Balinese Keris hilt ID

David · 23rd January 2016, 10:36 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, 02:16 AM

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

David · 24th January 2016, 08:46 AM

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

A. G. Maisey · 24th January 2016, 12:39 PM

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, 06:22 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.

A. G. Maisey · 24th January 2016, 10:52 PM

David, we're not in debate here, we're involved in a non-antagonistic discussion.

We're not scoring points, nor do any of us seem to be holding opposing points of view that we need to convince others to adopt.

In fact, my review of what has been put forward in this thread to date, seems to indicate that we're all pretty much on the same page.

To clarify my opinion in respect of the identification of the characters depicted in Balinese totogan hilts:-

if we survey the entire range of these hilts, what we find is that similar characters appear again and again.

note I have said "similar", I have not said "the same".

these characters for the most part appear to be either some deity or other, or alternatively a character taken from Balinese folk myth or belief

in the case of a deity, we are dealing with religion and religious belief, thus when a deity is shown it should be shown with one or another particular attributes that identify it as a particular deity, such identification is not something that can be open to opinion, it either is a particular deity, or it is not, and in either case the reasons should be able to be given to support the identification

where a folk character is shown, it is possible to have varying interpretations of the same character, sometimes identifying characteristics will be clear, sometimes not, but in any case we should be able to say why we think that a particular folk figure is shown.

I am confident that no serious person is going to randomly attach a name in a haphazard manner to any totogan hilt character, and that being so, it would in everybody's best interests if when we gave a name, we also gave a reference:- all too often somebody will give a name to something and then many others will pick that name up and use it, whether it is correct or not; yes, certainly this assists in communication, but it may not assist in accuracy.

I a previous post I used the term:-

"artistic drivel"

my exact usage was:-

"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."

it seems that my usage here was not clearly understood.

the word "artistic" probably needs no clarification, however the word "drivel" is not now in common usage and perhaps does need to be clarified. In the context in which I have used this word I have implied that an artistic creation that uses as its subject a figure with established attributes, but that fails to show any of those attributes, is like unto the freely flowing empty speech of a child or an idiot. (Oxford on Historical Principles)

In the case of Balinese totogan hilts that are made in the modern era, the art content of the subject is often prioritised at the expense of the symbolic content that is required for clear identification, thus, the art flows freely, but in the absence of the required symbolism, that art lacks meaning. In other words, it is drivel.

My usage was most definitely not associated grammatically nor was it implied in reference to the form of Bayu, but rather with the interpretation given by a maker to any Balinese totogan hilt figure.

I do not accept that it is no longer possible for Balinese totogan hilt characters to be confidently identified. Some characters can be easily and unarguably identified, however because of the inconsistencies in the ways in which other characters are shown, positive identification can become difficult for a person within Balinese society, and close to impossible for somebody who is not a member of that society.

For those of us who are not a part of Balinese society, it is obvious that we rely upon information that has been given to us by either a person, or in print. The information sourced from another person probably cannot be used as a reference, but the information sourced from printed matter certainly can and should be used as a reference.

This identification of keris hilt characters has often cropped up in discussion in this Forum. David has mentioned the Durga discussions, and my memory of those discussions seems to be that nobody had ever heard Durga mentioned in connection with the relevant hilt form, until a particular writer used the name, and failed to provide a reference.

Perhaps a similar situation applies in relation to Bayu:- we all recognise what a Bayu hilt should look like, the name assists communication between a particular group of collectors, but is it an accurate name for this hilt character?

It may be, or alternatively it may not be, but if we continue to accept the name without question we shall never know what is correct and what is not correct.

mariusgmioc · 24th January 2016, 11:20 PM

Regarding the attributes that would allow us to consider the figure of my hilt as Batara Bayu, what about this?!

Primary features
1. it holds in his right hand the bejeweled receptacle of Water of Life (toya mreta)
2. it holds with his left hand the Sacred Sash (kain poleng) worn around his waist
3. it displays its formidable talon-like nails (panchanaka)

Secondary features
4. strong, burly appearance
5. large mustache
6. benevolent grin
7. elaborate head-dress.

Most of these arguments are in LaRocca's book.

24th January 2016, 02:16 AM	#2
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,376	Carvers also make handles that defy classification. In a hundred years maybe this guy will have a official name. Attached Images

24th January 2016, 08:46 AM	#3
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,250	That fellow is pretty fearsome. We should give him a name before he hurts somebody.

24th January 2016, 12:39 PM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,085	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, 06:22 PM	#5
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,250	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.

24th January 2016, 10:52 PM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,085	David, we're not in debate here, we're involved in a non-antagonistic discussion. We're not scoring points, nor do any of us seem to be holding opposing points of view that we need to convince others to adopt. In fact, my review of what has been put forward in this thread to date, seems to indicate that we're all pretty much on the same page. To clarify my opinion in respect of the identification of the characters depicted in Balinese totogan hilts:- if we survey the entire range of these hilts, what we find is that similar characters appear again and again. note I have said "similar", I have not said "the same". these characters for the most part appear to be either some deity or other, or alternatively a character taken from Balinese folk myth or belief in the case of a deity, we are dealing with religion and religious belief, thus when a deity is shown it should be shown with one or another particular attributes that identify it as a particular deity, such identification is not something that can be open to opinion, it either is a particular deity, or it is not, and in either case the reasons should be able to be given to support the identification where a folk character is shown, it is possible to have varying interpretations of the same character, sometimes identifying characteristics will be clear, sometimes not, but in any case we should be able to say why we think that a particular folk figure is shown. I am confident that no serious person is going to randomly attach a name in a haphazard manner to any totogan hilt character, and that being so, it would in everybody's best interests if when we gave a name, we also gave a reference:- all too often somebody will give a name to something and then many others will pick that name up and use it, whether it is correct or not; yes, certainly this assists in communication, but it may not assist in accuracy. I a previous post I used the term:- "artistic drivel" my exact usage was:- "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." it seems that my usage here was not clearly understood. the word "artistic" probably needs no clarification, however the word "drivel" is not now in common usage and perhaps does need to be clarified. In the context in which I have used this word I have implied that an artistic creation that uses as its subject a figure with established attributes, but that fails to show any of those attributes, is like unto the freely flowing empty speech of a child or an idiot. (Oxford on Historical Principles) In the case of Balinese totogan hilts that are made in the modern era, the art content of the subject is often prioritised at the expense of the symbolic content that is required for clear identification, thus, the art flows freely, but in the absence of the required symbolism, that art lacks meaning. In other words, it is drivel. My usage was most definitely not associated grammatically nor was it implied in reference to the form of Bayu, but rather with the interpretation given by a maker to any Balinese totogan hilt figure. I do not accept that it is no longer possible for Balinese totogan hilt characters to be confidently identified. Some characters can be easily and unarguably identified, however because of the inconsistencies in the ways in which other characters are shown, positive identification can become difficult for a person within Balinese society, and close to impossible for somebody who is not a member of that society. For those of us who are not a part of Balinese society, it is obvious that we rely upon information that has been given to us by either a person, or in print. The information sourced from another person probably cannot be used as a reference, but the information sourced from printed matter certainly can and should be used as a reference. This identification of keris hilt characters has often cropped up in discussion in this Forum. David has mentioned the Durga discussions, and my memory of those discussions seems to be that nobody had ever heard Durga mentioned in connection with the relevant hilt form, until a particular writer used the name, and failed to provide a reference. Perhaps a similar situation applies in relation to Bayu:- we all recognise what a Bayu hilt should look like, the name assists communication between a particular group of collectors, but is it an accurate name for this hilt character? It may be, or alternatively it may not be, but if we continue to accept the name without question we shall never know what is correct and what is not correct.

24th January 2016, 11:20 PM	#7
mariusgmioc Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Austria Posts: 1,912	Regarding the attributes that would allow us to consider the figure of my hilt as Batara Bayu, what about this?! Primary features 1. it holds in his right hand the bejeweled receptacle of Water of Life (toya mreta) 2. it holds with his left hand the Sacred Sash (kain poleng) worn around his waist 3. it displays its formidable talon-like nails (panchanaka) Secondary features 4. strong, burly appearance 5. large mustache 6. benevolent grin 7. elaborate head-dress. Most of these arguments are in LaRocca's book.