![]() |
![]() |
#31 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: What is still UK
Posts: 5,774
|
![]()
Here here,though I am not that keen on Eric Clapton.Tim
Last edited by Tim Simmons; 12th June 2005 at 05:40 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#32 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Poland, Krakow
Posts: 418
|
![]()
Thank you Boedhi Adhitya for your wide description. I can admit that I'm still a little lost in all those terminology, but this is great help. All these name are still sound strange to me, but I'm learning and familiarizing with them... slowly
![]() I don't know how this keris found its way to Poland. There are some possibilities. First of all there were Polish travelers, and some of them were visiting far away Indonesian islands. There are even some journals about their far away travels. I believe that some of them brought few pieces back with them. Second option is, that many examples of these weapons, as spectacular ones, were brought from other countries like Spain, France, England, Germany and other, which were in trade, political and strong cultural contacts with Poland, during 16th-19th centuries. Polish noblemen were often guests in these countries, there were making additions to theirs collections there, and it's for sure, that some of kerises (and maybe this one included) may found its way to Poland through these contacts. I think that Tom touched serious problem, and he is right writing about Mastery. I don't want to make a discussion about it, but this is obviuos we often understand this word different. In this case, while this keris is from much different culture than I am, I can't tell is it good or not. I can tell only this is nice through my cultural experience. People who are more familiar with these weapons are able to judge about it more properly, so I believe that our kerislovers are somehow right, knowing more pieces than I do. Of course, we have to look and judge from a different points of view i.e. 16th century European drawer (like Albrecht Durer), and from the other peasant artist from the same period. Both might be the "masters", but judging their works quality depends on that what we are looking for, and what are our expactations and knowledge about them. I hope I'm clear. English for me is illegible but different cultural too ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#33 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Poland, Krakow
Posts: 418
|
![]()
Boedhi Adhitya and BluErf: please explain to me one thing! I know that dating kerises is sometimes very problematic, but you are judging two different things.
BluErf, judging from the greneng is dating this keris earlier (16th-18th c.) Boedhi Adhitya moved this date "after the Giyanti Treaty" (late 18th-20th c.) Sorry for bothering, but I think this discrepancy is in need of explanation ![]() Regards! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#34 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 940
|
![]()
Well Tom, i'm with you you on Warhol, i think he was a fake and a user who had a few good concepts that he execured ad nauseum. So they can let the rocks fly at both of us.
![]() Of Warhol, i have yet to encounter fans of his work referring to him as a "master". It is also well known that much of his work was actually executed by apprentices in his infamous "Factory", with his oversight of course. Now Picasso might be a better comparison because i HAVE heard him referred to as a "master". Much of his best known work is in cubist form, an abstraction of reality just as this particular hilt is. It sometimes looks childish and even simple, but i wouldn't assume i could do it with the same power and meaning. Being a master isn't always in the details. This hilt is meant to look this way and wasn't necessarily carved as an abstraction because the artist was incapable of depicting a realistic figure. This was the artist's intent. Now i certainly wouldn't say he is a "master" based on this one piece of work. But likewise i couldn't say he is not. ![]() Personally i find this type of abstraction to be far ahead of it's time and we know that the cubists amongst other "modern" artists were all looking at so-called "primative" art when they were developing their ideas. Tom, this is not a challenge, but since you have stated more than once that you could carve this as well, i for one would love to see it. You might actually get some business out of it. ![]() Wolviex, dating of keris is almost ALWAYS problematic ![]() Of course, whether this keris is 17thC or 18thC matters little in the end, especially since we will probably never know for sure. What matters is that this is a fine example of an "older" (pre-late19th or 20thC) form with a fairly rare hilt form and that it should be prized by you and your museum. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#35 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 940
|
![]() Quote:
![]() I agree with Tom that the Shiva hilt on the Kerner example bears absolutely no resemblence to the "Durga" hilt we have here. The Shiva hilt is mean as a "realistic" depiction of the deity, not the abstraction of the Durga hilt. Different gods, different genders, different treatments. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#36 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Poland, Krakow
Posts: 418
|
![]() Quote:
![]() As for the feeling - it's hard to get for me this keris just for feeling, while it's from different culture. So if I could say I can feel, I would guess 18th-19th century too. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#37 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 1,254
|
![]()
I knew someone would say it and guessed it would be you; $15 an hour for that kind of work, buddy, and it will take a while; I ain't do nothing to prove nothing to nobody.
![]() Since two people don't get the Clapton reference though it seems off topic (and being a metaphor, isn't), I must elucidate further upon it. I actually never liked Eric Clapton much. I wouldn't call him lowest common denominator, but I just was never very impressed by his work, and most of all was indeed annoyed by the "rock god" vicarious arrogance of his fans. Furthermore, I think his best work was early on and he never should have abandoned his earlier style for the more derivitive work everyone seems so impressed by. But what turned me around on the man as an artist is the interview; the arrogance isn't his; it's his fans' and the derivitiveness is what is called learning by imitation, and though I'd've rather seen him pursue art by inspiration and individuality, his is a path I can respect; a bit prosaic, and nothing to expect artists to have the patience for, but respectable; learn the tradition THEN break/supercede it. Still learning a lot, he said; not ready to supercede. Just a journeyman; a competent working bluesman. IMHO a fairly accurate assessment, and a concept he has evidently pursued quite sincerely and at the expense of doing his own thing musically (and if you listen to his early work it is clear he had his own thing). You don't have to be a fan to respect such clarity and humility. BTW, Two things I didn't say are that I could definitely carve this quite as well (I hedged my bets, you may notice, especially as it may for all I know be a difficult wood.), or that it couldn't have been carved by a master (only no particular sign it was; far from the same. On further examination I have spotted what seem to be minor flaws, but that doesn't lock things down or anything, and at least some of them may be deliberate and not flaws at all, such as the bulbous fingers.). Picasso was a better painter than Warhol, but I don't care for his personality either. His followers/devotees do not call him a master. They call him "The Master", kind of like Jesus or something. Interesting to say that this kind of work is out of placely modern, or ahead of its time; a total misperception, begging your pardon; in fact the "modern" Western art that resembles it is itself consciously imitative of "primitive" art; consciously behind its time, if you will. A lot of "Modern Art" is actually a reinjection of the primitive, and the concepts of beauty and form it expresses, if they are advanced, are not the advancement of the modern society/overculture/industrial age, but it trying to get back to the advancement or whatever term you prefer of earlier, more "natural" human cultures. The assumption that history and society are improving or are moving forward in anything but time has no basis in reality, though it is very common..... If you ever get to Houston, you'd better not gamble and you'd better not fight, just like the song says, but then take yourself to a museum called the Menil Collection. A modern art museum. For one thing they have a bad ass beautiful deadly giant wooden Polynesian sword/spear in one of the corners, kind of behind a case, and for another they have a back room stocked with traditional art from the collections of famous modern artists, to show some of what they were studying. Last edited by tom hyle; 12th June 2005 at 10:30 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#38 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Poland, Krakow
Posts: 418
|
![]()
Lingering Eric Clapton's plot, you'll guys will be able soon to write the epochal work titled "Eric Clapton's music and its influence on the kerises ukirans in 19th and 20th century"
![]() ![]() or "Reminescences of keris pamor in Andy Warhol's works" (LOL) Regards ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#39 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 1,254
|
![]()
Ha ha. Really though, music is one of the most widely/publicly appreciated/discussed arts in N America, and the one that most people know the most about and the most about the business of, so it almost always serves as a very rich source of metaphor when discussing art with N Americans, and so is quite appropriate. Painting is different; still trying to use widely known arts/artists as examples though. How many N Americans can name one wood carver? But musicians, actors, and painters........so good metaphors/examples of how things go down in the arts.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#40 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: What is still UK
Posts: 5,774
|
![]()
When in a hole stop digging.Tim
Last edited by Tim Simmons; 13th June 2005 at 05:17 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#41 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 1,254
|
![]()
I'm not sure what that means; am I in danger of setting off the humans?
Last edited by tom hyle; 13th June 2005 at 12:44 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#42 |
Vikingsword Staff
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,286
|
![]()
As the only Silverback here I would suggest that we get this thing back on topic immediately .
Got it ? Good. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#43 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 103
|
![]()
BluErf, I do apologize for misunderstanding. ron dha nunut is quite unusual on old blade in Java, except the very old one, usually have no pamor at all with greenish iron, which would be a very rare one. IMHO, "within the blade profile" ron dha nunut on Java keris resemble the average quality pieces, while "the out of blade" one is better. But there is different approach for this. Bali keris would look sharper and rougher, while Java keris would tend to be smoother, making the transition between the plain edge to the ron dha/greneng looks smoother.
Wolviex, judging keris age would be very problematic, especially if you have only the pictures. If we agree that this keris from Java, 16-18th Cent. would be the era of Mataram kingdom and Kartasura. I wish to believe it from Mataram, but the ricikan/details and proporsion isn't right. The lambe gajah (lambe=lips, gajah=elephant, that is, the small lips-like projection on the lower part of gandhik, near the sekar kacang point) isn't Mataram neither Kartasura. It has a fine line connected and through the gandhik, suggesting nem-neman era. The ganja and gandhik are too thick for mataram, while the luk/waves not deep enough for Kartasura. The sekar kacang also looks too "fat" for Mataram and Kartasura. The details and shape just like the newly made keris today by a very capable keris maker, but the iron in use suggest it's old. So, for now, I would vote for nem-neman ![]() ![]() ![]() About the handle, well, I know nothing about it. Sorry. The handle's shape quite unusual in Java, in fact, I've never see it, but from the wood and finish I believe it's Java. The crippled finger seems to be the carver intention. The wood might be Tayuman, stained with pacar leaf, the common finish in Java. To make sure about the wood, if you can put it off, just drown it in the bowl of water. The tayuman might submerge, while other wood may float. Just make sure the hole filled with water. As we know, keris still a living art here. People may change the handle and sheath to the newer one. So it is unusual in Java to judge the blade's age from it's handle. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#44 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,180
|
![]() Quote:
![]() As for the point I was trying to pull with my earlier pictures -- things that look simple does not necessarily mean it is simple to do well. Special emphasis is on the 'do well'. Mastery does not mean carving something that is very flashy and catches attention like some fancy full-carved handles do. Everyone can make an attempt to make a simple form, but whether it is done well is another different matter. The difference between the work of a skilled tukang (journeyman, if you like) and a master is in the subtlety. To people who have not gained a deep appreciation of the art, the hilts made by a tukang and a master all look alike. To the connoisseur, it can mean thousands of dollars in price difference. Its all in the "air tangan" (Malay: literally "hand water". crudely translates into 'x-factor in carving') of the carver. To add to nechesh's request, apart from attempting to carve this Durga hilt, maybe Tom could attempt to carve the Bugis handle I have posted, with all the surface lines, especially the u-turn double line on the back of the hilt. I would gladly supply more photos. ![]() Wolviex -- this is the problem with keris; its so uncertain. ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#45 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,180
|
![]() Quote:
I am looking at Karsten Jensen's book with many Javanese kerises provenanced to the 16th and 17th century. Nearly all of them had "out-of-the-blade-profile" ron dha nunut. How is that congruent with the statement that they are quite unusual in old Javanese keris blades please? Also, looking at the 16th/17th century Shiva keris on the 1st page of this thread, it would seem to me that the ganja and gandik and sekar kacang and greneng are all very similar. What do you classify the 16th/17th Shiva keris as please? Are 19th century Javanese kerises like this? Also, I thought Balinese kerises should be smoother than Javanese kerises because they are polished before etching. In my collection, my Javanese kerises are rougher-surfaced than all my Balinese kerises. Many questions, very little answers. ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#46 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,180
|
![]()
Empu Kumis, if you are reading this, do give us your opinion please. Thanks!
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#47 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 1,254
|
![]() Quote:
B/ The one I said I could ALMOST carve under ideal conditions is the Durga one, not the stripey Bugis one: What I said about the two is that they are quite different, and I would think that in the absense of any further comment the implication that I make no claims regarding the Bugis hilt would be obvious. Both the angling and the parrallel lines might be hard, though I would make the parrallel lines with jigs or a special knife of some kind I'd probably have to invent if for some reason I had to make them perfect-perfect; then again I might be able to pull it off with a gun checquering knife. In any event, what I can make, what I have made for hire (for instance, perfectly flat lacquered wood surfaces, which are indeed difficult), and what I enjoy making or choose to make are vastly different; I am a designer; I am interested in structure. The acts of polishing and precision of decoration in producing plastic art are not things I enjoy. That's not because I'm incapable of them; it's because they're boring and painful. C/ I don't know from spite, but I'm not feeling like all this is real mannerly or respectful of my eye and knowledge, but I'm used to that from humans and not too excited over it; as for my "mastery" I have never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever made any such claim in any feild! Ever ever ever ever. In fact, I cited the fact that I could probably carve the Durga statue as evidence that it does not require a master. D/ Not sure what was supposedly improper about the Eric Clapton line of metaphor, but I see that, with no further promting from me, the subject is still art. E/ While I can understand the concept of hiding errors in a profusion of detail, I don't know that I agree with it; first, the more details there are the harder it is OF COURSE for them all to be perfect; second, it is my experience as a craftsman that if you can't do an intricate decoration right you are far better off to not do it at all. Flat flat is indeed hard to make, but other than that flats and surfaces are certainly not harder to make than details; they are easier. This does not impugn the beauty or subtlty that can be expressed in them in any way. The concept that highly detailed carvings are done to hide a lack of skill seems to somehow fit the same myth structure (urban sword legend, anyone?) as the concept that carvings on Japanese blades are done (only or principally) to hide/eradicate forging flaws. Both may have some truth. Certainly, and with full consideration for the artistic traditions of simplicity/form that exist in both Japan and Indonesia, neither is correct as a hard and fast rule. Last edited by tom hyle; 13th June 2005 at 05:24 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#48 |
Vikingsword Staff
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,286
|
![]()
We are ALL humans here including you Tom !
I have placed one warning to get back on topic . Any more of this and I am coming back with Fire and Brimstone ! ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#49 |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 1,725
|
![]()
I really want to keep this informative and interesting thread open, gentlemen.
Disagreement and debate is absolutely acceptable. However, lets all try to avoid giving or taking personal offense. If this can't be done, I will lock this thread very quickly. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#50 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Poland, Krakow
Posts: 418
|
![]()
Gentlemen!
Degustibus non est disputandum! So my proposal is cut the discussion about mastery and art, because I see it is pointless and some of you getting confused. I hope you'll forgive me. Tom, BluErf, Boedhi, Tim, Neschesh - your opinions are very precious to me, because you are the people who bear the knowledge which is out of reach for me. Please continue essential discussion further. I believe I can still learn a lot from you about this beautiful knife. Regards! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#51 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 940
|
![]() Quote:
I understand now what you were trying to say about the similarities between the "Durga" and Shiva hilts, but IMO, the first impression that the "Durga" gives me is not Bali-esque at all, but a variation of the classic Javanese planar form. It holds pretty much the same shape, just different details in the carving. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#52 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 103
|
![]()
BluErf,
First of all, I must admit I don't know about "shiva keris" you are talking about. I only understand the keris. No "shiva keris" term here in Java, and I study under traditional keris tradition in Java. Just for information, here in Jogjakarta, we have a keris lovers/connoiseurs' club, called "Pametri Wiji" which is the oldest club in keris/heirloom subject in Indonesia. This club held a keris discussion every month since 1983. I joined this club in 1997, and in 2003 became the 2nd secretary. Every month, the member bring his collection to be discussed. There are at least 20 blade to be discussed every meeting. This club also held yearly keris cleansing ceremony and consultation, which I also became a part of the team since 2000. At least 200 - 400 blade cleaned every year. Since some of the members are a royal family of Jogjakarta court, I have opportunity to see and handle the first class, court made kerises, old and nem-neman ones, with reliable history, which usually unaccesible to common peoples/foreigners. So, I think I have some first-hand experience, especially in Java keris. Now back to the subject, I haven't read Jensen's book, and I don't know what methods he use to dating the keris age. I've also found the 16th century Mataram keris in Bali, in nearly perfect condition.(In 16th centutry is the Islamic periode in Java. Majapahit had fallen in late 1400) Handling the keris by yourselves with magnifier at hand might means a lot more than just the pictures. So still I would say, the ron dha nunut is quite unusual on the old 16-17th cent. blades. The nem-neman ones, may have it since the empu wasn't follow very strictly to the dhapur's rules anymore. They make some new dhapur, sometimes a combination of two dhapur in one blade, and many of them unwritten in the old book. (dhapur means "face", that is, the blade's shape which is defined by the ricikan/details and luk it has). The curving line connecting lambe gajah to gandhik cannot be cheated. The 16-17th cent. lambe gajah tend to look more like a torn than the lips. If there is a line, it won't be curved, but flat. Older blades (I mean the Mataram senopaten and older tangguh, late 1500 and before) have no line at all. The gandhik of nem-neman keris may look like a "smilling face", which I've never seen on older blades. Balinesse usually polish their blade with pulverized brick, which I thought, may "eat" the blade more than lime juices. Etching quite unsual now in Bali for Balinesse themselves, and I think the skill have lost. Now usually Javanese peoples from Surabaya and Madura who done the etching. The rough profile of Java keris in fact, the criteria which is sought after by the Java collector. It's resembles the 5 sharpness (the point, 2 edges and 2 sides), symbolizing the sharpness of 5 senses. Rough blade's side might only appear if good pamor material was used. If phosporus-rich pamor material was used, it will never get rough by etching, because the pamor is also "eaten" by the lime juices, something won't happen to nickleous-rich pamor. But anyway, a misunderstanding happen again ![]() Now about carving.. ![]() Carving a keris handle is a very specialized skill. A skilled artist would only master one particular shape from his own area. If he tries to copy a handle he don't master, it is not only ended in unproper shape, but also ruining his skill and "proper shape and balance" once he mastered. In the old days, the master handle and sheath makers tried to fit the handle and sheath not only to the keris, but also to the wearer, in such way so sheath and handle would "match" the wearer's character. Today in Jogja, there is only 1, I said one, mastercarver who can carved the simple Jogja handle quite good, but still, not as good as the old one, not even the Bugis, Solo, or Bali. He is only specialized in handle making, and no other. (well, a smoking pipe might be an exception). The old day mastercarver took at least a week to make a handle, if not a whole month. It's an art, not just a handle. Asking any other carver who don't master the skill to copy the handle would never work. So asking Madura carver to copy the Bugis will never work, so does asking Tom ![]() Someone who don't live in the cultures himselves sometimes make a wrong interpretation. For instance, The Parang Rusak Batik cloth. Westerner tend to interpret "Parang" as a single-edge weapon used to slash someone neck ![]() Just some insight on how the cultural diffences might turn something upside down ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#53 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 940
|
![]()
Boedhi Adhitya, i have really been enjoying your posts and trust you will keep them coming. Just a note on BluErf's use of the term "Shiva keris". I believe he was referring to the example in Kerner's book that he has shown us which has a ukiran depicting Shiva, not to a specific keris form called "Shiva keris".
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#54 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: singapore
Posts: 8
|
![]() Quote:
thanks for the link and it was a great forum from the past and it`s more energy in the discussion form the seniors ha.....thanks again |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#55 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Paris - Bruxelles
Posts: 32
|
![]()
Hi! everyone
Thank you Boedhi for all the precisions you gave us. I sincerely hope to be able to read you more. Just to mention, Sier (pronounce Sayer) Jensen, whose a good friend, is a Danish University historian. It's a shame is book has not yet been completely translated into English (just a small part of it included in the book) and it makes it difficult to understand. Not everybody speaks Danish. ![]() Never the less, his book is great and his method the best. To date kriss, he has no method, he just read the inventory of the museum and says that if they entered the museum at a recorded date then they must have been forged before. Some other people used the same method to date Japanese suits of armour. That's why we all have something to learn from his book. I'll come back later to talk about the marvellous south east Javanese Durga that we have here. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#56 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Poland, Krakow
Posts: 418
|
![]()
Boedhi Adhitya: thank you for your most informative post. I will join to the others with hope of leraning more from you in the future.
It's almost unbelievably, that making of keris handle is so difficult, and you that can't imitate it easily. I'm writing this, because if someone could imitate (let's think up)... Mona Lisa, why not ukiran. This is provocative question, because I'm wondering, do you mean literally only the surface of the handle, or there are some other features which are decisive on handle uniqueness. Sorry if this question is too much ignorant ![]() Second question - in the light of your words about uniquess of the ukirans, are there any thoughts you have about my keris' handle? Or, i.e., is it so unusual, as we decided it, that there is no chance to identify it more properly? tuancd: that method you have mentioned is really great...well, almost...sometimes ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#57 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Paris - Bruxelles
Posts: 32
|
![]()
Dear Wolviex
Yes the method is good but can only work when the piece is registered for a long time... In your case you can only work by comparison. But the books like Sier's give that opportunity. Experts in datation start to be able to date metal by analysis of the crystallisation on the surface. It is still expensive and I'm not yet convinced of their accuracy . For the model of ukiran you have, yes it's rare. And your model is quite refine. For comparison I'll attach picture of mine. It's identity is Veiled Durga from East java. Durga beautiful before was punished and became ugly. So she wore a veil in order not to scare humans. You can actually see her unveiled on Bali, holding the veil in her back (see under). This local adaptation of Durga life is to be compared with the cult of Nyai Loro Kidul or Nyi roro Kidul (goddess of the south sea worshiped in Java) who is also ugly or beautiful. Any ways, the three Durga veiled I've seen were on east Javanese kriss. Cedric |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#58 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 940
|
![]() Quote:
Thank you, BTW, for posting the photos of the other Durga hilts. Seeing these first two clearly point out the subtlties in the carving of Wolviex's example, though i am sure the ivory is a much harder material to work in. Still, the flow of lines is much more dynamic and well proportioned than your examples. I wonder if the hand on the other side of your examples have the same foreshortened middle fingers??? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#59 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Paris - Bruxelles
Posts: 32
|
![]()
Dear Nechesh,
museums in Europe have started from the 14th century and even before. Of course, and unfortunately, inventories don't come back to that date and more over regarding keris. ![]() nevertheless and since we talk of Durga hulus there are two of them, one from the General Wrangler Samling collection (first traced) in 1676 (p 87 of Den Indonenesiske kris of Seir Jensen) the second and more known, Durga hilt made of rhinoceros horn and decorated with gold and rubies (first traced 1618; Der Deutsche Orden in Vienna) (One of the first inventories that we know with out doubt so far). So you are absolutely right, you say no one can confirm it is from 14th century. At least I can say it is at least from 14th (ref Candi Suku) to end of 16th. I even can bet on it ![]() for the second aspect here are the pictures. the wooden one is also used and slightly damage on the hand. I suppose it is due to a hurting of a stronger material, but it can also be the wear of the thumb The ivory one is obviously much later 19th or early 20th c, I would say and cannot be compared. I’ll try to scan the pictures of the book to show the Durgas from Sier’s book I’m talking about. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#60 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 103
|
![]()
Dear Wolviex,
Making a keris handle might be easy, and might be hard, just like the painting ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() For the second question, well, I do sorry, I have no other opinion than what have been posted here before. Yes, it's unique and rare. I might have seen it, but didn't pay any attention ![]() About the dating, I agree that Sier Jensen's method is very reliable, althought not accurate enough, it might means a lot. (as long as no one faked the inventory note, of course ![]() Salam. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|