A most interesting keris, with figure

[S.Workman]

Hello everyone, I recently became the delighted owner of this wonderful keris. It is from Bali, and has a figure sculpted in by a most skilled craftsman. It appealed to me because I practice yoga, and this little figure is in Anjali Mudra, so I had to get it…
Of course, I would love feedback from people more knowledgeable than I!
I am interested in any idea of what this may have meant to the original owner, or what it means culturally.
The photos were not taken by me but by the seller. I don't think that he would mind me posting them.
BTW, the pamor is incredible.

[S.Workman]

Holy frijoles, no one can tell me about this fellow? Maybe the post went downstream too fast....

[Rick]

Looks like a little rust at the tip you might want to address .
Maybe more specific questions would be warranted .

[A. G. Maisey]

The dress appears to be genuine timoho and it is excellent.

The blade probably dates from the second half of the 19th century and is more likely to be from Lombok than Bali, Bali is not out of the question, its just that manipulated pamors seem to occur more frequently in keris that are certainly Lombok. It is not an unusual pamor. The garap is very good.

The carving on the gandhik is very non-typical, in my opinion it is much later than the blade and has probably been added to the blade to enhance sale value.

In its original form it would have been a good, upper-middle quality keris which in Bali/Lombok at that point in time would have served as both weapon and for social necessity.

This is the type of Balinese keris that seems to have left Bali in the period between about 1920 and 1960, we must of course exclude the the period of the Japanese occupation, but it does qualify as the type of keris that visitors to Bali brought home with them during both the pre-WWII tourist period and the tourist period through to about 1960, or perhaps a little later. Even in the early 1970's old keris were being reworked in Bali to make them more attractive to visitors. In 1982 I bought an old keris with a re-worked gandhik in a photo-processing shop in Bali, it was the last reasonably priced keris I was ever able to buy in Bali.

[David]

Well, to be truthful i was waiting to hear what a few others had to say first.
It is indeed a very attractive keris and i can understand why you were drawn to it. I would love to see a straight on shot from the front of the gandik and the figure there. I guess the first question that comes to mind is whether or not this figure was original to the blade.
Beautifully matched dress of timoho pelet wood.
And yes, i would attend to that rust. It looks very minor now and easy to deal with , but that can change quickly.

[S.Workman]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

The dress appears to be genuine timoho and it is excellent.

The blade probably dates from the second half of the 19th century and is more likely to be from Lombok than Bali, Bali is not out of the question, its just that manipulated pamors seem to occur more frequently in keris that are certainly Lombok. It is not an unusual pamor. The garap is very good.

The carving on the gandhik is very non-typical, in my opinion it is much later than the blade and has probably been added to the blade to enhance sale value.

In its original form it would have been a good, upper-middle quality keris which in Bali/Lombok at that point in time would have served as both weapon and for social necessity.

This is the type of Balinese keris that seems to have left Bali in the period between about 1920 and 1960, we must of course exclude the the period of the Japanese occupation, but it does qualify as the type of keris that visitors to Bali brought home with them during both the pre-WWII tourist period and the tourist period through to about 1960, or perhaps a little later. Even in the early 1970's old keris were being reworked in Bali to make them more attractive to visitors. In 1982 I bought an old keris with a re-worked gandhik in a photo-processing shop in Bali, it was the last reasonably priced keris I was ever able to buy in Bali.

It was said to have been a part of a collection that was very old. I guess this brings up the question of "authentic", i.e., at what point in a keris' life do changes become forgeries? Was there ever a type of decoration like this in that region? All the other figures I have seen seem to be more flat, almost like outlines.
As far as the pamor goes, I like it. I suppose if you have seen hundreds or thousands of keris, it may be no big deal, but I can certainly get lost in the pattern myself.

[David]

Well you chimed in Alan. I was composing my post while you were posting yours so you answered some of my questions while i was writing them.

[David]

Originally Posted by S.Workman

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

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

[A. G. Maisey]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jean]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

The blade probably dates from the second half of the 19th century and is more likely to be from Lombok than Bali, Bali is not out of the question, its just that manipulated pamors seem to occur more frequently in keris that are certainly Lombok. It is not an unusual pamor.

Hello S. Workman,
I attach the pics of 2 blades with a similar pamor and identified as Uler Lulut (snake skin) according to the latest balinese kris book published by the Neka Museum. Yours may be called Uler Lulut Wengkon because of the clearly marked peripheral frame.
Regards

[S.Workman]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[A. G. Maisey]

Bhoma is not Bhima.

Briefly, from my "Interpretation " article:-

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

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


This links to the complete article.

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

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

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

[sirek]

Originally Posted by S.Workman

All the other figures I have seen seem to be more flat, almost like outlines.

I want to share this Hanuman figure on my Bali keris, it is not an old keris but I liked how detailed Hanuman was made.
(and Hanuman is not as common as as the: singa, liman, naga)

[David]

Are you sure that is supposed to be Hanuman? It looks to me like the tail is scaled as in a snake and that the figure is seated on the coil. I've never seen Hanuman in this position, but it does remind me of Manasa, goddess of the snakes in some statue renderings i have seen.

[Rick]

Looks like Hanuman vs a Naga .

[David]

Originally Posted by Rick

Looks like Hanuman vs a Naga .

I suppose that could be possible, but i don't see Hanuman's tail in that case. But i do now see that the naga is a separate entity here, with it's head facing inward in the blumbangan.

[Ganja Iras]

hi there
as i read above ,here i attach some pictures of a figure on the kerisses gandhik ,especially lombok blade.
the first one i call Bhoma ,but some people in lombok also call it Kala Rahu.
and the 2nd one is Kala Sungsang ( the upside down giant )
as a newbie ,i am waiting for any comments from you guys ,to give me more and improve my li'l knowledge about the ancients weapons.

thanks and regards ,

ganja iras

[David]

I like the upside down Kala Sungsang. I would be interested in hearing more stories about this fellow. The images i found don't really tell the tale.

[David]

It appears that additional material was sandwiched around the original gandik area to create the Kala Rahu.