A most interesting keris, with figure

David · 20th August 2014, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.Workman

I guess this brings up the question of "authentic", i.e., at what point in a keris' life do changes become forgeries? Was there ever a type of decoration like this in that region? All the other figures I have seen seem to be more flat, almost like outlines.

I don't think this is an issue of "forgery". Keris are often altered for legitimate cultural purposes so just because the figure on the gandik may not have been there initially that does not necessarily mean this keris is not "authentic".

A. G. Maisey · 20th August 2014, 06:03 AM

I consider this keris 100% authentic, but I have never seen a Bali keris with this type of ornamentation on the gandhik. Usually if there is a gandhik carving it is a Bhoma or something similar, not a human figure in a yoga position.To my mind there is not really any place for this figure in the keris culture that is associated with Bali. I guess it probably qualifies as a puthut, but I've never seen a puthut rendered like this.

But that does not make it non-authentic, nor a forgery. Most definitely not a forgery.

My first thought on the carving was as I said, enhance sale value, but it may have been put there or ordered to be put there by a yoga practitioner.

As to "old collection", well, if I die tomorrow --- Heaven Forbid!! --- my collection can be sold as an "old collection". My personal collection dates from 1953, but it incorporates my grandfather's collection which was put together immediately after WWI, around 1919 through to around 1930.

The tourists started to find their way to Bali not long after the puputans, and by the 1920's it was certainly on the tourist map.

Yes, it is a nice pamor motif, but not uncommon.

On the question of when does an alteration become a forgery, or perhaps, let us say, when does an alteration remove legitimacy from a keris. That's a hard question to answer. I think I must consider any blade that has been deliberately altered, rather than enhanced must be considered non-legit. For instance, the straight keris that is turned into a waved keris, the big old Tuban keris that is recarved to make it look like a more prestigious classification. This sort of thing. Not the addition of a good quality skilful carving that does not alter the body of the blade.

S.Workman · 20th August 2014, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

I consider this keris 100% authentic, but I have never seen a Bali keris with this type of ornamentation on the gandhik. Usually if there is a gandhik carving it is a Bhoma or something similar, not a human figure in a yoga position.To my mind there is not really any place for this figure in the keris culture that is associated with Bali. I guess it probably qualifies as a puthut, but I've never seen a puthut rendered like this.

But that does not make it non-authentic, nor a forgery. Most definitely not a forgery.

My first thought on the carving was as I said, enhance sale value, but it may have been put there or ordered to be put there by a yoga practitioner.

As to "old collection", well, if I die tomorrow --- Heaven Forbid!! --- my collection can be sold as an "old collection". My personal collection dates from 1953, but it incorporates my grandfather's collection which was put together immediately after WWI, around 1919 through to around 1930.

The tourists started to find their way to Bali not long after the puputans, and by the 1920's it was certainly on the tourist map.

Yes, it is a nice pamor motif, but not uncommon.

On the question of when does an alteration become a forgery, or perhaps, let us say, when does an alteration remove legitimacy from a keris. That's a hard question to answer. I think I must consider any blade that has been deliberately altered, rather than enhanced must be considered non-legit. For instance, the straight keris that is turned into a waved keris, the big old Tuban keris that is recarved to make it look like a more prestigious classification. This sort of thing. Not the addition of a good quality skilful carving that does not alter the body of the blade.

Thanks for all that Alan. Hopefully your collection will be with you and whole for a long time! How does one identify Bhoma? And, is that a different pronunciation and spelling of Bhima from Bhima Swerga? What identifying marks can an artisan give Bhima so as to make him recognizable on such a small carving, or was he the only human (?) figure engraved on blades?
Your timing is spot on though, it's said to be from a post WWI collection, so that makes sense. I think a 2 of my other keris are from the same collection.

A. G. Maisey · 20th August 2014, 01:46 PM

Bhoma is not Bhima.

Briefly, from my "Interpretation " article:-

"The Bhoma, sometimes called Kala, is a representation of the son of Wisnu and Basundari, and thus is the child of water and earth. The joining of water and earth results in the growth of plants, which in a society dependent upon agriculture equates to prosperity. In Sanscrit, Bhoma means "born of the earth". Thus Bhoma can be taken to represent the growth of vegetation.

When Bhoma appears in the base of the keris blade this is a reinforcement of the Mt. Meru representation, as the lower slopes of Mt. Meru are covered in foliage, and this is the abode of Bhoma.
But Javanese symbolism is very often polysymbolism, and the nature of Bhoma is as a protective element, so the inclusion of Bhoma in keris iconography also provides protection from evil."

This links to the complete article.

http://www.kerisattosanaji.com/INTERPRETATIONPAGE1.html

The image of Bhoma that I have posted here is only one way in which he can be represented. Other human-like figures can be found on keris blades. The puthut is fairly common, this is a figure in a meditating position.

We can find a lot of different figures associated with the keris, and they were all put there for a reason, but sometimes that reason is not always obvious, this is one of the reasons why it is necessary to move beyond simply trying to study keris and direct our study at the entire culture and society. The keris is only one blossom of an entire culture. It is absolutely impossible to understand anything at all about the keris unless we first gain at the very least a basic understanding of the culture which gave it birth.

20th August 2014, 01:46 PM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,990	Bhoma is not Bhima. Briefly, from my "Interpretation " article:- "The Bhoma, sometimes called Kala, is a representation of the son of Wisnu and Basundari, and thus is the child of water and earth. The joining of water and earth results in the growth of plants, which in a society dependent upon agriculture equates to prosperity. In Sanscrit, Bhoma means "born of the earth". Thus Bhoma can be taken to represent the growth of vegetation. When Bhoma appears in the base of the keris blade this is a reinforcement of the Mt. Meru representation, as the lower slopes of Mt. Meru are covered in foliage, and this is the abode of Bhoma. But Javanese symbolism is very often polysymbolism, and the nature of Bhoma is as a protective element, so the inclusion of Bhoma in keris iconography also provides protection from evil." This links to the complete article. http://www.kerisattosanaji.com/INTERPRETATIONPAGE1.html The image of Bhoma that I have posted here is only one way in which he can be represented. Other human-like figures can be found on keris blades. The puthut is fairly common, this is a figure in a meditating position. We can find a lot of different figures associated with the keris, and they were all put there for a reason, but sometimes that reason is not always obvious, this is one of the reasons why it is necessary to move beyond simply trying to study keris and direct our study at the entire culture and society. The keris is only one blossom of an entire culture. It is absolutely impossible to understand anything at all about the keris unless we first gain at the very least a basic understanding of the culture which gave it birth. Attached Images

20th August 2014, 06:03 AM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,990	I consider this keris 100% authentic, but I have never seen a Bali keris with this type of ornamentation on the gandhik. Usually if there is a gandhik carving it is a Bhoma or something similar, not a human figure in a yoga position.To my mind there is not really any place for this figure in the keris culture that is associated with Bali. I guess it probably qualifies as a puthut, but I've never seen a puthut rendered like this. But that does not make it non-authentic, nor a forgery. Most definitely not a forgery. My first thought on the carving was as I said, enhance sale value, but it may have been put there or ordered to be put there by a yoga practitioner. As to "old collection", well, if I die tomorrow --- Heaven Forbid!! --- my collection can be sold as an "old collection". My personal collection dates from 1953, but it incorporates my grandfather's collection which was put together immediately after WWI, around 1919 through to around 1930. The tourists started to find their way to Bali not long after the puputans, and by the 1920's it was certainly on the tourist map. Yes, it is a nice pamor motif, but not uncommon. On the question of when does an alteration become a forgery, or perhaps, let us say, when does an alteration remove legitimacy from a keris. That's a hard question to answer. I think I must consider any blade that has been deliberately altered, rather than enhanced must be considered non-legit. For instance, the straight keris that is turned into a waved keris, the big old Tuban keris that is recarved to make it look like a more prestigious classification. This sort of thing. Not the addition of a good quality skilful carving that does not alter the body of the blade.