Next keris from Polish Museum - Page 2

Tim Simmons · 12th June 2005, 04:34 PM

Here here,though I am not that keen on Eric Clapton.Tim

wolviex · 12th June 2005, 05:00 PM

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

. Anyway I found this fascinating.
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

wolviex · 12th June 2005, 05:11 PM

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!

nechesh · 12th June 2005, 09:43 PM

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.

But i also think Clapton's greatness is a bit exaggerated too. Good Rock/Blues guitarist with very little originality. No humility there, just being the honest journeyman that he is.
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

especially when trying to do it just from photographs. A big part of the problem is that some of these keris forms can linger for centuries with very little change in appearance. Still, i thing that BluErf has perhaps applied a bit too much age to this piece and i personally would feel more comfortable with late 18th - early 19thC as Boedhi Adhitya suggests. Without any real provenence it is hard to say for sure. I am surprised that the museum has none at all. I would expect that at least getting info like where and when a piece was collected would be standard for any museum.
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.

nechesh · 12th June 2005, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tom hyle

Aren't Durga and Kali the same/aspects of one being/etc?

I think it would be an over simplification to say this. They are very different aspects of the same supreme mother, yes, but in this respect then ALL goddess forms would be the same goddess ultimately. They do share a certain ferocity. In other words, dont mess with them!

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.

wolviex · 12th June 2005, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nechesh

Without any real provenence it is hard to say for sure. I am surprised that the museum has none at all. I would expect that at least getting info like where and when a piece was collected would be standard for any museum

You're absolutely right, but... this piece wasn't purchased by the museum directly, but it is after big, famous, noble family, which gave all their collection to the museum. Because objects from these collection were gathered by the family from 17th century up to 20th, many of them is without provenience, many of them were just "after grandpa", and to be honest, treated as family mementos, no one was care where and what was purchased

.

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.

tom hyle · 12th June 2005, 10:18 PM

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.

And I actually don't take carving work for hire; professionalism is the death of art. I do things I don't love so much for hire (though I guess it is a complex issue; I'd still be at the custom door job if my back could take the work.....).
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.

wolviex · 12th June 2005, 10:26 PM

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

tom hyle · 12th June 2005, 10:35 PM

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.

Tim Simmons · 12th June 2005, 10:38 PM

When in a hole stop digging.Tim

tom hyle · 12th June 2005, 10:59 PM

I'm not sure what that means; am I in danger of setting off the humans?

Rick · 13th June 2005, 12:53 AM

As the only Silverback here I would suggest that we get this thing back on topic immediately .

Got it ?

Good.

Boedhi Adhitya · 13th June 2005, 05:46 AM

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

, but to make sure, i've to handle it myself

Bad idea. Anyway, it is a good one, hard to find even here in Java. Just cleaned and put some etch, you may love it more

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.

BluErf · 13th June 2005, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nechesh

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.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear.

The similarity I was trying to point out was that both are Balinese-esque hulus that have not quite reached the large proportions of typical Balinese hulus and both sit on a mendak rather than a bulbous selut and mendak ring. I am of the opinion that these are attributes of earlier era (16-18th century) Javanese handle forms. Yes, both the Shiva and Durga are very different, and the realistic/abstract treatment too. But looking at Martin Kerner again, even with the Balinese handles, we see both realistic and a smaller number of abstract forms. And it has been said that the Balinese keris blades and handle forms are descendants of the earlier Javanese archetypes, which this Durga hilt keris could be one such keris.

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.

Also, another good experiment would be to carve the inverted v sheath bottom. Again, I also emphasize this is not a spiteful challenge; I believe that the proof of the cake is in the eating, and in this case, the proof of mastery (or not) is in the ability to carve. I'm not trying to put you down Tom, but carvers in Madura have been trying to copy the Bugis keris hilts and they have not been able to do it convincingly, and these guys are professional carvers who carve every day.

Wolviex -- this is the problem with keris; its so uncertain.

Anyway, it is true that handles can be swapped, but its just the combination of this old-style hilt with an old-style blade which made me think it really is an older form. Like I mentioned before, the physical condition of the keris is a poor indicator of age. If this keris was found in Java today, I would say 19th or even 20th century. But given that it was found in Poland (presumably drier and cooler than Indonesia) and collected in the earlier centuries, I do think this keris has considerable age to it.

BluErf · 13th June 2005, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boedhi Adhitya

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.

Hi Boedhi,

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.

BluErf · 13th June 2005, 03:09 PM

Empu Kumis, if you are reading this, do give us your opinion please. Thanks!

tom hyle · 13th June 2005, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BluErf

Everyone can make an attempt to make a simple form, but whether it is done well is another different matter....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.

Also, another good experiment would be to carve the inverted v sheath bottom. Again, I also emphasize this is not a spiteful challenge; I believe that the proof of the cake is in the eating, and in this case, the proof of mastery (or not) is in the ability to carve. I'm not trying to put you down Tom, but carvers in Madura have been trying to copy the Bugis keris hilts and they have not been able to do it convincingly, and these guys are professional carvers who carve every day.

OK, Rubbing my head in consternation, but once more to try to explain: A/ I don't do nothing to prove nothing to nobody; I don't care that much what you think; I do not enjoy obsessive carving, especially the polishing; and you nor anyone else has nor is welcome to try to exercise such power over me. Is that hard to understand in some way?
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.

Rick · 13th June 2005, 06:12 PM

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 !

Andrew · 13th June 2005, 06:53 PM

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.

wolviex · 13th June 2005, 10:23 PM

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!

nechesh · 13th June 2005, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BluErf

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.

Kai Wee, it has been my understanding that this is only true of later Javanese tradition. I am not sure exactly when the Javanese stopped polishing their keris, but if you look at examples, say, in the Tropenmuseum in Amsterdam that were collected very early on i think you will find a similar polished finish to that of Balinese keris. Note the apparent smoothness of finish on the unstained Kerner example.
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.

Boedhi Adhitya · 14th June 2005, 07:26 AM

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

The "Rough" which I refered to, isn't the blade, but the transition feeling from the plain sharp edges, to the ron dha nunut/greneng serrated edges. Java keris tend to look (and feel) smoother than Bali. The greneng/ron dha nunut of Bali keris feel like a protruding thorn, ready to catch anything.

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

Sorry Tom. Asking the Bugis carver to copy Madura's Donoriko handle would also never work either. It's a very specialized, state of the art skill, not only a talent, which many of them, unfortunately, have lost.

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

while "rusak" interpreted as "broken", by war, of course. So, the wearer, would be interpreted as a "war monger, blood lust" person. Unfortunately, the Java king use it as his formal dress. Interpreting "Parang" as a weapon is true only in Melayu/Indonesian language, but it isn't true in Javanese language, where the Parang Rusak motif originated. In Javanese, "Parang" might means the cliff on the sea. "Parang Rusak" means broken cliff, which might be interpreted as "you might as tough as cliff, but in the end, it is broken anyway", and for the king, interpretation might be "even the tough cliff broken, and you wouldn't be the king forever too"
Just some insight on how the cultural diffences might turn something upside down

nechesh · 14th June 2005, 11:40 AM

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".

mhm27 · 14th June 2005, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

If you don't mind a fair amount of reading you may find this thread from the old forum enlightening .

Part I
http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000307.html
PartII
http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000402.html

Hi rick,

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

tuancd · 14th June 2005, 03:52 PM

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.

wolviex · 14th June 2005, 05:28 PM

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

. In my case, it doesn't work properly

tuancd · 14th June 2005, 07:14 PM

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

nechesh · 14th June 2005, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuancd

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.

Sorry Cedric, but i just can't comprehend how this could possible be the best method of dating. Say a Javanese keris is collected in the early part of the 19thC but is in fact a Keris Mojopahit from the 14thC. To say then that this keris is older than the 19thC, while correct, tells us very little about the blade.

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???

tuancd · 15th June 2005, 12:01 AM

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.

Boedhi Adhitya · 15th June 2005, 06:13 AM

Dear Wolviex,
Making a keris handle might be easy, and might be hard, just like the painting

Every children might be able to draw something on paper, but only master painter who could make a Monalisa. Some good and talented painter might copy the Monalisa, but if we compare it head-to-head, some experts in painting might say something, don't they ? I didn't say that every good painting must look like Monalisa, but it is "the character" which make some artwork different than another. Just like any good song will bring "a mood" to you when you hear it. The same thing applied to the perfect, state-of-the art handle. It is neither the details nor the shape which make it hard to make. It is "the nuance", "proper balance", "character" or anything, you might name it, which is hard to reach. It takes talent, experience, skill, and most of all, it takes times. Old days mastercarvers or sheathmakers were fully supported by the court. They made their work while "on the mood", as any other artworks. Today carver work "on the need", or according to "the market", not the quality. And anyway, only a little, ridiculously paying attention to details collectors / keris' connoiseurs who might (and able to!) appreciate those "state-of-the art" handle, while they very little in quantity and not willing to pay more for newly made handle, so why bother ?

I believe, by studying a lot of good old handles, a young, capable and talented carver might able to make the good ones. But studying more than one style is very hard, because "the character", "proper balance" or anything (as you name it before

) particular to one style might mixed up one-another, and "confuse" the carver. Just like a rocker try to compose some middle-east song might ended up on an alternative ones

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

Sorry, my fault. Until today, I'm only paying attention to what called "pakem" (conform to the rule) handle, especially Jogja's Pakem. I agree to Meneer Cedric that this hilt might came from east java, the "pasisiran", which considered as "out of the court" in 16th. c. But not the blade ! It might be court made !

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

). I myself do question the traditional dating methods (Tangguh). Is it really as old as it says ? But, well, no other methods. Even the Sonobudoyo Musem in Jogjakarta asked Pametri Wiji to date their keris collections. Wish some experts on dating, Iron dating particularly, might find another, non-destructive preferably, reliable method.

Salam.

12th June 2005, 04:34 PM	#31
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,806	Here here,though I am not that keen on Eric Clapton.Tim Last edited by Tim Simmons; 12th June 2005 at 05:40 PM.

12th June 2005, 10:18 PM	#37
tom hyle 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. And I actually don't take carving work for hire; professionalism is the death of art. I do things I don't love so much for hire (though I guess it is a complex issue; I'd still be at the custom door job if my back could take the work.....). 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.

12th June 2005, 10:38 PM	#40
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,806	When in a hole stop digging.Tim Last edited by Tim Simmons; 13th June 2005 at 05:17 PM.

12th June 2005, 10:59 PM	#41
tom hyle 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.

13th June 2005, 03:09 PM	#46
BluErf Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,180	Empu Kumis where are you?? Empu Kumis, if you are reading this, do give us your opinion please. Thanks!

12th June 2005, 05:00 PM	#32
wolviex 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 . Anyway I found this fascinating. 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

12th June 2005, 05:11 PM	#33
wolviex 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!

12th June 2005, 09:43 PM	#34
nechesh 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. But i also think Clapton's greatness is a bit exaggerated too. Good Rock/Blues guitarist with very little originality. No humility there, just being the honest journeyman that he is. 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 especially when trying to do it just from photographs. A big part of the problem is that some of these keris forms can linger for centuries with very little change in appearance. Still, i thing that BluErf has perhaps applied a bit too much age to this piece and i personally would feel more comfortable with late 18th - early 19thC as Boedhi Adhitya suggests. Without any real provenence it is hard to say for sure. I am surprised that the museum has none at all. I would expect that at least getting info like where and when a piece was collected would be standard for any museum. 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.

12th June 2005, 10:26 PM	#38
wolviex 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

12th June 2005, 10:35 PM	#39
tom hyle 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.

13th June 2005, 12:53 AM	#42
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,290	As the only Silverback here I would suggest that we get this thing back on topic immediately . Got it ? Good.

13th June 2005, 05:46 AM	#43
Boedhi Adhitya 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 , but to make sure, i've to handle it myself Bad idea. Anyway, it is a good one, hard to find even here in Java. Just cleaned and put some etch, you may love it more 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.

13th June 2005, 06:12 PM	#48
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,290	Chill Out 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 !

13th June 2005, 06:53 PM	#49
Andrew 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.

13th June 2005, 10:23 PM	#50
wolviex Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Poland, Krakow Posts: 418	Let's continue 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!

14th June 2005, 07:26 AM	#52
Boedhi Adhitya 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 The "Rough" which I refered to, isn't the blade, but the transition feeling from the plain sharp edges, to the ron dha nunut/greneng serrated edges. Java keris tend to look (and feel) smoother than Bali. The greneng/ron dha nunut of Bali keris feel like a protruding thorn, ready to catch anything. 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 Sorry Tom. Asking the Bugis carver to copy Madura's Donoriko handle would also never work either. It's a very specialized, state of the art skill, not only a talent, which many of them, unfortunately, have lost. 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 while "rusak" interpreted as "broken", by war, of course. So, the wearer, would be interpreted as a "war monger, blood lust" person. Unfortunately, the Java king use it as his formal dress. Interpreting "Parang" as a weapon is true only in Melayu/Indonesian language, but it isn't true in Javanese language, where the Parang Rusak motif originated. In Javanese, "Parang" might means the cliff on the sea. "Parang Rusak" means broken cliff, which might be interpreted as "you might as tough as cliff, but in the end, it is broken anyway", and for the king, interpretation might be "even the tough cliff broken, and you wouldn't be the king forever too" Just some insight on how the cultural diffences might turn something upside down

14th June 2005, 11:40 AM	#53
nechesh 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".

14th June 2005, 03:52 PM	#55
tuancd 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.

14th June 2005, 05:28 PM	#56
wolviex 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 . In my case, it doesn't work properly

14th June 2005, 07:14 PM	#57
tuancd 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 Attached Images

15th June 2005, 12:01 AM	#59
tuancd 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. Attached Images

15th June 2005, 06:13 AM	#60
Boedhi Adhitya Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 103	Dear Wolviex, Making a keris handle might be easy, and might be hard, just like the painting Every children might be able to draw something on paper, but only master painter who could make a Monalisa. Some good and talented painter might copy the Monalisa, but if we compare it head-to-head, some experts in painting might say something, don't they ? I didn't say that every good painting must look like Monalisa, but it is "the character" which make some artwork different than another. Just like any good song will bring "a mood" to you when you hear it. The same thing applied to the perfect, state-of-the art handle. It is neither the details nor the shape which make it hard to make. It is "the nuance", "proper balance", "character" or anything, you might name it, which is hard to reach. It takes talent, experience, skill, and most of all, it takes times. Old days mastercarvers or sheathmakers were fully supported by the court. They made their work while "on the mood", as any other artworks. Today carver work "on the need", or according to "the market", not the quality. And anyway, only a little, ridiculously paying attention to details collectors / keris' connoiseurs who might (and able to!) appreciate those "state-of-the art" handle, while they very little in quantity and not willing to pay more for newly made handle, so why bother ? I believe, by studying a lot of good old handles, a young, capable and talented carver might able to make the good ones. But studying more than one style is very hard, because "the character", "proper balance" or anything (as you name it before ) particular to one style might mixed up one-another, and "confuse" the carver. Just like a rocker try to compose some middle-east song might ended up on an alternative ones 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 Sorry, my fault. Until today, I'm only paying attention to what called "pakem" (conform to the rule) handle, especially Jogja's Pakem. I agree to Meneer Cedric that this hilt might came from east java, the "pasisiran", which considered as "out of the court" in 16th. c. But not the blade ! It might be court made ! 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 ). I myself do question the traditional dating methods (Tangguh). Is it really as old as it says ? But, well, no other methods. Even the Sonobudoyo Musem in Jogjakarta asked Pametri Wiji to date their keris collections. Wish some experts on dating, Iron dating particularly, might find another, non-destructive preferably, reliable method. Salam.