Quote:
|
Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey
A good beginning to the study of Candi Sukuh is this article:-
http://cip.cornell.edu/DPubS?service...ndo/1107006615
Stanley O'Connor does not have all the answers by any means, but he does give us some insight into the problems that are faced by anybody attempting to understand the messages of Candi Sukuh. |
Thanks Alan, that was a very interesting article with much food for thought. Most of us who have been studying keris for some time have, of course, seen this image of the Candi Sukuh before as it is often used to trace the origins of the keris at least back as far as we can date this temple. We can look at it and say with some confidence that the keris was an accepted part of the culture at least as early as 1437. However, most of us have not had the opportunity to actually travel to this place and for the most part it is just this one photograph that we refer to, without applying it in context to the place as a whole. Out of context we might ascribe many ideas to this scene in the smithy. As you say, Mr. O'Connor does not have all the answers, but i find his line of thought very intriguing.
One thing i am feeling more and more certain about is that this relief was not meant to depict or commemorate any divine figure instructing the first empu in the creation of the first keris. Why? Firstly what we assume to be a keris (and most probably is) does not have any central significance in the sculpture. It is in the background with other weapons and tools that are all given equal prominence. The blade that the smith is holding does not appear to be a keris to me, but is more likely a pedang of some sort. At least it does not seem to have the specific features that we recognize as a keris (asymmetric blade and gonjo). So the central message of this relief is not specifically about keris at all. The thing we all identify as a keris is merely one more object on the smith's wall of finished items.