell trumpet on which the creative sound is made.Tim

16th June 2005, 09:52 PM	#24
wolviex Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Poland, Krakow Posts: 418	Hello Tim I'm tending to believe in your "double-sexed nature of the deity" theory also.

17th June 2005, 08:01 AM	#25
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,843	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.

17th June 2005, 12:51 PM	#26
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.

20th June 2005, 07:28 PM	#27
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,843	Some of you may find these pictures interesting.Tim Attached Images

21st June 2005, 02:57 AM	#28
marto suwignyo Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 52	Interesting. But I think that in essence we have no advance in our understanding. Simply because several authors say the same thing, does not make that thing correct.There is a tendency, even in academia, to continue to quote previously published works, even when those works may be demonstrably inaccurate, and popular writings on the keris are not subjected to the same close critical scrutiny as are academic writings. We still have only a female figure, with no facial features. This has been interpreted as Durga, which it may be, but it may equally be something else entirely. I have had a look at Knick-Bumke`s article, and quite frankly, I feel that it argues against the case for this handle being a representation of Durga. There is no dispute that Durga can be represented as a normal woman. As I stated earlier, the most common representation of Durga is as a beautiful young yellow woman riding a tiger.However, I do not know of any representation of Durga in this form in Java. Even if it could be shown that there this an association between this handle form, and the later classical period in Java, that does not provide any evidence that the figure shown is a representation of Durga. The hand position is still ill defined. To interpret this hand position as anything would require a giant leap of faith. We still only have possibilities. But let us suppose that it can be interpreted as a definite, religiously symbolic hand position, that in itself would not allow us to state that the figure is a representation of Durga.Apart from which, as I advised earlier, this hand position is not a constant in all handles of this form. On the subject of the "veiled Durga". We can find this idea repeating itself again and again in writings about the keris, however, can we find a single monumental representation of a "veiled Durga" anywhere in Java, or in mainland India, or anywhere else? Can we find mention of and explanation of the idea of "veiled Durga" in any religious work? Anthropological work? The Hindu faith is not one of my strong points, and is really only a fringe interest for me in my study of the keris, so I would welcome it if somebody more well versed in this faith could direct me to some representations of a "veiled Durga" in monumental works, or to a credible religious work with explanation of this form. I rather suspect that the phrase "veiled Durga" is actually a reference to the female element represented by the Great Mother---Durga--being the source of all wisdom. In the Hindu faith the Supreme being can be worshipped as a Male God, or as a Female God, or simply as Transcendental Bliss. We must realise that nothing we think we see is actually what we do see. For instance, just as Durga is one of the names of Dewi, or Parvati, so Kali is another of her names. Kali is seen as a bloodthirsty character, but Kali`s activities are not destructive to the cosmic order, rather they preserve the cosmic order, as her aim is to destroy the demonic forces before these forces can cause danger to that cosmic order. We have wandered into a discussion on religious symbolism here, and this is something that really is best left to those with training in the field. What we need to do is to find the writings of these experts and quote those writings to substantiate the existence and form of "veiled Durga". When we begin to examine the keris in Java, we undertake the examination of a cultural artifact. For legitimate opinion to be expressed on aspects of this artifact we need to turn to the elements of the culture to allow us to understand that which we wish to come to terms with. We need to turn to history, religion, and the structure of the society itself. So, if we would like to confirm that this handle presently under discusion is in fact a representation of Durga, I would suggest that as a bare minimum we need to satisfy the following :- 1) demonstrate the existence of a physical representation of Durga that is accepted by authorities in an academic field, or religion, as the vieled form of this Goddess. 2) provide reference to credible published works that substantiate the existence of Durga in a physically veiled form. 3) demonstrate that this veiled form of Durga was known and existed in Java. 4) demonstrate that the handle form under discussion is in fact a representation of this form. If the "veiled Durga" truly does exist, this should not be too big an ask. My own knowledge in this field is totally inadequate to allow me to provide such proofs, and I will welcome the veil of ignorance being lifted from my eyes by those equipped to do so.

21st June 2005, 07:44 AM	#29
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,843	Thats better, thanks Tim

21st June 2005, 11:38 AM	#30
marto suwignyo Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 52	Tim:- since your post of 4.44pm directly follows my post of 11.57am I am assuming that your comment:- "Thats better, thanks, Tim" is directed at me. Would you be so kind as to explain exactly what I have written in my post of 11.57am to generate this comment from you. I have re-examined what I have written in all three of my posts to this thread, and I cannot detect any significant difference in the stance I have taken in my first post, to that which I have take in my third post. My position remains that there is no evidence on the table that this wadon handle is a representation of Durga. If I am in error that you have directed your remarks to me , please accept my most humble apologies for daring to presume.