Balinese Keris hilt ID

Battara · 23rd January 2016, 08:16 PM

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 · 23rd January 2016, 08:46 PM

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

A. G. Maisey · 23rd January 2016, 09:33 PM

I am not arguing against this recent character being Ravana.

However, an opinion without evidence to support that opinion is only as good as the person giving the opinion.

Since none of us here are noted authorities on the identification of the characters shown in Balinese totogan hilts, may I suggest that when we give an opinion, we support that opinion with either evidence or rational argument?

David · 23rd January 2016, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

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

True, people attribute. Even supposedly learned people attribute. That still doesn't mean that they are ultimately correct. I do wonder where that leaves us as collectors though. While i fully understand Alan's reasoning on why we cannot really know the true intention of the maker and the actual purpose behind the creation of any specific figural hilt does that mean that these hilts defy collector categorization completely. There are, of course, good points and bad points to the concept of categorization in this field. We may not know, for instance, if a hilt that appears in this classic form we have in the past IDed as Bayu was intended to actually be Bayu, or perhaps represent the owners ancestor in the form of Bayu or whether it is just an artistic representation that happens to follow this form we know as Bayu. But what about for the sake of communication between collectors. For instance, i am fairly sure that if i said to many of you that i have an interesting Bali Bayu hilt, in all likelihood you would have a pretty good idea of what to expect before i finally present a photo of said hilt. This seems to be the way it goes in most collecting. We name things so that we have a common understanding of what we are talking about with each other.

Rick · 24th January 2016, 01:16 AM

Carvers also make handles that defy classification.
In a hundred years maybe this guy will have a official name.

David · 24th January 2016, 07:46 AM

That fellow is pretty fearsome. We should give him a name before he hurts somebody.

A. G. Maisey · 24th January 2016, 11:39 AM

David, my point in mention of the true original intent of the maker is a fairly extreme example of just how difficult it can be to correctly identify the character depicted in a hilt figure.

I used this example to make a point, and it seems to me that the point has been made.

However, if we take one step back from the extreme we are still left with a figure that bears certain physical characteristics that may permit the identification of that figure as an identifiable character from the Balinese pantheon of gods, or from Balinese folk lore.

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

Yes, certainly, we can loosely --- mostly very loosely --- refer to some hilt figure as a recognised character, and as collectors we tend to do this without a great deal of critical thought:- if a hilt figure looks more or less like one that we have already given a name to, we tag the new figure with that name too, and as you point out, others understand what we are talking about.

This is using a name, correct, or incorrect, as a device with which to communicate, and that's fair enough, as far as it goes.

Personally, I would prefer to see a slightly more rigorous approach. Using Bayu as an example, I would like to see an approach where if we name a figure as Bayu, we give our reasons for doing this, but more than that :- we name the source that we used to gather the information that permitted us to provide reasons.

I don't believe that any of us simply pull names out of the air and stick them on figures. Not at all, we have reasons for doing so.

Where did those reasons come from?

Perhaps over time we may find that we have that Black Beast of inaccurate information by the tail, where all roads ultimately lead back to one original incorrect or dubious source.

Failure to use the passion to collect as a vehicle by which to gain knowledge only deprives us of the greatest pleasure that a passion to collect can offer.

David · 24th January 2016, 05:22 PM

Alan, i believe i have already asked these questions. Where does the attribution to Bayu stem from? When was it first assigned this name by a museum curator or collector? What are the clues that first led to that attribution? This certainly wasn't a name that I pulled out of thin air. I have seen hilts with these particular characteristic called "Bayu" pretty much since i started studying the keris. As i clearly stated in my post #7 this does not make that attribution correct. But considering that we seem to be able to find examples of this hilt that do go back to pre-pupatan Bali i'm not sure we can mark this form down as "artistic drivel". If you remember we went through pretty much the same thing when we have discussed the so-called "Durga" hilts.
I am certainly not suggesting that we abandon a more rigorous approach. But frankly, from the way you make it sound, there is not much hope in finding anybody who has any real and verifiable answer to these questions. You seem to be painting this all as "lost information". Perhaps i have misunderstood you there.

23rd January 2016, 08:46 PM	#2
mariusgmioc Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Austria Posts: 1,911	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 Attached Images

24th January 2016, 01:16 AM	#5
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,365	Carvers also make handles that defy classification. In a hundred years maybe this guy will have a official name. Attached Images

23rd January 2016, 08:16 PM	#1
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,323	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.

23rd January 2016, 09:33 PM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,056	I am not arguing against this recent character being Ravana. However, an opinion without evidence to support that opinion is only as good as the person giving the opinion. Since none of us here are noted authorities on the identification of the characters shown in Balinese totogan hilts, may I suggest that when we give an opinion, we support that opinion with either evidence or rational argument?

24th January 2016, 07:46 AM	#6
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,237	That fellow is pretty fearsome. We should give him a name before he hurts somebody.

24th January 2016, 11:39 AM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,056	David, my point in mention of the true original intent of the maker is a fairly extreme example of just how difficult it can be to correctly identify the character depicted in a hilt figure. I used this example to make a point, and it seems to me that the point has been made. However, if we take one step back from the extreme we are still left with a figure that bears certain physical characteristics that may permit the identification of that figure as an identifiable character from the Balinese pantheon of gods, or from Balinese folk lore. Alternatively, if the physical characteristics that a particular figure may bear cannot be aligned with the characteristics associated with a known deity or folk figure, then the figure is no more than artistic drivel:- it bears no association with a deity or a folk character. Yes, certainly, we can loosely --- mostly very loosely --- refer to some hilt figure as a recognised character, and as collectors we tend to do this without a great deal of critical thought:- if a hilt figure looks more or less like one that we have already given a name to, we tag the new figure with that name too, and as you point out, others understand what we are talking about. This is using a name, correct, or incorrect, as a device with which to communicate, and that's fair enough, as far as it goes. Personally, I would prefer to see a slightly more rigorous approach. Using Bayu as an example, I would like to see an approach where if we name a figure as Bayu, we give our reasons for doing this, but more than that :- we name the source that we used to gather the information that permitted us to provide reasons. I don't believe that any of us simply pull names out of the air and stick them on figures. Not at all, we have reasons for doing so. Where did those reasons come from? Perhaps over time we may find that we have that Black Beast of inaccurate information by the tail, where all roads ultimately lead back to one original incorrect or dubious source. Failure to use the passion to collect as a vehicle by which to gain knowledge only deprives us of the greatest pleasure that a passion to collect can offer.

24th January 2016, 05:22 PM	#8
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,237	Alan, i believe i have already asked these questions. Where does the attribution to Bayu stem from? When was it first assigned this name by a museum curator or collector? What are the clues that first led to that attribution? This certainly wasn't a name that I pulled out of thin air. I have seen hilts with these particular characteristic called "Bayu" pretty much since i started studying the keris. As i clearly stated in my post #7 this does not make that attribution correct. But considering that we seem to be able to find examples of this hilt that do go back to pre-pupatan Bali i'm not sure we can mark this form down as "artistic drivel". If you remember we went through pretty much the same thing when we have discussed the so-called "Durga" hilts. I am certainly not suggesting that we abandon a more rigorous approach. But frankly, from the way you make it sound, there is not much hope in finding anybody who has any real and verifiable answer to these questions. You seem to be painting this all as "lost information". Perhaps i have misunderstood you there.