Balinese Keris hilt ID

[Jean]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Does anybody really know?

With anything made in recent times, did even the makers have any real idea what they were making?

Maybe the few remaining hilt master carvers such as Ida Bagus Pastika or old Balinese collectors? Some members may have met them?
Regards

[mariusgmioc]

I have been busy for a couple of days and did not access the net. Regarding the figures, from I have read recently the figures that have fangs represent demons, as opposed to the others that represent gods or heroes. However, I find it interesting how demons appear to have attributes of gods, so I guess the maker either didn't know or didn't care what was he making.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Jean, maybe an experienced specialist hilt carver will have some knowledge.
Or an interested Brahman priest.
Or an academic specialising in this subject.

However, even if we get a supposedly accurate response from somebody --- anybody --- we must ask:-

"how do you know? who told you this"

To come to some sort of an understanding of the depiction of characters in Balinese keris hilts there are several things that need to be taken into consideration.

To begin with, there are the variations that occur between Balinese interpretations of Hindu deities, and the way in which these deities are represented on the sub-continent of India.

Prior to the early 20th century Bali had been very largely insulated from the influences of the outside world. Throughout society there was an acceptance of the traditional beliefs, including the ever present involvement of the Gods, the Ancestors, and the natural and super-natural forces in the doings of people who were still living on earth.

The people of Bali, most especially the ruling classes of Bali (the Tri Wangsa:- Brahmana, Satria, Wesia) were brutally introduced to the world outside Bali with the Dutch invasions that culminated in the puputans. The story is well known, so I won't repeat it here, however, there are several things that must be understood when we are talking about the puputans.

Firstly, there is the meaning of the word itself:- puputan means to bring to an end. It is a finishing. When the Balinese court in Badung walked into the Dutch guns and were slaughtered, or alternatively, committed suicide with their own weapons, they were bringing to an end a time in the world that had become untenable. The Badung Puputan occurred in 1906.

In Klungkung there was second puputan that occurred in 1908. The popular story is that Dewa Agung Jambe, the Raja of Klungkung, and the acknowledged senior ruler of Bali confronted the invading Dutch forces with his most powerful pusaka keris in his hand, and struck the earth with it. He believed that he held in his hand the combined power of all of his ancestors, and his expectation was that the earth would open and the Dutch forces would be swallowed. Well, it did not happen. There was a puputan in Klungkung too. Another finishing.

Badung and Klungkung were the two major events of the Dutch invasions, but Dutch forces penetrated and destroyed other areas as well, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly.

When the Dutch occupied Bali they introduced political reforms that effectively reduced the powers of the old Balinese courts. There was difficulty in finding exactly who should lead a court, since there had been such massive losses of the elite classes, most especially of the K'satriyas, the class that provided the actual ruler.

The common people (Sudras) had lost faith in the ability of the Triwangsa to guide and protect them, and their faith in the traditional ways of their ancestors had been shaken.

By the 1920's, Bali was on the "grand tour of the east" map for those who could afford it. European and American society ladies and gentlemen were touring through Jawa and Bali by automobile, horse and carriage, and on horseback.

Amongst these Europeans was a young German, Walter Spies. In 1923 he was in Central Jawa, and then in 1927 he moved to Bali and settled in the Ubud area. At the outbreak of WWII Spies was deported from the Dutch East Indies, because he was a German national. The boat he was on was bombed and he drowned at sea. However, Spies, and other German artists who followed him had a monumental influence on Balinese art, and the way in which Balinese artists saw and told of their world.

Spies was perhaps the most influential person from a western culture to awaken the world to Bali. Many people give credit for this awakening to Miguel Covarrubias , but Covarrubias got most of his information from Spies.

In short, without Walter Spies, Balinese art as we know it today would simply not exist. If we want to see indigenous Balinese art we need to look at works that pre-date the 1920's. Something like the paintings on the ceiling of the "Palace of Justice" in Klungkung. These paintings have been refreshed over the years, but they remain true to the indigenous Balinese style.

Walter Spies has to large extent given today's "Ten Day Package Tourists" the Bali that they know and love.

WWII brought the pre-war tourism to an end, and then the struggle of the Indonesian people against European domination made Bali not particularly desirable as a tourist destination until the late 1960's --- 1966 was perhaps the watershed year, after this the tourists began to come back to Bali.

Inevitably these tourists were ready buyers for "Balinese Art" :- an art that had been created to a large degree by the influence of German artists, amongst whom Walter Spies was pre-eminent.

Consider the Balinese experience during the 20th century:-

Dutch invasion, the extermination of the ruling elite, the loss of belief in traditional ways by the common people, the commencement of tourism and the beginning of a second invasion by European and other tourists, the Japanese occupation of WWII, the turmoil and mass executions of the "Struggle for Freedom", the next invasion of tourists which until the present grows ever stronger.

Is it surprising that some aspects of Balinese art and culture have altered to the point where a Balinese time traveller from, say, 1800, would not recognise what he was looking at?

Our primary interest here is the keris, in the current thread, specifically the characters represented in Balinese hilts.

When we attempt to understand the identity of a figure depicted in a Balinese hilt we need to ask ourselves how old the hilt is, who made the hilt, and for whom it was made.

If that hilt is post, say, 1930, there is a very strong possibility that it has been created as an art work, rather than as a work that incorporates belief in an ancestor, or a deity. If it has been created as an art work, the way in which that art has been executed will almost certainly be a way that is calculated to appeal to European tastes.

This, of course, does not mean that the depiction is no longer genuinely Balinese, what it does mean is that the way in which the depiction has been executed, and the artist who created it, have both diverged from traditional roots and are now moving along a path first opened after 1906, when Balinese society and culture was changed forever.

Just as the identification of symbols in European art has to a very great extent been lost, and is now only partially understood by a few specialist scholars, the symbolism in Balinese art is no longer widely understood, if it is understood at all.

Carvers and other artists may copy, or attempt to copy, old forms, but very often they err when depicting attributes of the various characters, especially when they are working from memory. Combine these errors with the well known variations that are inherent in Balinese depictions of Hindu deities, and what we have is often an unsolvable puzzle. We may be able to guess the intended identity of the character, but can we be certain? I rather think not.

[David]

Just to add to the confusion here is a hilt from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC that it also identifies as Bayu. Seems questionable to me for a few reasons, but you would think that a museum of such high reputation would considerer sources and information more cautiously.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by David

Just to add to the confusion here is a hilt from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC that it also identifies as Bayu. Seems questionable to me for a few reasons, but you would think that a museum of such high reputation would considerer sources and information more cautiously.

I am not a museum curator but this style of hilt is usually identified as Ravana from the leaf or sword in his right hand
Regards

[David]

Originally Posted by Jean

I am not a museum curator but this style of hilt is usually identified as Ravana from the leaf or sword in his right hand
Regards

Well, i was going to suggest that, but giving the line of our conversation here thought it best just to post it without much comment.

[Battara]

Even keeping in mind Alan's wonderful and insightful history summary (and you did a great job, thank you), I would still say that this Met example is Ravana and well. I'm with you Jean.

[mariusgmioc]

Regarding the example from the Metropolitan, LaRocca identifies a very similar figure featured on the cover of his book, as Rahvana.

http://www.metmuseum.org/research/me...Arms_and_Armor

[Rocarnice]

Hi there,

Got interested in this thread as I have a Keris Bali Hilt (Ukiran Pemangku) that seems to have similarly evolved as the silver hilt (Bayu) depicted by Jean on 19.01.
I once asked the forum 10 years ago, but at that time no clear pictures were available to ID the blade with Kinatah; Not much couldn't be said of the Hilt either.
Perhaps someone of you could tell me more about this Hilt?
Hope the pictures attached are clear.

Thanks.

[A. G. Maisey]

Rocanice, you already have the correct name and description for this hilt:- you have called it an "Ukiran Pemangku".

As it is Balinese, it should not be called "ukiran" as this is Javanese terminology, it should be called "danganan", however, the "pemangku" (or more correctly "pamangku") is correct.

A "pamangku" is a priest, or to be completely correct a Balinese temple priest, as there are other types of priest.

This hilt can be given as:-danganan Pemangku.

The figure is identifiable by the beard and moustache, the kindly and/or happy face, the religious implement in the left hand.

The name you have given the photograph is " Keris Bali ukiran Brahmaan":- a pamangku is a member of the Brahman Caste, so this is also an adequate description of the hilt.

[Jean]

Hello Rocarnice,
Nice hilt, made from ebony or buffalo horn?
The style of hair is not common for a hilt depicting a priest, see more standard specimens attached.
Regards

[krissman]

The Arms and Armor Department at the Metropolitan Museum of Art has a number of Indonesian weapons in its collections, even though they are clearly secondary to the scope of its primary collections (European and Japanese arms and armor). Moreover there is no one on the staff who is particularly knowledgeable about the subject. What information they do have comes either from the catalog records created by George Cameron Stone (author of STONE'S GLOSSARY, who left the Indonesian pieces and much of the rest of his personal collection to the Museum), or from staff research in the standard books on the subject. I am pretty sure that any attributions given to a hilt by the Museum would have been based on those sources and not because the curator had any particular expertise in the subject.

My son is a conservator in the Department of Arms and Armor and I try to visit him several times a year. During those trips I spend a day or so in the Department's library, looking at the collections and trying to answer any questions they may have about these "strange" pieces that they don't really know much about. They are gradually photographing all of their collections. Images of all of the Museum's collections are being posted online with whatever information (often minimal) they happen to have. The quality of that information varies widely depending on which department posted it. The public is invited to view the photos; scholars and collectors may suggest changes or improvements to catalog data if they see fit. Priority is given to posting online images of objects found in exhibits or museum publications, so there aren't very many Indonesian weapons up yet. The keris hilt on the cover of the GODS OF WAR book mentioned above is online, identified as a "dagger handle." The Museum avoids using "native" words to identify objects, particularly when two or more terms, such as "keris" vs. "kris", are being used by the collector and scholarly communities. Generic terms--dagger, sword, halberd, etc.--are used instead. To see what has been posted, follow this link and enter your search terms: http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection.

[David]

Thanks for this info Krissman.
The hilt in question was identified elsewhere on the MM of Art as Bayu, in another area. I would have to do some digging to find it again. However i am absolutely sure of that since i am the one who found that entry.
It is possible that they have since taken it down or changed their description.
You are absolutely correct that the museum heavily favors its European arms over Keris.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Carvers and other artists may copy, or attempt to copy, old forms, but very often they err when depicting attributes of the various characters, especially when they are working from memory. Combine these errors with the well known variations that are inherent in Balinese depictions of Hindu deities, and what we have is often an unsolvable puzzle. We may be able to guess the intended identity of the character, but can we be certain? I rather think not.

Hello Alan,
Thank you for the interesting historical and culltural insight of modern Bali and I agree that the depiction of balinese gods on kris hilts has been progressively corrupted since 1920 although some modern specimens are extremely finely made.
Regards