Balinese Keris hilt ID

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Marius, one of the problems in identification of the characters depicted in Balinese hilts is that very often these characters are not sculpted in a way that will permit identification by the use of the traditional indicators.

While i do understand your reluctance to ID this figure i do have to say that this hilt does indeed have indicators that should allow us (or somebody) to identify it. While i certainly agree that the artists of many new Bali hilts tend to use a good deal of "poetic" license in their design, the hilt shown here by Marius does seem to follow fairly closely to the design of a commonly accepted Balinese hilt form which i believe has been around at least since pre-WWII times and perhaps earlier. The common indicators on these hilts are generally the body position, jeweled crown, right arm across the body holding a stylized fan (or mirror?), left hand in a mudra position usually with extended fingers (or nails?). Since this figure appears again and again with all of these same features i can only presume that there was originally some intention as to his identity beyond "royal figure". I have heard this figure referred to as Bayu for quite some time, but i am unaware of the exacting reasons for this identification. Bayu is a wind god AFAIK so perhaps people have regarded the fan as an indicator of that persona. Perhaps the mudra connects the figure as a godly one due to the ritual nature of the hand sign. I write this not to defend the attribution of Bayu per se since i cannot personally be sure that is correct from my own researched information, but only to point out that this particular figure has been used and portrayed in pretty much this same exact manner for enough time that it seems most likely to me that there must be some original intention as to the identity of this character, even if he has been mistakenly identified as Bayu all this time.

[A. G. Maisey]

David, I do not suggest for one moment that this hilt under discussion can be described as a royal figure, I used this term simply to demonstrate that one of Bali's foremost authorities on the art of his homeland is frequently unable to give a positive identification of the figures depicted in totogan hilts.

Speaking for myself, these days I am extremely hesitant to give a positive identification of a Balinese hilt unless the indicators are inarguable.

I cannot disagree that both of the hilts shown might be Bayu.

Equally, I am not able to agree that both hilts definitely are intended to be Bayu, in spite of the long standing identification of this hilt form by keris collectors, as Bayu.

Maybe Bayu, may not be Bayu. I simply do not know for certain, so I reserve my opinion.

Actually, the way I read your initial post, you are saying pretty much the same thing:-

"--- many might describe him as Bayu ---"

Here is another of the same form.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

David, I do not suggest for one moment that this hilt under discussion can be described as a royal figure, I used this term simply to demonstrate that one of Bali's foremost authorities on the art of his homeland is frequently unable to give a positive identification of the figures depicted in totogan hilts.

Hello Alan,
In his previous book "Keris Bali Bersejarah" Pande Wayan Suteja Neka does identify most of the "royal" figures depicted on togogan hilts (Prabu Ratmaja, Dewa Indra, etc.), however he just describes few of them as Prabu or Prabu kreasi baru (new creation). It is surprising that none of these figures is identified as Bayu although many of the figures which he calls Prabu Ratmaja are very similar to the ones attributed to Bayu. What a confusion!
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Jean, agreed:- confusion, but more than this, in fact a very deep lack of honesty and understanding at many levels.

The puputans changed many things.

You've read Wiener?

look at the confusion and contradictions that permeate her discussions with Balinese people.

The problem is perhaps that people who are outside a society imagine that the state within the society is as they imagine it to be from readings of times past. In fact, where Bali and Jawa are concerned, this is seldom the case.

In respect of the ID of hilts and other things in "Bali Bersejarah". Yes, this book was published under Pak Sutejo Neka's name, but exactly how much of it did he write? I've tried to work this out, and quite simply, I cannot.

[mariusgmioc]

Thank you all for your assistance!

After a further and thorough search I found the book "The Gods of War: Sacred Imagery and the Decoration of Arms and Armor" by Donald J. LaRocca, published by Metropolitan Museum. In the book, a very similar figure is described as Batara Bayu (God of Winds). The author also briefly describes the atributes that allow this positive ID.

The book is available for reading online and free downloading at the link below:

http://www.metmuseum.org/research/me...Arms_and_Armor

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Maybe Bayu, may not be Bayu. I simply do not know for certain, so I reserve my opinion.

Actually, the way I read your initial post, you are saying pretty much the same thing:-

"--- many might describe him as Bayu ---"

Here is another of the same form.

Indeed you are correct Alan, i was taking this approach simply because i simply do not possess any solid evidence myself that allows me to describe this character as Bayu with any sense of certainty. However, that said it is clear that this particular fellow has been identified by at least a segment of the keris collecting world as Bayu for some time. Why? It is also clear that the hilts that are IDed as Bayu all share the same indicators that i mentioned before in their form so it does seem most likely that all these hilts, Marius' example, my example and your exceptional example are indeed all intended to depict the same character. I kind of felt that your approach at this point is to throw up your hands and count this as an unsolvable mystery where as my thought is that perhaps through continued inquery we might eventually be able to come to terms with the question. I am curious, for instance, when this hilt style may have first been identified as Bayu and what reasoning that person may have had for making that assessment. Dies anybody have a clue? As i have already stated, there are indeed quite a number of indicators in the form of these hilts that repeat again and again in each example. The fan in the right hand, the mudra sign on the left hand, the jeweled crown, even the garments the figure wears are pretty much the same in each and every one of the example of this hilt that i have seen. So i don't think we can look at Marius' hilt and say that it does not follow a traditional pattern of some sort simply because it is a recently made hilt. It follows the same pattern as the others before it. I remain fairly convinced that whoever this figure is he is supposed to be a particular representation that is clearly the same in all these examples. It is, of course, possible that we might never get to the bottom of this, but i don't think we should completely drop the inquiry simple because Bapak Sutejo Neka chooses not to place a specific ID on this figure.

[A. G. Maisey]

I used Pak Neka as an easy example.

The hard example I considered to be too long, but maybe I should give it anyway.

I first went to Bali in 1966. Hell of a trip at a hell of time. Tried to buy keris and get info on keris. At that time I could not find anybody who was prepared to talk to an ignorant bule about things as sacred as keris.

Between 1966 and about 1982 I went to Bali and Jawa about 12 times (that's counting the inevitable double visits to Bali as single visits), by the late 1970's I had learnt to speak passable BI (Bahasa Indonesia) so I was in a position for at least some of this time to be able to communicate with people in their own language --- or at least their own public language. I had access to a Brahmin from about 1978, and this man did give me more than a little bit of information and insight into the Balinese keris and attitudes towards it. At that time there was much that he gave me that I did not understand, but over the following years that understanding did come, but pretty slowly.

From 1982 through to 2014 I visited Indonesia more than 35 times, always with the double visit to Bali, on the way in, and on the way out.

I had many more informants in Jawa than in Bali, but I did actively seek information and understanding every time I was in Bali. My Brahmin contact passed away in the mid-1980's, so I lost that source, but I did develop relationships with a few people who had either a specific keris interest, or a cultural interest or talent.

So, that's the background that has helped form my opinions in this hilt character matter. It goes without saying that I have also covered a lot of printed material, but we won't go into that.

Based only upon my own personal experience, what I have found is that amongst Balinese people who have some knowledge of the way in which various deities are represented, and/or some knowledge of the keris, it is very difficult to get unvarying opinions that are in agreement. Even from the same person there can be day to day variation --- well, maybe not day to day, but rather year to year.

Apart from the variation, there is the inescapable problem of Balinese representations of Hindu deities. As an example. look at Ganesha. The Ganesha figure that almost always appears in keris hilts would never in a million years be accepted as a valid representation of Ganesha by any Hindu from India.

Two arms? Incorrect attributes? Naw, that's not Ganesh --- it might be somebody else, but its sure not Ganesh.

But in Bali it is accepted as Ganesha.

Why?

Because that's who it is intended to be.

Correctness is not a part of the game.

Intention is.

So, if we look at a hilt such as this beautiful silver hilt that Marcus has shown us, we need to ask:- 'when this was made, what was the intention?'

There are a number of reasons that can be provided for the making of a keris hilt:-

1) as personal deity, the function of which is to protect

2) as the representation of an ancestor, the function of which is to protect

3) as an ancestor represented as a deity, the function of which is to protect

4) as a folk figure, the function of which is to either protect the wearer or provide a negative aura towards the opponent

5) as a prescribed form to permit the wearing of a keris in prescribed situations

6) as a work of art, either stand alone, or for fitting to a keris.

This is what I can present without thinking about it. These possibilities are in the front of my mind, so to speak; with thought and research we can probably come up with more reasons to make a keris hilt in a particular way.

To me, it seems probable that Marcus' hilt is able to be categorised as fitting into #6 category:- a work of art; of course, this does not necessarily rule out categories 1 to 3, but since this is a very recent hilt, inclusion in one of those categories does seem to be unlikely.

Whatever I may say in this matter is purely opinion, but personally, I feel that it is pretty well grounded opinion, however, being opinion it can always be wrong.

It is not so much that I have thrown my hands into the air and declared Balinese hilts to be an unsolvable mystery.

It is more that my experience tells me that it is best to be cautious in giving opinions on the characters in any hilt, and foolish to be positive.

The maker and the person for whom a hilt was made are truly the only people who can say with any certainty what a particular figure is supposed to be.

The rest of us are best to quality our opinions, as David has done in his initial post.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

To me, it seems probable that Marcus' hilt is able to be categorised as fitting into #6 category:- a work of art; of course, this does not necessarily rule out categories 1 to 3, but since this is a very recent hilt, inclusion in one of those categories does seem to be unlikely.

I tend to agree with Alan. Although Marius' hilt shows similar features to Alan's exceptional specimen, the craftsmanship is much poorer and there are some deviations such as the attribute in the right hand (which is supposed to be a vase containing the immortality fluid according to many sources) and the fancy decoration of the legs, etc. I attach the pics of another silver hilt supposed to depict Bayu also, it is at least 30 years old and it is interesting to notice the evolution of the design and workmanship as compared to Marius' recently made hilt.
Regards

[apolaki]

What are your impressions on this one in the center?

[mariusgmioc]

From all the posts and the knowledge I gained over the last few days, after hours and hours of reading and internet searching, I can sumarize that in this case one cannot assume with certainty who the figure of the hilt is. Although there are some aspects that may point it to Bayu, there isn't enough factual evidence to support it (as I found quite interesting and educating arguments suggesting the figure might be depicting Bhima, who shares several attributes with Bayu, his father). In other words, one cannot accurately proclaim something to be black or white when in fact it is grey.

I will go to Indonesia in April-May and I will try to find out more about this subject.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by apolaki

What are your impressions on this one in the center?

A common quality specimen made from copper and with a bit of age, similar figure as Marius' one but the attribute in the right hand is not clearly visible on the pic.
Regards