Next keris from Polish Museum - Page 4

Tim Simmons · 21st June 2005, 08:44 AM

Thats better, thanks Tim

marto suwignyo · 21st June 2005, 12:38 PM

Tim:-
since your post of 4.44pm directly follows my post of 11.57am I am assuming that your comment:-

"Thats better, thanks, Tim"

is directed at me.

Would you be so kind as to explain exactly what I have written in my post of 11.57am to generate this comment from you.

I have re-examined what I have written in all three of my posts to this thread, and I cannot detect any significant difference in the stance I have taken in my first post, to that which I have take in my third post.

My position remains that there is no evidence on the table that this wadon handle is a representation of Durga.

If I am in error that you have directed your remarks to me , please accept my most humble apologies for daring to presume.

Tim Simmons · 21st June 2005, 01:37 PM

Hello Marto, it was in appreciation of the less strident assertion of your valued opinion.Tim

tuancd · 21st June 2005, 04:18 PM

Hi everybody

the thread is getting hot!

Thanks to Durga

More seriously, I'll be very pleased if anybody can fulfil Marto's wishes. I doubt it, but i'll sincerely appreciate any clue (and moreover with pics) about a monumental veiled durga.

By the way, if you can get some pics of a monumental statue of Hinduist god in java post 16th and pre 20th, I'm very interested. (Panji is also welcome as are the Pandawa, Korawa etc...)

It's not because there's not a big statue that this handle is not what we say it is. And there are no big statues because of the Islamic rules. Wayang has hardly survived because the Wayang kulit was far enough of the human form representations. You will notice that this have not even been the case for wayang Golek (try to find the same heroes in Wayang kulit and golek and you will realise that some are missing, even for the same stories)

And this does not means that the Hinduism influence has totally disappeared from the Javanese culture. There are plenty of examples of popular art and precisely related to keris that show the evolutions of the sculpture between the 16th and now.

Marto
Doubting your reading is good and sane. At least it means you have read something. By the way, Marto, if you are interested in the subject I humbly suggest that you read the article rather than go trough it.
And before stating that M Kerner, Jensen, de Marval have no credit for their work you'd better read their books before.

I personally do not agree with all of what they say, but I recognise that their work is professional and valuable.
A forum like our is to share opinions and the more we can push the limits of knowledge, the better. Just mind a little respect, that will make the discussion more constructive.

Now regarding the beautiful yellow skin girl…
DURGA
In the ancient Vedic texts, Durga was the consort of Shiva and some Hindu sects regard her as the personification of the primeval creative force, the Divine Mother. She is sometimes referred to as Durga, sometimes as Kali or Shakti. These sects worship Durga as a frequently benevolent, but occasionally unforgiving and destructive, all-powerful goddess, able to punish or bestow grace on mortals to enable them to comprehend (he transparent nature of God.
The Javanese and Balinese variants of Hinduism give a different interpretation of Durga. For them, she is the Goddess of Evil, Darkness and Destruction. Where the origins of the Indian Durga are shrouded in mystic cosmology the Javanese world of wayang has created its own complex stories
about Durga and Guru's other consorts.
The most common story is that Bathara Guru had become angry with his wife, Dewi Umayi, after she had foiled his attempt to have an affair with a young goddess. Guru cursed Umayi, declaring that he would turn her into an ugly ogress. The curse was soon fulfilled in a strange way. Guru and Umayi came across a young ogress deep in meditation. Her name in the Yogyakarta tradition was Dewi Pramuni (elsewhere she is known as Dewi Danupati or Dewi Tendana). Pramuni aspired to be at least as beautiful as the nymphs of Heaven. Guru granted her wish but only on condition that her spirit enter the body of the beautiful Dewi Umayi. Dewi Umayi's spirit in turn was to enter the ugly ogress body of Dewi Pramuni. Pramuni's new-found beauty did not last; she soon adopted all the most dreadful attributes of an ogress and was given the name Durga. Which means 'disappointed' or 'never content". Guru then forced Durga to marry Bathara Kala, the ogre son of his spilled seed. In other versions, it was Dewi Umayi, in her new shape as an ogress, who became Bathari Durga; and Kala married the now beautiful Dewi Pramuni.
As a goddess, Durga lived in Setragandamayi, a lonely place filled with evil spirits and the stench of decaying corpses. She acquired the divine ability to bestow blessings upon all who worshipped her.
Durga is the incarnation of evil in many Javanese wayang stories. With her husband, Bathara Kala, Durga was forever meddling in the affairs of the gods and men, sowing discord between friends and spreading misfortune. She had a particular dislike for Arjuna and his Pandawa brothers, seeking on many occasions to ruin them.
In puppet form as Bathari Durga, her barefooted puppet is oversized, with a hideous face, bulging devils eyes, a wide flat nose and the fangs of a vicious dog. Tell me if it reminds you of something…
That will be all
for today

Tim Simmons · 21st June 2005, 05:10 PM

Why are so called scholars happy to accept the Hindu origin of the "sarpa tapa" and "sarpa lumaka" and a whole host of other Hindu cultral icons such as Naga,Singa,Genesha often shown on the base of the blade.I even have pictures of a Ganesha, carved bone handle from Bali, and yet we are having problems with this handle which as far as I can see is clearly making a sign with her hand, if other Hindu deities are in accepted use why not Durga?Tim

marto suwignyo · 22nd June 2005, 03:33 AM

Thank you for your response, Tim.

I regret that you found my writing style excessively and unpleasantly forceful, most especially so as I am keenly aware of the sometimes quite distasteful remarks which have been exchanged in discussions regarding the keris, and I have attempted to keep my own contributions purely objective. I will apologise in advance for any future offence I may cause to you, as I have already taken several steps back from my normal style of discussion, and have difficulty in identifying how I can make a point in a less forceful manner.

You raise the question:-
Why are so called scholars happy to accept the Hindu origin of the "sarpa tapa" and "sarpa lumaka" and a whole host of other Hindu cultral icons such as Naga,Singa,Genesha often shown on the base of the blade.I even have pictures of a Ganesha, carved bone handle from Bali, and yet we are having problems with this handle which as far as I can see is clearly making a sign with her hand, if other Hindu deities are in accepted use why not Durga?Tim

I think I understand your confusion in this matter, but if we look carefully at the points you have raised, I believe we will come to realisation that we are looking at entirely different questions.The Hindu symbolism that we find in motifs or iconology associated with the keris are often very clear, and have been accepted within Javanese society for extended periods of time. In the case of our wadon handle we have a female figure that we wish to claim as a representation of Durga, but which is not generally recognised within Javanese society as a representation of Durga. I have spent a very long time involved in the study of the keris, and much of that time has been spent in Java. I had never heard the concept of a "veiled Durga" applied to this wadon handle until perhaps about ten years ago, and when I did hear it, it was not in Java, but in a western context.

I have no objection to keris enthusiasts in western societies referring to this handle style as a veiled Durga. We have plenty of precedents for the giving of names concocted in a western context, to keris and components of keris, so if western collectors want to call this handle style a "veiled Durga", let us by all means do so. At least we will all know what we are talking about.

However, if we set out to demonstrate that this handle style was intended by the people who used it, to represent Durga, then we have an entirely different problem.

To provide the evidence needed to allow us to mount a reasonable argument that this handle style is in fact a represenation of Durga, then we need to apply the tools of academic enquiry, as much as those tools may interfere with our fondly held beliefs.
There is a difference between opinion and proof, and to date, all we have in respect of this handle is opinion.

TUAN CD

Please permit me to thank you most sincerely for your well intentioned advice.

Undoubtedly it will come as a surprise to you that not only did I read the Knick-Bumke article, but I also carried out analysis of that article in an attempt to determine how the content could be used to substantiate the claim that the wadon handle is in fact a representation of Durga. Regretably I was unable to extract such proof from my analysis.

I do not believe that I stated that Jensen, Kerner and de Marval should not be given credit for their work. In fact I hold Martin Kerner in high regard, and count him as a friend. I actually collaborated with him in a minor way in the production of his brilliant analytical work on the origin of early keris.
I accept that you feel you are doing me a service by illuminating my percieved inadequacies, but I would ask that if you wish to continue to try to assist me in this way that you please refrain from misquoting me.

Allow me to compliment you upon your erudition in respect of the wayang. Perhaps you may care to continue our education by outlining the way in which the original Javanese dieties were given Hindu names and the new wayang characters became a syncretic representation of both the old Javanese dieties and the new Hindu ones.Then of course we had the influence of Islam, the influence of the courts , the influence of Christianity, and in latter days the influence of the new Indonesia. Fascinating stuff. The wayang serves as an almost perfect example of the ability of the Javanese to absorb, alter, combine and create something new. Just as the Durga of the early classical period was changed into the Betari Durga of the wayang. Possibly you may care to open a new thread, so that the thread content will be relevent to the matter under discussion?

I recognise that the typical Javanese representation of Betari Durga since Kediri has incorporated Kali, however, I fail to see how this is material in the identification of the wadon handle as Durga.

In my earlier post I suggested several criteria that could be satisfied if we wish to demonstrate that this wadon handle is a representation of Durga.

In fact, I believe we should be willing to accept any evidence that this handle is a representation of Durga, provided that the evidence supplied is credible, objective and verifiable.Not just opinion.

Andrew · 22nd June 2005, 05:17 AM

Gentlemen:

This comment is intended for the membership at large, and not to any particular individual.

Allow me to direct everyone's attention, once again, to this thread:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=4

Please pay particular attention to this:

Quote:

3. FLAMES, INSULTS, BIGOTRY & THREATS

Flames or insults are strictly against the rules. If you disagree with another member's point of view, do so in a mature and civil manner. Civility and respect towards other participants are unconditionally expected.

If you find yourself being flamed or insulted by another member, please do not dignify that person with a response. Notify a moderator and let us handle it. If you feel you must respond to a flame or insult directly, please do NOT do so on the board - use private messages or e-mail.

Suggestion: If you are consistently or particularly irritated by another member's posting habits and are constantly fighting the urge to flame them, you can click on that person's profile, and select "Add to ignore list." This will make that person's posts invisible to you.

This is an international discussion group, a fact that the Staff is particularly proud of. Threads or replies promoting or expressing intolerant views towards any group (e.g., culture, race, religion, national origin, etc.) are never appropriate and will not be allowed. Please keep in mind that, while communications on the forum are to be conducted in English, many members are not communicating in their native language, and misunderstandings can occur. The forum is home to members from varied nations and cultures, so it is important to remember that how you say something is often as important as what you say.

Threatening other members will not be tolerated. This includes threats of physical violence, threats of property damage, death threats, terrorist threats, or threatening to hack another person's online identity or computer.

Keris threads, in particular, seem to be riddled with veiled insults, challenges and innuendo. Please don't participate in that fashion.

Thank you for your support.

Andrew

tuancd · 22nd June 2005, 11:05 AM

Dear Andrew

Thanks for the moderation you bring to this enthusiast discussion

Dear Marto

I'm pleased that we have clarified our common appreciation of the valuable work that has been done. More over I'm pleased to know you have contributed to Kerner's work. He was by the way one of the first to associate this kind of hulu to Durga veiled or unveiled. (cf The keris Sudamala 1999)

If I have made you feel misquoted, I apologised It was not my intention. It’s probably my French way of talking English that misled you.

Now if I read again all your posts,
You would only consider evidences as credible, objective and verifiable if
They don’t come from Wayang (the only iconographic art that survived the iconoclasts)
If it is not related to Kerner’s , Jesen’s ,de Marval’s or my own work. (not bad works but westerner)
If they are from a local point of view
And ultimately if there is a big statue from java that shows it.

I must admit it’s going to be difficult.

For my part and until I can convince you or that you can explain me the origin of a senseless hulu, I’ll keep my opinion on the Durga representation.
best regards
Cedric

tuancd · 22nd June 2005, 11:52 AM

To come back from where we started

This Mendak looks like half one from Solo. Time and wear may have done some damages to it, but it does not seem much space for an other half. It fits the handle properly and could be of the same age. It looks to be in a mixed alloy of brass with a lot of copper. It could be interesting to analyze it. Brass is an alloy of copper and zinc, as everybody knows, but before the 16th it was copper and tin…
Best regards
Cedric

wolviex · 22nd June 2005, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew

Keris threads, in particular, seem to be riddled with veiled insults, challenges and innuendo. Please don't participate in that fashion.

I think that’s another magical feature of the kerises – to set people in variance with each other

Marto and tuancd – I would like to thank you both for this discussion. Marto as usually expounded very logically what was his point in this discussion, and I appreciate it. It is very valuable, and I hope to hear/read more from you about kerises – especially if you will see that we are wandering in the subject. Do not apologize for your sometimes harsh posts – maybe we are in need of something like this. I really hope that tuancd didn’t mention to hurt you in any matter, and vice versa. We have got here a hot discussion anyway, so Gentlemen, please keep the high level!

Marto, I will play like an obnoxiously child, because I will once again put some arguments on Durga hilt. Well, to be honest, I’m not sure we can call it evidence, but I’m sure it is good to mention it just for the order. There was an article in German magazine “Zeitschrift fur Historische Waffen- und Kostumkunde” (1966, heft 1) by Eugen v. Philippovich titled „Indonesische Furstenwaffen“, where we can find similar handle (pictures below). He is also calling this handle as a depiction of Durga (Doerga), and he put only one, but simple explanation. Author has even pointed that she is easily recognizable, among the others, thanks to the abstract depiction of the head. It is abstract because she covered it with veil (didn’t we talk about it?). So my question is, is there any other goddess/deity covering herself? I’m not sure if I can ask Marto for another (repeated) crushingly

explanation against it, but I hope it was worth to mention.

Tim: as always you have interesting pictures. Can you explain what do our fingers mean, according to the pictures of hands you’ve posted? Even if it is no evidence in this discussion, it is good to know.

Regards!

tuancd · 23rd June 2005, 01:40 AM

Nyai Loro Kidul
or
Nyi roro kidul
she also is veiled because of a curse which made her ugly. Here is her story

Pajajaran kingdom was located in West Java from 1333 AD to 1630 AD and it was conquered by the Islamic kingdom of Mataram from Central Java. Pajajaran's greatest ruler was Prabu Siliwangi. He had a bride in one his harems and she bore him a very beautiful daughter. The girl was called Dewi Kadita. The beauty of Dewi Kadita and her mother made the other harems jealous, and they formed a conspiracy against them.

The harems used black magic to make the bodies of Dewi Kadita and her mother be filthy, ugly and disgusting. Prabu Siliwangi got angry at Dewi Kadita and her mother and forced them to get out of the palace, as they were thought to be bad luck for the kingdom. While they were wandering around the country, the mother died. Dewi Kadita was walking in deep sadness, until she reached the southern sea (the shore of Indian Ocean).

She sat above a stove-shaped rock and when she was sleeping, she had a vision that she should jump into the water to release herself from the curse. When she woke up, with no second thought, Dewi Kadita jumped into the sea. She once again became very beautiful, but then she realized that she was not a human anymore. She had turned into a supernatural form of life. She then ruled all creatures off the southern coast of Java Island, and was known as Nyi Roro Kidul (queen of the southern sea). As revenge on her father, she became the primary bride for Mataram kings (the rival of the Pajajaran kingdom).

The river of Bengawan Solo, which started from the mystical mountain of Merapi in Central Java and leads to the Indian Ocean, is said to be the tunnel used by Nyi Roro Kidul to access Java. In a green costume, she traps males who are walking on the shore. They are swallowed by the waves and are thought to be missing or dead but will actually become her guard or mate.

marto suwignyo · 23rd June 2005, 03:16 AM

TUAN CD

Thank you for your apology. It is unnecessary, as even though I did consider that I had been misquoted, I have at no time taken offence at anything you have written. I understand that you are working with a foriegn language, but that apart, there is really nothing in anything you have written that could cause offence to a reasonable person. I assure you, that were some of the meetings that I need to attend conducted with the same level of civility that you and other contributors to this Forum regularly display, the participants in those meetings would be laughed out of the room.

Yes, I am aware of what Martin has written in his Sudamala work.
Martin was the head of a Swiss government instrumentality responsible for calibration and audit of weights, measures and so forth. I forget the name of the instrumentality, but Martin`s professional background and training is in mathematics and statistics. His work on the origin of early keris utilised his professional skills, and the result is , in my opinion, a landmark work in the study of the keris. However, when Martin wrote in other fields, such as he did with the Sudamala work, he regretably did not provide references for the material presented in his text. Thus we are left with anthropological works written by a mathmatician . What Martin has presented may be factual, or it may not, but without the references it will never be accepted by academia as authoritative.
I am not degrading Martin`s work here:- it is good, popular reference material by an experienced collector, and I have said no more above than I have expressed to Martin himself. In fact, I have said much less than I have said to Martin.

In so far as proofs are concerned.
Let me try to explain my position on this by way of analogy.
If I and my wife produce a child, we have the right to give that child a name.
If I and my wife die immediately after the birth of the child and somebody else raises the child, that other person has the right to give the child a name.
If we die after the child has grown a little, and another person adopts the child, depending on circumstances, the adopter may or may not have naming rights to the child.
In any case, the family to which the child belongs will know the name of the child, and it would be quite incorrect for somebody from outside the family to address the child by another name.
However, let us say that a neighbour has a fondness for the child. That neighbour may well give the child his own pet name, recognised by the child, recognised by the neighbour, but not used by the child`s family.
The child`s official name remains the name given it by its parents.
Now, one day a stranger notices the child, and because of certain features that remind the stranger of some other child that he once knew, the stranger decides that the child`s name is different again from the official name.
But this stranger does not have the right to affix to the child the name upon which he has decided .
The child may forever have a particular name for that stranger, but it is not the child`s official name, nor is it the name by which the child is known to those close to him.

So it is with our wadon handle, or for that matter with any object from any culture or belief system of which we are not a part :-
we are strangers to the culture from which the handle bearing this figure comes, if we wish to know the name by which the figure is known within its own culture, we must have somebody from the culture, who posses this knowledge, pass the knowledge to us. If such a person does not exist, then to establish the true identity of the figure we must employ the tools of academic enquiry. To interpret this figure from our own cultural base, from our own understanding of things which are perhaps beyond our understanding, is not acceptable.

However, just as with the stranger who knew not the name of the child, there is nothing to stop us giving this handle, or any other object, our own name for it, provided that we do not delude ourselves into believing that the name we have given is the name by which this object was known in its culture of origin.

Tuan CD, I am not taking a stance against the wayang:- an understanding of the wayang is essential to an understanding of the keris, and to Javanese culture in general, however, it is vital that we recognise that wayang is popular entertainment, and it undergoes continual change, even today, it is still changing. If we wish to use something from the wayang to make a point, we must try to relate the same space in time occupied by the wayang to the point that we are trying to make. What I mean by this is, that the wayang as it is in 2005 cannot be used to substantiate something that applied in 1605, and of course, vice versa.

WOLVIEX

I thank you for drawing our attention to the Phillipovich use of the Durga attrubution in 1966.

I was not aware of this earler usage.

If you have access to this work, can you advise if Phillipovich`s usage of the term is referenced, and if not, is Phillipovich a trained professional in a relevant field and does she substantiate her usage?

The argument for a Durga attribution that you have precised seems to indicate that Phillipovich is using a similar style of logic to that which others have applied in naming this form "Durga". For instance, I have in front of me eight handles with a female form.Three are variations of the wadon form which we have been discussing, one is an abstract but unmistakeably female form,another is an even more abstract form, one is Rangda, one a more or less normal female, the last is a nightmare with female characteristics.Of all these figures, only Rangda is easily identifiable. The others could be anything, and an argument could be constructed to support almost any attribution. In fact, I could probably construct a more convincing argument that any one of these figures is in fact Little Red Riding Hood, than any argument I have yet heard to support the Durga attribution for our original handle form.

Wolviex, you ask:-

"So my question is, is there any other goddess/deity covering herself?"

I`m not at all certain that this is the right question, Wolviex.
Do we yet have a proof that the figure depicted is in fact covering herself? I think not.
Do we yet have a proof that the oft mentioned veil is in fact a veil? I think not.
Do we yet have a proof that the depictation is indeed a deity? I think not.
Do we yet have a proof that we are in fact looking at Durga? I think not.

As far as I can see, we are back at square one:- we have a female figure that somebody has chosen to call Durga, but we do not yet have any evidence available that this is the name that would have been applied to this figure in the culture from which it has come, and at the time when it was produced.
I`m sorry if my standards are too demanding to allow me to be in agreement with this Durga thing, but I have spent better than 50 years watching the fumbled misinterpretation of a cultural icon that many people within Javanese culture believe sits at the center of that culture. Very few people have taken a serious approach to the keris, and speaking for myself, I would very much like to see a stop put to the perpetuation of erroneous supposition.

Andrew · 23rd June 2005, 04:25 AM

Quote:

I assure you, that were some of the meetings that I need to attend conducted with the same level of civility that you and other contributors to this Forum regularly display, the participants in those meetings would be laughed out of the room.

What do you mean, please?

marto suwignyo · 23rd June 2005, 05:22 AM

Andrew
In response to your enquiry.
I regularly attend meetings involving both business matters and political matters.
The people who attend these meetings, are in the case of the business meetings, mature professionals in several business related fields, and in the case of the politically orientated meetings the committee memberships are comprised of people from a wide variety of backgrounds, including academic, military, political and business.
From time to time discussion at the meetings which I attend becomes quite spirited.On these occasions the language used and the comments made could easily cause offence to people who were unused to this type of environment. If a person attending these meetings attempted to put his point of view in the extremely civil and delicate manner which is usually observed by contributors to this forum, that person would be laughed out of the room by his fellows.
My comment was intended as praise, not in a derogatory fashion.
I regret that my intent was unclear to you.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain to me how my words could be interpreted in any other than a complimentary way. If there is a defect in my English expression I would be very glad to be made aware of it.

Andrew · 23rd June 2005, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marto suwignyo

Andrew
In response to your enquiry.
I regularly attend meetings involving both business matters and political matters.
The people who attend these meetings, are in the case of the business meetings, mature professionals in several business related fields, and in the case of the politically orientated meetings the committee memberships are comprised of people from a wide variety of backgrounds, including academic, military, political and business.
From time to time discussion at the meetings which I attend becomes quite spirited.On these occasions the language used and the comments made could easily cause offence to people who were unused to this type of environment. If a person attending these meetings attempted to put his point of view in the extremely civil and delicate manner which is usually observed by contributors to this forum, that person would be laughed out of the room by his fellows.
My comment was intended as praise, not in a derogatory fashion.
I regret that my intent was unclear to you.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain to me how my words could be interpreted in any other than a complimentary way. If there is a defect in my English expression I would be very glad to be made aware of it.

Marto,

Thank you, very much, for the explanation. The plain language of your post was clear. I'm just not yet familiar with your internet "personality".

Best regards,
Andrew

marto suwignyo · 23rd June 2005, 06:38 AM

Thank you for your clarification, Andrew.

wolviex · 25th June 2005, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marto suwignyo

If you have access to this work, can you advise if Phillipovich`s usage of the term is referenced, and if not, is Phillipovich a trained professional in a relevant field and does she substantiate her usage?

Unfortunately I don't know nothing about Phillipovich and other works of this author. Describing this Keris Phillipovich mentioned only two references:
B. Dudik, Kleinodien des Deutschen Ritterordens, S. 46, Nr. 211

W.O.J. Nieuwenkamp, Beeldhouw-Kunst von Bali, Tf. 42. s’Gravenhage 1937,

and I don't know if there you can find any other Durga hints - I suppose no. So for now, I feel quite convinced that we shouldn't call this handle Durga. But this is causing other problems. Why the handles like this were called this way - was it just European idea, because this goddes was well known? Was there any tradition? And what is more important, somone who made handles like this, was probably making concrete goddess, not just a woman handle, am I right? Is this tradition lost for good? Or are there any chances to discover the meaning of this handles?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuancd

This Mendak looks like half one from Solo. Time and wear may have done some damages to it, but it does not seem much space for an other half. It fits the handle properly and could be of the same age.

Thank you for this hint. It is true that medak fits handle very well. Because there are no other different opinions, I understand this is all true

Regards

marto suwignyo · 26th June 2005, 03:45 AM

Thank you for your response, Wolviex.

Regretably I do not understand the language in which the references are written. Perhaps somebody with knowledge of this language could track down the references and verify if use of the Durga attribution has any basis in fact.

I feel sure that at the time these handles were made and used, there was some symbolic intent:- Durga? or some other female figure? I don`t know, but what I do know is that some people associated with the world of the keris in Java at the present time refer to this handle as "wadon"---just "female".What it may have been known as originally I do not know, and without good, solid proofs I am not prepared to put forward an opinion.

The provision of evidence to allow this handle form to be named as a representation of any particular deity could well use a lifetime of research.

To call it "Durga" in the first place may well have been a bit of European invention. Look at the "keris Mojopahit". Javanese people never knew that the keris sajen was called a keris Mojopahit until a European told them. Who was right? The European, or the Javanese people?

I think that as far as this handle goes, for the time being we might have to acknowledge that we just do not know who, or what, it is supposed to represent.

22nd June 2005, 03:33 AM	#96
marto suwignyo Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 52	Thank you for your response, Tim. I regret that you found my writing style excessively and unpleasantly forceful, most especially so as I am keenly aware of the sometimes quite distasteful remarks which have been exchanged in discussions regarding the keris, and I have attempted to keep my own contributions purely objective. I will apologise in advance for any future offence I may cause to you, as I have already taken several steps back from my normal style of discussion, and have difficulty in identifying how I can make a point in a less forceful manner. You raise the question:- Why are so called scholars happy to accept the Hindu origin of the "sarpa tapa" and "sarpa lumaka" and a whole host of other Hindu cultral icons such as Naga,Singa,Genesha often shown on the base of the blade.I even have pictures of a Ganesha, carved bone handle from Bali, and yet we are having problems with this handle which as far as I can see is clearly making a sign with her hand, if other Hindu deities are in accepted use why not Durga?Tim I think I understand your confusion in this matter, but if we look carefully at the points you have raised, I believe we will come to realisation that we are looking at entirely different questions.The Hindu symbolism that we find in motifs or iconology associated with the keris are often very clear, and have been accepted within Javanese society for extended periods of time. In the case of our wadon handle we have a female figure that we wish to claim as a representation of Durga, but which is not generally recognised within Javanese society as a representation of Durga. I have spent a very long time involved in the study of the keris, and much of that time has been spent in Java. I had never heard the concept of a "veiled Durga" applied to this wadon handle until perhaps about ten years ago, and when I did hear it, it was not in Java, but in a western context. I have no objection to keris enthusiasts in western societies referring to this handle style as a veiled Durga. We have plenty of precedents for the giving of names concocted in a western context, to keris and components of keris, so if western collectors want to call this handle style a "veiled Durga", let us by all means do so. At least we will all know what we are talking about. However, if we set out to demonstrate that this handle style was intended by the people who used it, to represent Durga, then we have an entirely different problem. To provide the evidence needed to allow us to mount a reasonable argument that this handle style is in fact a represenation of Durga, then we need to apply the tools of academic enquiry, as much as those tools may interfere with our fondly held beliefs. There is a difference between opinion and proof, and to date, all we have in respect of this handle is opinion. TUAN CD Please permit me to thank you most sincerely for your well intentioned advice. Undoubtedly it will come as a surprise to you that not only did I read the Knick-Bumke article, but I also carried out analysis of that article in an attempt to determine how the content could be used to substantiate the claim that the wadon handle is in fact a representation of Durga. Regretably I was unable to extract such proof from my analysis. I do not believe that I stated that Jensen, Kerner and de Marval should not be given credit for their work. In fact I hold Martin Kerner in high regard, and count him as a friend. I actually collaborated with him in a minor way in the production of his brilliant analytical work on the origin of early keris. I accept that you feel you are doing me a service by illuminating my percieved inadequacies, but I would ask that if you wish to continue to try to assist me in this way that you please refrain from misquoting me. Allow me to compliment you upon your erudition in respect of the wayang. Perhaps you may care to continue our education by outlining the way in which the original Javanese dieties were given Hindu names and the new wayang characters became a syncretic representation of both the old Javanese dieties and the new Hindu ones.Then of course we had the influence of Islam, the influence of the courts , the influence of Christianity, and in latter days the influence of the new Indonesia. Fascinating stuff. The wayang serves as an almost perfect example of the ability of the Javanese to absorb, alter, combine and create something new. Just as the Durga of the early classical period was changed into the Betari Durga of the wayang. Possibly you may care to open a new thread, so that the thread content will be relevent to the matter under discussion? I recognise that the typical Javanese representation of Betari Durga since Kediri has incorporated Kali, however, I fail to see how this is material in the identification of the wadon handle as Durga. In my earlier post I suggested several criteria that could be satisfied if we wish to demonstrate that this wadon handle is a representation of Durga. In fact, I believe we should be willing to accept any evidence that this handle is a representation of Durga, provided that the evidence supplied is credible, objective and verifiable.Not just opinion. Last edited by marto suwignyo; 22nd June 2005 at 06:39 AM.

22nd June 2005, 11:52 AM	#99
tuancd Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Paris - Bruxelles Posts: 32	To come back from where we started This Mendak looks like half one from Solo. Time and wear may have done some damages to it, but it does not seem much space for an other half. It fits the handle properly and could be of the same age. It looks to be in a mixed alloy of brass with a lot of copper. It could be interesting to analyze it. Brass is an alloy of copper and zinc, as everybody knows, but before the 16th it was copper and tin… Best regards Cedric Attached Images

23rd June 2005, 03:16 AM	#102
marto suwignyo Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 52	TUAN CD Thank you for your apology. It is unnecessary, as even though I did consider that I had been misquoted, I have at no time taken offence at anything you have written. I understand that you are working with a foriegn language, but that apart, there is really nothing in anything you have written that could cause offence to a reasonable person. I assure you, that were some of the meetings that I need to attend conducted with the same level of civility that you and other contributors to this Forum regularly display, the participants in those meetings would be laughed out of the room. Yes, I am aware of what Martin has written in his Sudamala work. Martin was the head of a Swiss government instrumentality responsible for calibration and audit of weights, measures and so forth. I forget the name of the instrumentality, but Martin`s professional background and training is in mathematics and statistics. His work on the origin of early keris utilised his professional skills, and the result is , in my opinion, a landmark work in the study of the keris. However, when Martin wrote in other fields, such as he did with the Sudamala work, he regretably did not provide references for the material presented in his text. Thus we are left with anthropological works written by a mathmatician . What Martin has presented may be factual, or it may not, but without the references it will never be accepted by academia as authoritative. I am not degrading Martin`s work here:- it is good, popular reference material by an experienced collector, and I have said no more above than I have expressed to Martin himself. In fact, I have said much less than I have said to Martin. In so far as proofs are concerned. Let me try to explain my position on this by way of analogy. If I and my wife produce a child, we have the right to give that child a name. If I and my wife die immediately after the birth of the child and somebody else raises the child, that other person has the right to give the child a name. If we die after the child has grown a little, and another person adopts the child, depending on circumstances, the adopter may or may not have naming rights to the child. In any case, the family to which the child belongs will know the name of the child, and it would be quite incorrect for somebody from outside the family to address the child by another name. However, let us say that a neighbour has a fondness for the child. That neighbour may well give the child his own pet name, recognised by the child, recognised by the neighbour, but not used by the child`s family. The child`s official name remains the name given it by its parents. Now, one day a stranger notices the child, and because of certain features that remind the stranger of some other child that he once knew, the stranger decides that the child`s name is different again from the official name. But this stranger does not have the right to affix to the child the name upon which he has decided . The child may forever have a particular name for that stranger, but it is not the child`s official name, nor is it the name by which the child is known to those close to him. So it is with our wadon handle, or for that matter with any object from any culture or belief system of which we are not a part :- we are strangers to the culture from which the handle bearing this figure comes, if we wish to know the name by which the figure is known within its own culture, we must have somebody from the culture, who posses this knowledge, pass the knowledge to us. If such a person does not exist, then to establish the true identity of the figure we must employ the tools of academic enquiry. To interpret this figure from our own cultural base, from our own understanding of things which are perhaps beyond our understanding, is not acceptable. However, just as with the stranger who knew not the name of the child, there is nothing to stop us giving this handle, or any other object, our own name for it, provided that we do not delude ourselves into believing that the name we have given is the name by which this object was known in its culture of origin. Tuan CD, I am not taking a stance against the wayang:- an understanding of the wayang is essential to an understanding of the keris, and to Javanese culture in general, however, it is vital that we recognise that wayang is popular entertainment, and it undergoes continual change, even today, it is still changing. If we wish to use something from the wayang to make a point, we must try to relate the same space in time occupied by the wayang to the point that we are trying to make. What I mean by this is, that the wayang as it is in 2005 cannot be used to substantiate something that applied in 1605, and of course, vice versa. WOLVIEX I thank you for drawing our attention to the Phillipovich use of the Durga attrubution in 1966. I was not aware of this earler usage. If you have access to this work, can you advise if Phillipovich`s usage of the term is referenced, and if not, is Phillipovich a trained professional in a relevant field and does she substantiate her usage? The argument for a Durga attribution that you have precised seems to indicate that Phillipovich is using a similar style of logic to that which others have applied in naming this form "Durga". For instance, I have in front of me eight handles with a female form.Three are variations of the wadon form which we have been discussing, one is an abstract but unmistakeably female form,another is an even more abstract form, one is Rangda, one a more or less normal female, the last is a nightmare with female characteristics.Of all these figures, only Rangda is easily identifiable. The others could be anything, and an argument could be constructed to support almost any attribution. In fact, I could probably construct a more convincing argument that any one of these figures is in fact Little Red Riding Hood, than any argument I have yet heard to support the Durga attribution for our original handle form. Wolviex, you ask:- "So my question is, is there any other goddess/deity covering herself?" I`m not at all certain that this is the right question, Wolviex. Do we yet have a proof that the figure depicted is in fact covering herself? I think not. Do we yet have a proof that the oft mentioned veil is in fact a veil? I think not. Do we yet have a proof that the depictation is indeed a deity? I think not. Do we yet have a proof that we are in fact looking at Durga? I think not. As far as I can see, we are back at square one:- we have a female figure that somebody has chosen to call Durga, but we do not yet have any evidence available that this is the name that would have been applied to this figure in the culture from which it has come, and at the time when it was produced. I`m sorry if my standards are too demanding to allow me to be in agreement with this Durga thing, but I have spent better than 50 years watching the fumbled misinterpretation of a cultural icon that many people within Javanese culture believe sits at the center of that culture. Very few people have taken a serious approach to the keris, and speaking for myself, I would very much like to see a stop put to the perpetuation of erroneous supposition. Last edited by marto suwignyo; 23rd June 2005 at 09:56 AM.

21st June 2005, 08:44 AM	#91
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,807	Thats better, thanks Tim

21st June 2005, 12:38 PM	#92
marto suwignyo Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 52	Tim:- since your post of 4.44pm directly follows my post of 11.57am I am assuming that your comment:- "Thats better, thanks, Tim" is directed at me. Would you be so kind as to explain exactly what I have written in my post of 11.57am to generate this comment from you. I have re-examined what I have written in all three of my posts to this thread, and I cannot detect any significant difference in the stance I have taken in my first post, to that which I have take in my third post. My position remains that there is no evidence on the table that this wadon handle is a representation of Durga. If I am in error that you have directed your remarks to me , please accept my most humble apologies for daring to presume.

21st June 2005, 01:37 PM	#93
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,807	Hello Marto, it was in appreciation of the less strident assertion of your valued opinion.Tim

21st June 2005, 04:18 PM	#94
tuancd Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Paris - Bruxelles Posts: 32	Hi everybody the thread is getting hot! Thanks to Durga More seriously, I'll be very pleased if anybody can fulfil Marto's wishes. I doubt it, but i'll sincerely appreciate any clue (and moreover with pics) about a monumental veiled durga. By the way, if you can get some pics of a monumental statue of Hinduist god in java post 16th and pre 20th, I'm very interested. (Panji is also welcome as are the Pandawa, Korawa etc...) It's not because there's not a big statue that this handle is not what we say it is. And there are no big statues because of the Islamic rules. Wayang has hardly survived because the Wayang kulit was far enough of the human form representations. You will notice that this have not even been the case for wayang Golek (try to find the same heroes in Wayang kulit and golek and you will realise that some are missing, even for the same stories) And this does not means that the Hinduism influence has totally disappeared from the Javanese culture. There are plenty of examples of popular art and precisely related to keris that show the evolutions of the sculpture between the 16th and now. Marto Doubting your reading is good and sane. At least it means you have read something. By the way, Marto, if you are interested in the subject I humbly suggest that you read the article rather than go trough it. And before stating that M Kerner, Jensen, de Marval have no credit for their work you'd better read their books before. I personally do not agree with all of what they say, but I recognise that their work is professional and valuable. A forum like our is to share opinions and the more we can push the limits of knowledge, the better. Just mind a little respect, that will make the discussion more constructive. Now regarding the beautiful yellow skin girl… DURGA In the ancient Vedic texts, Durga was the consort of Shiva and some Hindu sects regard her as the personification of the primeval creative force, the Divine Mother. She is sometimes referred to as Durga, sometimes as Kali or Shakti. These sects worship Durga as a frequently benevolent, but occasionally unforgiving and destructive, all-powerful goddess, able to punish or bestow grace on mortals to enable them to comprehend (he transparent nature of God. The Javanese and Balinese variants of Hinduism give a different interpretation of Durga. For them, she is the Goddess of Evil, Darkness and Destruction. Where the origins of the Indian Durga are shrouded in mystic cosmology the Javanese world of wayang has created its own complex stories about Durga and Guru's other consorts. The most common story is that Bathara Guru had become angry with his wife, Dewi Umayi, after she had foiled his attempt to have an affair with a young goddess. Guru cursed Umayi, declaring that he would turn her into an ugly ogress. The curse was soon fulfilled in a strange way. Guru and Umayi came across a young ogress deep in meditation. Her name in the Yogyakarta tradition was Dewi Pramuni (elsewhere she is known as Dewi Danupati or Dewi Tendana). Pramuni aspired to be at least as beautiful as the nymphs of Heaven. Guru granted her wish but only on condition that her spirit enter the body of the beautiful Dewi Umayi. Dewi Umayi's spirit in turn was to enter the ugly ogress body of Dewi Pramuni. Pramuni's new-found beauty did not last; she soon adopted all the most dreadful attributes of an ogress and was given the name Durga. Which means 'disappointed' or 'never content". Guru then forced Durga to marry Bathara Kala, the ogre son of his spilled seed. In other versions, it was Dewi Umayi, in her new shape as an ogress, who became Bathari Durga; and Kala married the now beautiful Dewi Pramuni. As a goddess, Durga lived in Setragandamayi, a lonely place filled with evil spirits and the stench of decaying corpses. She acquired the divine ability to bestow blessings upon all who worshipped her. Durga is the incarnation of evil in many Javanese wayang stories. With her husband, Bathara Kala, Durga was forever meddling in the affairs of the gods and men, sowing discord between friends and spreading misfortune. She had a particular dislike for Arjuna and his Pandawa brothers, seeking on many occasions to ruin them. In puppet form as Bathari Durga, her barefooted puppet is oversized, with a hideous face, bulging devils eyes, a wide flat nose and the fangs of a vicious dog. Tell me if it reminds you of something… That will be all for today

21st June 2005, 05:10 PM	#95
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,807	Why are so called scholars happy to accept the Hindu origin of the "sarpa tapa" and "sarpa lumaka" and a whole host of other Hindu cultral icons such as Naga,Singa,Genesha often shown on the base of the blade.I even have pictures of a Ganesha, carved bone handle from Bali, and yet we are having problems with this handle which as far as I can see is clearly making a sign with her hand, if other Hindu deities are in accepted use why not Durga?Tim

22nd June 2005, 11:05 AM	#98
tuancd Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Paris - Bruxelles Posts: 32	Dear Andrew Thanks for the moderation you bring to this enthusiast discussion Dear Marto I'm pleased that we have clarified our common appreciation of the valuable work that has been done. More over I'm pleased to know you have contributed to Kerner's work. He was by the way one of the first to associate this kind of hulu to Durga veiled or unveiled. (cf The keris Sudamala 1999) If I have made you feel misquoted, I apologised It was not my intention. It’s probably my French way of talking English that misled you. Now if I read again all your posts, You would only consider evidences as credible, objective and verifiable if They don’t come from Wayang (the only iconographic art that survived the iconoclasts) If it is not related to Kerner’s , Jesen’s ,de Marval’s or my own work. (not bad works but westerner) If they are from a local point of view And ultimately if there is a big statue from java that shows it. I must admit it’s going to be difficult. For my part and until I can convince you or that you can explain me the origin of a senseless hulu, I’ll keep my opinion on the Durga representation. best regards Cedric

23rd June 2005, 01:40 AM	#101
tuancd Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Paris - Bruxelles Posts: 32	Nyai Loro Kidul or Nyi roro kidul she also is veiled because of a curse which made her ugly. Here is her story Pajajaran kingdom was located in West Java from 1333 AD to 1630 AD and it was conquered by the Islamic kingdom of Mataram from Central Java. Pajajaran's greatest ruler was Prabu Siliwangi. He had a bride in one his harems and she bore him a very beautiful daughter. The girl was called Dewi Kadita. The beauty of Dewi Kadita and her mother made the other harems jealous, and they formed a conspiracy against them. The harems used black magic to make the bodies of Dewi Kadita and her mother be filthy, ugly and disgusting. Prabu Siliwangi got angry at Dewi Kadita and her mother and forced them to get out of the palace, as they were thought to be bad luck for the kingdom. While they were wandering around the country, the mother died. Dewi Kadita was walking in deep sadness, until she reached the southern sea (the shore of Indian Ocean). She sat above a stove-shaped rock and when she was sleeping, she had a vision that she should jump into the water to release herself from the curse. When she woke up, with no second thought, Dewi Kadita jumped into the sea. She once again became very beautiful, but then she realized that she was not a human anymore. She had turned into a supernatural form of life. She then ruled all creatures off the southern coast of Java Island, and was known as Nyi Roro Kidul (queen of the southern sea). As revenge on her father, she became the primary bride for Mataram kings (the rival of the Pajajaran kingdom). The river of Bengawan Solo, which started from the mystical mountain of Merapi in Central Java and leads to the Indian Ocean, is said to be the tunnel used by Nyi Roro Kidul to access Java. In a green costume, she traps males who are walking on the shore. They are swallowed by the waves and are thought to be missing or dead but will actually become her guard or mate.

23rd June 2005, 05:22 AM	#104
marto suwignyo Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 52	Andrew In response to your enquiry. I regularly attend meetings involving both business matters and political matters. The people who attend these meetings, are in the case of the business meetings, mature professionals in several business related fields, and in the case of the politically orientated meetings the committee memberships are comprised of people from a wide variety of backgrounds, including academic, military, political and business. From time to time discussion at the meetings which I attend becomes quite spirited.On these occasions the language used and the comments made could easily cause offence to people who were unused to this type of environment. If a person attending these meetings attempted to put his point of view in the extremely civil and delicate manner which is usually observed by contributors to this forum, that person would be laughed out of the room by his fellows. My comment was intended as praise, not in a derogatory fashion. I regret that my intent was unclear to you. Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain to me how my words could be interpreted in any other than a complimentary way. If there is a defect in my English expression I would be very glad to be made aware of it.

23rd June 2005, 06:38 AM	#106
marto suwignyo Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 52	Thank you for your clarification, Andrew.

26th June 2005, 03:45 AM	#108
marto suwignyo Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 52	Thank you for your response, Wolviex. Regretably I do not understand the language in which the references are written. Perhaps somebody with knowledge of this language could track down the references and verify if use of the Durga attribution has any basis in fact. I feel sure that at the time these handles were made and used, there was some symbolic intent:- Durga? or some other female figure? I don`t know, but what I do know is that some people associated with the world of the keris in Java at the present time refer to this handle as "wadon"---just "female".What it may have been known as originally I do not know, and without good, solid proofs I am not prepared to put forward an opinion. The provision of evidence to allow this handle form to be named as a representation of any particular deity could well use a lifetime of research. To call it "Durga" in the first place may well have been a bit of European invention. Look at the "keris Mojopahit". Javanese people never knew that the keris sajen was called a keris Mojopahit until a European told them. Who was right? The European, or the Javanese people? I think that as far as this handle goes, for the time being we might have to acknowledge that we just do not know who, or what, it is supposed to represent.