Pics: Jawa Demam Hilts

VVV · 1st June 2007, 05:50 AM

Alan,

This gets more and more interesting but I don't know how I can continue to participate in this discussion?

I quoted Wiener and you tell me that she, as well as her local informants, got it wrong.
I quoted M Kerner, who I suspect is the source of the Durga hilt theory, and you tell me that he also got it wrong.
I quoted that Annapurna is one of the manifestations of Durga, what is found in the reference works on Hinduism, and you tell me, implicit, that it is wrong and and that it's all Uma and no Durga inbetween.
I have some more ideas to add but unfortunately they are all based, or dependant, on books and not on my own field research.

So let's summarize:

In my first answer to Ganja I wrote:
"Your keris hilt, with female forms, usually is considered to represent Durga, a shakti of Shiva."

and on your question:
"where did this Durga belief first arise?"
I would answer M Kerner (as far as I know).

I have really enjoyed reading your comments, as I always do. But unfortunately if the major ideas that are written about this subject, as far as I have seen and read, are wrong then I don't have anything more to contribute to this discussion.

Thanks for "unveiling" this to me.

Michael

Alam Shah · 1st June 2007, 08:45 AM

Hi Alan,

I guess Michael had answered your question on "where did this Durga belief first arise?".

Alan, you had stated your opinion, as such and I found it most interesting.

I'm wondering is there any written articles about your opinion.
It would serve well to enlighten the academic community and the majority of collectors. Too long have the present keris community got it wrong, then.

A. G. Maisey · 1st June 2007, 09:20 AM

You're making me sound like an arrogant fool Michael---which maybe I am---but not because of what I have written here.

Weiner got it right.

But only in the present tense. Please read what I wrote once again.

Martin I will not discuss, and you know the reason why.

Durga as Anapurna may be so for some people, it may not be so for others. Apart from my own experience, I can refer you to Ramseyer in respect of the manifestations of Uma in the context of Bali. Anapurna is not part of the equation in Bali-Hindu belief, to my knowledge.

The discussion has been about a jejeran from Islamic Jawa.The side trip into Bali is a diversion.

If the belief is that this jejeran is a representation of Durga, and this idea originated in the work of Martin Kerner, then let us see Martin's evidence or argument, or alternatively present an argument of your own.

I have not told you that anybody got anything wrong.

What I have said is that the specific question has not yet been settled.

This question relates to a jejeran from Islamic Jawa, it does not relate to the manifold interpretations of Hindu belief systems, nor can it be answered by unsubstantiated opinions.

I have provided an argument to support my opinion.

If you disagree with my opinion, please destroy my argument, and please stay within the context of the time and place of origin of the object under discussion.

I may be wrong, but this is yet to be demonstrated.

I understand that you have a lot on your plate at the moment, so there is no hurry for the evidence or argument to demonstrate that I need to change my opinion.

VVV · 1st June 2007, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

You're making me sound like an arrogant fool Michael---which maybe I am---but not because of what I have written here....

Alan,

I appreciate that you share your knowledge within this field.
But my knowledge on this topic originates from books only (other peoples knowledge and research) which limits me to participate in this discussion if you want me to show you proof of what's behind my sources.
I hope this clarifies my earlier explanation so you don't take it as an insult, which wasn't my intention at all.

Michael

A. G. Maisey · 1st June 2007, 01:35 PM

No offence taken Michael.

This is simply gentle discussion.

My personal field experience has very little bearing on what I have said in this discussion.

Weiner:- any investigation of the nature of Weiner's can only report on current belief, it cannot report on what may have been the original story or circumstances. The authors of such reports, including Weiner, recognise this. They present their findings as a report of current belief, not as fact, not as history.

Dewi Sri/Bhatari Uma:- Balinese culture; its in the books, not my discovery nor my opinion.

Jejeran as a representation of Dewi Sri:- my opinion , supported by logical argument; sloppily constructed, admittedly, and if necessary I can tighten it and lengthen it, but the elements are already there, and they will not change. In opposition to my supported opinion we currently have an unsupported opinion. If this is Martin Kerner's opinion, I would hope that he provided evidence or argument to support it.

Let's just focus on the core issue, the jejeran.

I suggest that we give this a rest until you are clear of other obligations, then you can come back to the table with the evidence or argument to make me change my mind. I assure you, I am quite ready to change my mind on this issue, or any other issue, if adequate argument or evidence is produced.

Alam Shah · 1st June 2007, 03:05 PM

Good healthy discussion.

I guess, we'll call it jejeran 'wadon' for short.

David · 1st June 2007, 06:53 PM

Yes, this has been a wonderful discussion and as more information is gathered i encourage it to continue. My understanding of this hilt form has grown exponientially from this thread

Once again i would like to stress that disagreement is a heathy thing and can only lead to new discoveries and understandings. No one should be hesitant to put forth their ideas and theories on this forum. I only insist that the conversation remain civil, as this one certainly has.

ganjawulung · 20th June 2007, 06:06 AM

Dear All,

This is more pictures, on what some of you called it "the durga hilt". I got this newer collection of such hilt yesterday, but in a rather different model of "durga" (or dewi Sri, according to Alan).

The hand position is the same, but the proportion of length of its hand is different. The wood also different. The later one (the black one) is made of light ebony (?) wood. Very light, much lighter than ebony. But very black...

Ganjawulung

1st June 2007, 05:50 AM	#1
VVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,637	Alan, This gets more and more interesting but I don't know how I can continue to participate in this discussion? I quoted Wiener and you tell me that she, as well as her local informants, got it wrong. I quoted M Kerner, who I suspect is the source of the Durga hilt theory, and you tell me that he also got it wrong. I quoted that Annapurna is one of the manifestations of Durga, what is found in the reference works on Hinduism, and you tell me, implicit, that it is wrong and and that it's all Uma and no Durga inbetween. I have some more ideas to add but unfortunately they are all based, or dependant, on books and not on my own field research. So let's summarize: In my first answer to Ganja I wrote: "Your keris hilt, with female forms, usually is considered to represent Durga, a shakti of Shiva." and on your question: "where did this Durga belief first arise?" I would answer M Kerner (as far as I know). I have really enjoyed reading your comments, as I always do. But unfortunately if the major ideas that are written about this subject, as far as I have seen and read, are wrong then I don't have anything more to contribute to this discussion. Thanks for "unveiling" this to me. Michael Last edited by VVV; 1st June 2007 at 07:56 AM. Reason: spelling only

20th June 2007, 06:06 AM	#8
ganjawulung Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: J a k a r t a Posts: 991	(More) Durga Hilt Dear All, This is more pictures, on what some of you called it "the durga hilt". I got this newer collection of such hilt yesterday, but in a rather different model of "durga" (or dewi Sri, according to Alan). The hand position is the same, but the proportion of length of its hand is different. The wood also different. The later one (the black one) is made of light ebony (?) wood. Very light, much lighter than ebony. But very black... Ganjawulung Attached Images

1st June 2007, 08:45 AM	#2
Alam Shah Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,248	Hi Alan, I guess Michael had answered your question on "where did this Durga belief first arise?". Alan, you had stated your opinion, as such and I found it most interesting. I'm wondering is there any written articles about your opinion. It would serve well to enlighten the academic community and the majority of collectors. Too long have the present keris community got it wrong, then.

1st June 2007, 09:20 AM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,085	You're making me sound like an arrogant fool Michael---which maybe I am---but not because of what I have written here. Weiner got it right. But only in the present tense. Please read what I wrote once again. Martin I will not discuss, and you know the reason why. Durga as Anapurna may be so for some people, it may not be so for others. Apart from my own experience, I can refer you to Ramseyer in respect of the manifestations of Uma in the context of Bali. Anapurna is not part of the equation in Bali-Hindu belief, to my knowledge. The discussion has been about a jejeran from Islamic Jawa.The side trip into Bali is a diversion. If the belief is that this jejeran is a representation of Durga, and this idea originated in the work of Martin Kerner, then let us see Martin's evidence or argument, or alternatively present an argument of your own. I have not told you that anybody got anything wrong. What I have said is that the specific question has not yet been settled. This question relates to a jejeran from Islamic Jawa, it does not relate to the manifold interpretations of Hindu belief systems, nor can it be answered by unsubstantiated opinions. I have provided an argument to support my opinion. If you disagree with my opinion, please destroy my argument, and please stay within the context of the time and place of origin of the object under discussion. I may be wrong, but this is yet to be demonstrated. I understand that you have a lot on your plate at the moment, so there is no hurry for the evidence or argument to demonstrate that I need to change my opinion.

1st June 2007, 01:35 PM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,085	No offence taken Michael. This is simply gentle discussion. My personal field experience has very little bearing on what I have said in this discussion. Weiner:- any investigation of the nature of Weiner's can only report on current belief, it cannot report on what may have been the original story or circumstances. The authors of such reports, including Weiner, recognise this. They present their findings as a report of current belief, not as fact, not as history. Dewi Sri/Bhatari Uma:- Balinese culture; its in the books, not my discovery nor my opinion. Jejeran as a representation of Dewi Sri:- my opinion , supported by logical argument; sloppily constructed, admittedly, and if necessary I can tighten it and lengthen it, but the elements are already there, and they will not change. In opposition to my supported opinion we currently have an unsupported opinion. If this is Martin Kerner's opinion, I would hope that he provided evidence or argument to support it. Let's just focus on the core issue, the jejeran. I suggest that we give this a rest until you are clear of other obligations, then you can come back to the table with the evidence or argument to make me change my mind. I assure you, I am quite ready to change my mind on this issue, or any other issue, if adequate argument or evidence is produced.

1st June 2007, 03:05 PM	#6
Alam Shah Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,248	Good healthy discussion. I guess, we'll call it jejeran 'wadon' for short.

1st June 2007, 06:53 PM	#7
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,250	Yes, this has been a wonderful discussion and as more information is gathered i encourage it to continue. My understanding of this hilt form has grown exponientially from this thread Once again i would like to stress that disagreement is a heathy thing and can only lead to new discoveries and understandings. No one should be hesitant to put forth their ideas and theories on this forum. I only insist that the conversation remain civil, as this one certainly has.