Raksasa - Page 2

David · 4th February 2008, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Agreed Michael, it could be a yaksha.

In fact it could be anything.

Perhaps the carver knew what it was.

Perhaps he did not.

Perhaps it was an abstraction of an abstraction .

Perhaps it was an original creation.

Well Michael, i'll tell you what it IS. It's beautiful! But, of course, even that is a subjective opinion. I, however, find great beauty in it.

VVV · 5th February 2008, 07:08 AM

On the seriousness issue; to me a coffee shop discussion group isn't at the same level as a university seminar.
Like wikipedia I don't think that this forum ever will be accepted as a valid, standalone, academic reference for facts about the Keris.
Some of the members however, like Alan, could qualify. But then based on their articles, not their posts on this forum.
So I respect if he, and others, don't want to share their hard to prove ideas on the forum.
But I hope those who do is allowed to do so as long as they state that it's a "could be" or something similar?

Michael

A. G. Maisey · 5th February 2008, 08:23 AM

Yeah, you're probably right Michael, and I must admit, one of my pet hatreds is this thing of floating ideas without evidence, and without an understanding of the foundations. Going back maybe 30 or 40 years I was a massive offender in this respect, but I finished up with egg on my face too often, so these days I if I float ideas I want to be able to support them. Thus it annoys me when I see ideas floated that are just ideas. My deficiency, and it should not effect anybody else, if, as you say the ideas are qualified as possibilities only.

But the real problem is, I think, that things said here can get picked up and retailed in other places. If those ideas are taken out of context, and without the qualifying rider, then you can get a situation where a wrong concept gets started.You're right, this discussion group will not ever achieve academic status, and I doubt that most members of it would want that in any case, but it is the most widely accepted internet keris reference in a western language.To my mind, that makes it something that we should take good care of.

The nature of any discussion is that any contributor to the discussion can say whatever he may please to say, provided he is prepared to stand behind his utterances. If this is accepted, then of course anybody may float any idea they wish, provided any other person may speak against that idea. The essential element is that we maintain discussion, and do our level best to prevent that discussion from deteriorating into distasteful argument.

Marcokeris · 7th February 2008, 03:57 PM

Michel
A nice (bone?) handle .
Also I agree with Alan: it's very difficult to undestand if there is someone in the hit. IMO it is a floral Madura (...or kalimantan or Bali

) hit in which the hit maker has put into it a personal fanciful interpretetion about the floral matter.

This my bone jawa hit a similar example: cold be Central Jawa or Madura but, without doubt a personal iterpretation of a Yoya/Solo hilt
Marco

A. G. Maisey · 7th February 2008, 09:47 PM

Stylistically this handle of Michael's fits squarely into the Madura janggelan parameters, but saying "Madura" can also extend its origin to North Coast Jawa adjacent to Madura.
If you look at enough of these handles, and then compare them with the donoriko, what you can see is that the top of the janggelan, what we'd call a pommel on a European hilt, is in fact done in a way that follows the form of the donoriko, but because of the restrictions of the material, it is miniaturised, additionally, because the material does not permit full expression of the donoriko form, you find that the curled over part will very often have some sort head or face in it, often a bird's head.
I've got two very old ivory handles that have pretty much the same form as Michael's, the details are different, but then the details in many old handles are different. I pulled out 8 or 10 handles last night that to my eye show a relationship in artistic expression that flows from the nicely rounded form of Michael's, and my two similar ones, to a similar idea, but expressed in a much flatter way, dictated by the carver's use of the side of a tusk, rather than solid material. This is fairly easy to see with them all lined up together, and able to be held and turned, but I can't see how I can photograph them to demonstrate it. I'll give this some thought, and if I can work out how to get the relationship across I'll do some pics and post them.
I've seen present day carvers, of very high skill levels, working often. Where they have freedom to move in a design, they will always follow what the material tells them needs to be done to it. A couple have told me that the finished carving is already there in the material, all they do is to release it.

VVV · 8th February 2008, 08:49 AM

Alan,

I hope you will find out how to post your examples as I am curious to see them.
I haven't thought so much about my "Yaksha hilt" as a janggelan but more as related to the putra satu.
Or do you consider putra satu to be a variation of the janggelan?
Which means that the two main. or most usual, versions of Madura hilts, if I understand you correct, are donoriko and janggelan, depending on the top of the hilt?

Michael

P.S. Yes Marco, it's bone.

A. G. Maisey · 10th February 2008, 09:24 PM

Michael, I know how to post them , what I do not yet know is how I can photograph them to show what I need to show. I have remarked previously that photographs are no substitute for handling something, they may be of some use when somebody has sufficient experience to fill in the gaps, but where you need to try to demonstrate something from scratch, they can confuse more than assist.

Regarding classification of your hilt, if we just consider the pawakan of your hilt, it is vaguely conical---the lower part is fatter than the upper part and this upper part comes to a peak, as dictated by material.My understanding of classification of Madura hilts comes from Suhartono Rahardjo's little book.In this he seems to classify anything vaguely conical, or anything roundish but with total foliate cover, as "janggelan".He classifies handles that we would normally call "raksasa" as "putra satu", in other words you need a distinctly recognisable raksasa face and form to be able to classify as "putra satu".

My opinion on this subject is not what I would call an informed opinion. I have had no instruction worthy of consideration from any acknowledged authority on Madura keris. Thus, I am not prepared to say that I consider anything to be the case in respect of Madura hilts, which is a specialised field of study in its own right.What I am prepared to comment on is this:- if we look at a sufficient number of old Madura hilts, we can see common form and common features, expressed in differing ways, in all the hilt forms, sometimes one aspect will be emphasised and we will have a donoriko, sometimes different aspects will be emphasised and we will have a janggelan, and so on, but there is a commonality of overall style that is impossible to mistake, the differences of one hilt to another are only the result of different things being emphasised in the interpretation. If you put a large number of Madura handles on a table in front of you, it is almost as if the different styles morph into one another.

Now I will say this:- except for very clearly defined forms that are well known and beyond argument, I loathe and detest the classification of all things to do with keris. The Javanese, indeed the Indonesian, mind is pre-programmed to a classificatory approach to the whole of life; this is dictated by societal structure, and it flows through into every other aspect of Javanese thought and action. It is natural that the study of keris along traditional lines requires that everything should to be classified. However, the danger in this is that classification becomes to be seen as an end in itself:- once the object is classified, that is all we need to know about it. Classify, interpret on the basis of the classification, place into the relevant pigeonhole.

This is not knowledge, and it is not study.

Indentification of point of origin in respect of time and place, and original reason for being, combined with original nomenclature may be considered to be some degree of knowledge and understanding.

Putting things into pigeonholes is not.

Incidentally Michael, is this hilt of yours bone, or is it denatured antler? It is very often, very difficult to identify one from the other, but looking closely at the grain pattern where the core of the material is exposed, to my eye this looks more like denatured antler, than bone.

VVV · 11th February 2008, 09:19 AM

Thanks for your explanation Alan.
Actually I was using the same book as reference in my post so I see what you mean.
My hilts seems to be inbetween the illustrated examples of Janggelan and some Putra Satu (no. 60, 63) as well as maybe a hidden Ganesha (no. 67)?
I find it a bit confusing when he describes Pesisiran hilts as Raksasa and Madura hilts as Putra Satu.
Sorry for the hurried reply to Marco in my PS above. Yes, it's antler as I once described it when it was posted on the Kampungnet.

Michael

kai · 11th February 2008, 03:42 PM

Hello Alan,

Quote:

denatured antler

What's the process of denaturing this material and the reasons for doing so?

The Indonesian antler hilts I've handled seemed unaltered but I think there was no keris hilt among them... Thanks in advance!

Regards,
Kai

A. G. Maisey · 11th February 2008, 06:35 PM

You have touched exactly the point I was making MichaeL:- yes, your hilt is "in between", as are a very large number of other Madura hilts; they have the pawakan of one type, but include characteristics of other types, so when we classify, we need to make a decision which way we're going to jump. I don't know---maybe a certified ahli keris from Madura might classify in another way, and have very definite indicators that allow him to place things precisely in each little pigeonhole.As I indicated above:- I find the whole classification thing----which I think of as "the name game"--- to be a bit stupid. Yeah, when we have major forms, such as a Surakarta gayaman warangka, we can give it a definite name---at least in the broad classification--- without difficulty, but when we have minor forms, especially with variation, I think it is more than a little presumptuous, possibly even arrogant, to give a classification, when we do not really know sufficient to do so.Yeah, it can make for good conversation, or interesting discussion, but I do not believe that it contributes greatly to our bank of knowledge.When we use Rahardjo as our reference, we should remember that this gentleman is a collector from, I think, Jogja. Maybe he is quoting accurate Madura or other terms, maybe he is quoting terms that are current within his own circle, maybe he is making things up.There has been a fair bit of invention and half truths in Indonesian keris literature over the years.

Kai, denatured antler is simply antler with the rough bark taken off to reveal the white inner material.It looks very much like bone, but has a different grain structure.It is done to create a material suitable for carving.

7th February 2008, 03:57 PM	#34
Marcokeris Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Italy Posts: 928	Michel A nice (bone?) handle . Also I agree with Alan: it's very difficult to undestand if there is someone in the hit. IMO it is a floral Madura (...or kalimantan or Bali ) hit in which the hit maker has put into it a personal fanciful interpretetion about the floral matter. This my bone jawa hit a similar example: cold be Central Jawa or Madura but, without doubt a personal iterpretation of a Yoya/Solo hilt Marco Attached Images

5th February 2008, 07:08 AM	#32
VVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,637	On the seriousness issue; to me a coffee shop discussion group isn't at the same level as a university seminar. Like wikipedia I don't think that this forum ever will be accepted as a valid, standalone, academic reference for facts about the Keris. Some of the members however, like Alan, could qualify. But then based on their articles, not their posts on this forum. So I respect if he, and others, don't want to share their hard to prove ideas on the forum. But I hope those who do is allowed to do so as long as they state that it's a "could be" or something similar? Michael

5th February 2008, 08:23 AM	#33
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,704	Yeah, you're probably right Michael, and I must admit, one of my pet hatreds is this thing of floating ideas without evidence, and without an understanding of the foundations. Going back maybe 30 or 40 years I was a massive offender in this respect, but I finished up with egg on my face too often, so these days I if I float ideas I want to be able to support them. Thus it annoys me when I see ideas floated that are just ideas. My deficiency, and it should not effect anybody else, if, as you say the ideas are qualified as possibilities only. But the real problem is, I think, that things said here can get picked up and retailed in other places. If those ideas are taken out of context, and without the qualifying rider, then you can get a situation where a wrong concept gets started.You're right, this discussion group will not ever achieve academic status, and I doubt that most members of it would want that in any case, but it is the most widely accepted internet keris reference in a western language.To my mind, that makes it something that we should take good care of. The nature of any discussion is that any contributor to the discussion can say whatever he may please to say, provided he is prepared to stand behind his utterances. If this is accepted, then of course anybody may float any idea they wish, provided any other person may speak against that idea. The essential element is that we maintain discussion, and do our level best to prevent that discussion from deteriorating into distasteful argument.

7th February 2008, 09:47 PM	#35
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,704	Stylistically this handle of Michael's fits squarely into the Madura janggelan parameters, but saying "Madura" can also extend its origin to North Coast Jawa adjacent to Madura. If you look at enough of these handles, and then compare them with the donoriko, what you can see is that the top of the janggelan, what we'd call a pommel on a European hilt, is in fact done in a way that follows the form of the donoriko, but because of the restrictions of the material, it is miniaturised, additionally, because the material does not permit full expression of the donoriko form, you find that the curled over part will very often have some sort head or face in it, often a bird's head. I've got two very old ivory handles that have pretty much the same form as Michael's, the details are different, but then the details in many old handles are different. I pulled out 8 or 10 handles last night that to my eye show a relationship in artistic expression that flows from the nicely rounded form of Michael's, and my two similar ones, to a similar idea, but expressed in a much flatter way, dictated by the carver's use of the side of a tusk, rather than solid material. This is fairly easy to see with them all lined up together, and able to be held and turned, but I can't see how I can photograph them to demonstrate it. I'll give this some thought, and if I can work out how to get the relationship across I'll do some pics and post them. I've seen present day carvers, of very high skill levels, working often. Where they have freedom to move in a design, they will always follow what the material tells them needs to be done to it. A couple have told me that the finished carving is already there in the material, all they do is to release it.

8th February 2008, 08:49 AM	#36
VVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,637	Alan, I hope you will find out how to post your examples as I am curious to see them. I haven't thought so much about my "Yaksha hilt" as a janggelan but more as related to the putra satu. Or do you consider putra satu to be a variation of the janggelan? Which means that the two main. or most usual, versions of Madura hilts, if I understand you correct, are donoriko and janggelan, depending on the top of the hilt? Michael P.S. Yes Marco, it's bone.

10th February 2008, 09:24 PM	#37
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,704	Michael, I know how to post them , what I do not yet know is how I can photograph them to show what I need to show. I have remarked previously that photographs are no substitute for handling something, they may be of some use when somebody has sufficient experience to fill in the gaps, but where you need to try to demonstrate something from scratch, they can confuse more than assist. Regarding classification of your hilt, if we just consider the pawakan of your hilt, it is vaguely conical---the lower part is fatter than the upper part and this upper part comes to a peak, as dictated by material.My understanding of classification of Madura hilts comes from Suhartono Rahardjo's little book.In this he seems to classify anything vaguely conical, or anything roundish but with total foliate cover, as "janggelan".He classifies handles that we would normally call "raksasa" as "putra satu", in other words you need a distinctly recognisable raksasa face and form to be able to classify as "putra satu". My opinion on this subject is not what I would call an informed opinion. I have had no instruction worthy of consideration from any acknowledged authority on Madura keris. Thus, I am not prepared to say that I consider anything to be the case in respect of Madura hilts, which is a specialised field of study in its own right.What I am prepared to comment on is this:- if we look at a sufficient number of old Madura hilts, we can see common form and common features, expressed in differing ways, in all the hilt forms, sometimes one aspect will be emphasised and we will have a donoriko, sometimes different aspects will be emphasised and we will have a janggelan, and so on, but there is a commonality of overall style that is impossible to mistake, the differences of one hilt to another are only the result of different things being emphasised in the interpretation. If you put a large number of Madura handles on a table in front of you, it is almost as if the different styles morph into one another. Now I will say this:- except for very clearly defined forms that are well known and beyond argument, I loathe and detest the classification of all things to do with keris. The Javanese, indeed the Indonesian, mind is pre-programmed to a classificatory approach to the whole of life; this is dictated by societal structure, and it flows through into every other aspect of Javanese thought and action. It is natural that the study of keris along traditional lines requires that everything should to be classified. However, the danger in this is that classification becomes to be seen as an end in itself:- once the object is classified, that is all we need to know about it. Classify, interpret on the basis of the classification, place into the relevant pigeonhole. This is not knowledge, and it is not study. Indentification of point of origin in respect of time and place, and original reason for being, combined with original nomenclature may be considered to be some degree of knowledge and understanding. Putting things into pigeonholes is not. Incidentally Michael, is this hilt of yours bone, or is it denatured antler? It is very often, very difficult to identify one from the other, but looking closely at the grain pattern where the core of the material is exposed, to my eye this looks more like denatured antler, than bone.

11th February 2008, 09:19 AM	#38
VVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,637	Thanks for your explanation Alan. Actually I was using the same book as reference in my post so I see what you mean. My hilts seems to be inbetween the illustrated examples of Janggelan and some Putra Satu (no. 60, 63) as well as maybe a hidden Ganesha (no. 67)? I find it a bit confusing when he describes Pesisiran hilts as Raksasa and Madura hilts as Putra Satu. Sorry for the hurried reply to Marco in my PS above. Yes, it's antler as I once described it when it was posted on the Kampungnet. Michael

11th February 2008, 06:35 PM	#40
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,704	You have touched exactly the point I was making MichaeL:- yes, your hilt is "in between", as are a very large number of other Madura hilts; they have the pawakan of one type, but include characteristics of other types, so when we classify, we need to make a decision which way we're going to jump. I don't know---maybe a certified ahli keris from Madura might classify in another way, and have very definite indicators that allow him to place things precisely in each little pigeonhole.As I indicated above:- I find the whole classification thing----which I think of as "the name game"--- to be a bit stupid. Yeah, when we have major forms, such as a Surakarta gayaman warangka, we can give it a definite name---at least in the broad classification--- without difficulty, but when we have minor forms, especially with variation, I think it is more than a little presumptuous, possibly even arrogant, to give a classification, when we do not really know sufficient to do so.Yeah, it can make for good conversation, or interesting discussion, but I do not believe that it contributes greatly to our bank of knowledge.When we use Rahardjo as our reference, we should remember that this gentleman is a collector from, I think, Jogja. Maybe he is quoting accurate Madura or other terms, maybe he is quoting terms that are current within his own circle, maybe he is making things up.There has been a fair bit of invention and half truths in Indonesian keris literature over the years. Kai, denatured antler is simply antler with the rough bark taken off to reveal the white inner material.It looks very much like bone, but has a different grain structure.It is done to create a material suitable for carving.