BLING

[A. G. Maisey]

Here is a summary of the newspaper article:-

Since Keris Ki Baju Rante , a pusaka keris from the Karangasem Kerajaan, came to the Neka Museum, other keris from the Karangasem Kerajaan have followed.
At the present time the Neka Museum has Ki Taman Mayura, Ki Taman Ujung, Ki Baju Upas, Ki Baru Bengkel, Ki Baru Kumandang.
The two keris shown in this thread are Ki Taman Mayura and Ki Taman Ujung, they were made by Mpu Keris Kerajaan Karangasem Pande Rudaya who was an 18th century Kerajaan Karangasem pande.

The newspaper article does not say if the kinatah work dates from the 18th century, nor does it say if the dress of these keris dates from the 18th century. What it does most clearly state is that the keris themselves date from the 18th century.

The obsession of western collectors with what they regard as "originality" is not a part traditional Balinese or Javanese cultural values.

We all know that the dress for a keris can be and is changed from time to time.

It is a similar situation with the kinatah work on a keris. Kinatah was and is often bestowed on a keris because of some action or service performed by the custodian of the keris, or by the custodian of the keris to honour the keris for actions performed by the keris that were of benefit to the custodian.

Most old keris with kinatah that we see today did not start life adorned in gold, that gold came later.

It could well be that the kinatah work on Ki Taman Mayura and Ki Taman Ujung has been placed upon these keris at some time later than the time of their being brought into existence. The exuberance of the dress could well be very recent, and could perhaps be viewed from a Balinese perspective as the presentation of two important and highly respected keris in a manner befitting their status.

I have commented a number of times that the value systems of collectors in the various societies outside the traditional societies of Bali and Jawa vary considerably from the value systems of the people who are members of these traditional societies and who own the cultural values espoused by these societies.

Perhaps once again we can see the divide in understanding between the owners of a culture and those who accumulate artifacts from the culture.

If we are to understand the products of a culture other than our own, we do need to have a minimal understanding of the value systems of that culture. In respect of Balinese culture it may assist our understanding if we realise that when something that is associated with the Balinese belief system is made, that work involved in the making is in fact work that is dedicated to God.

A Balinese pusaka keris has a nature that can be likened to a shrine. This characteristic is not unique to Balinese weaponry, it is a nature that is also found in other Hindu weaponry, as noted by Robert Elgood.

Just as the meru is prepared for the visit of a being from the Hidden World, so the keris is also prepared for such a visit. Just as a meru is made more beautiful for the visit of a deity or an ancestor, so the keris can also be made more beautiful for such visits.

I personally believe that it is incumbent upon all those who assert that they have an interest in the Keris to attempt to gain some understanding of the culture that produced the Keris.

I acknowledge that my beliefs may not be the beliefs of others, but the failure to understand that in which we have an interest deprives us of a better enjoyment of that in which we have an interest.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Jean, I agree that if we see a monkey, or monkey-like figure, in Balinese and Hindu art, and that figure carries a gada, then it is reasonable to assume that a representation of Hanoman is intended.

[Battara]

Regarding your extended post before this last one, I concur fully. Taken out of the cultural milieu, any ethnographic piece would lose its meaning and ultimately its true value.

[Gustav]

Taking a look at Lambe Gajah of the Keris with monkey hilt, there is no possibility they were done in 18th cent. If they are original (sorry about being so Western), actually also no possibility both Keris were made by the same person.

And yes, re-creating and replacing Pusaka is nothing new.

[A. G. Maisey]

Gustav, would you be so kind as to enlighten us as to why these two keris were not made in the 18th century, and why the same person could not have made them both?

If you are correct it means that a number of very respected and highly placed people in Bali are either utterly wrong, or (heaven forbid) they are deliberately flim-flaming the public.

I must say that I am enormously impressed by your ability to draw these conclusions upon the basis of my photographs. I actually did not think that these photos were so wonderful.

[Jean]

Thank you Alan and Gustav.
Just for the sake of discussion: Yes, it is very difficult for a Western collector to admit that a kris with an old blade but recent or recently refurbished hilt, scabbard, and kinatah can be legitimately called an old kris....
I can't tell whether these blades date from the 18th century and were made by Pande Rudaya or rather the well-known Empu Tidah Tahu, especially because of the kinatah but otherwise these blades do not look very special. One indicator would be the lenght of the blade as Alan told us before that the long Balinese blades probably did not exist before the 19th century if I remember well? Do we know whether the royal krisses from Karangasem survive from the puputans?
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Jean, you have identified the problem well.

By and large, collectors of keris living in western, and westernised societies do not have the vaguest idea of the value systems that apply to Balinese and Javanese keris in their societies of origin.

In fact, they perhaps do not even understand that the keris is in fact only the ferric material and its supportive nickelous material that has been brought into existence by an empu or pande.

I think that probably most keris collectors are now aware that the keris can be identified as analogous to its custodian, that is to say, man and keris are able to be identified as representative one of the other.
But I also believe that most of the people who are aware of this relationship between man and keris have not yet realised that the clothing of the man possesses the same nature as does the adornment of the keris, be that adornment wrongko, jejeran, wewer or kinatah work.

The wrongko has a feminine nature, and just as a wife can enhance the appearance and position of her husband, so can the wrongko enhance the keris which she protects (yes, "she":- the wrongko is feminine in nature). Just as a man can have a number of wives, either one at a time, or several at the one time, so it is usual for a keris to have more than a single wrongko, and for a wrongko to be replaced when this becomes necessary.

The jejeran almost invariably has a protective nature. This is not exclusive to the keris, but can be identified in other SE Asian weaponry, for example in the mandau and its associated forms. The blade of the keris has the nature of a shrine, and the jejeran has the function of protecting the blade from the possession of evil or undesirable forces.

Those who will only accept a keris as "old" if that keris is in an old wrongko, and is fitted with an old handle, cannot be considered to be either keris collectors, or students of the keris. These people are in fact antique collectors who have a liking for keris. There is, of course, nothing wrong with this, we all have our own preferences; apart from keris I also collect other things, and some of those things must be old or I don't want them. For example, I have not the slightest interest in new English table silver, but I do have a great liking for British table silver that pre-dates 1900. My porridge spoon dates from the 1870's, and my other table cutlery was made before Captain Cook landed in Australia.

So, if a person only finds a keris acceptable if that keris is accompanied by old dress, well, that's fine, that's what he likes. But let not that lover of the antique attempt to redefine the nature of the keris for those who do understand the keris.

Jean, I don't think I have ever claimed that long Balinese blades did not exist prior to the 19th century. If I have I would really appreciate it if you could give me the quote, as perhaps what I wrote was not clearly defined.

What I have said and written, more than once, is that the perceived size of a keris reflects the position in society of the man wearing it. I use the word perceived, because the scabbard could in fact be much longer than the blade, this could be the case where a family pusaka keris is involved, as most very early Balinese keris are in fact of Javanese style, and perhaps of Javanese origin.

Certainly the large beautifully sculpted Balinese keris that we are all familiar with did become more prevalent during the 19th century, and this can be put down to two major factors:- increase in population and easier access to materials.

But large Balinese keris did exist in earlier times, I have several that can be reliably dated to before 1800.

As to the existence of royal keris from Karangasem.

I Gusti Bagus Jelantik who can probably be identified as the last legitimate Raja of Karangasem died in 1966 at the age of 79, he had 12 wives and 31 children. The Puri Karangasem still exists, I have visited it several times, the royal line of Karangasem still exists.

It is reasonable to assume that into the 20th century, and until today, keris having an association with the Puri Karangasem still exist and are still in use by members of the royal line of Karangasem.

However, it should be noted that the two keris under discussion here are not claimed to have come from the Puri Karangasem, but rather from the Kerajaan Karangasem, and they are pusaka keris. Nobody has ever claimed that they are Pusaka Keris from the Puri Karangasem.

Yes, I have said that kings dress differently to farmers, but I have not said that these keris belonged to any king.

In respect of the maker of these two blades under discussion, frankly, I consider it remarkable that anybody could see sufficient detail of either of the two actual keris to permit them to identify the tells of a maker. I could not, and although I was within probably 12 inches of both keris, they were behind glass, I was unable to handle them, and much of the surface of each keris was obscured. If they had been stripped of dress and kinatah, if I could handle them, I might --- only "might" --- be able to form a tentative opinion. Presented as they are, most especially in a photo, well, I have nothing but respect for Gustav's extreme perspicacity.

Incidentally Jean, I believe Empu Tidak Tahu, also known as Mpu Belum Tahu was Javanese, or perhaps Malay, there seems to be some confusion as to his origin, but I'm inclined to regard him as Malay. Possibly one of the best known of the Javanese empus is Mpu Ora Ngerti. I understand that his Balinese equivalent is Pande Nenten Uning also known as Pande Tusing Tawang.