Michael, I know how to post them , what I do not yet know is how I can photograph them to show what I need to show. I have remarked previously that photographs are no substitute for handling something, they may be of some use when somebody has sufficient experience to fill in the gaps, but where you need to try to demonstrate something from scratch, they can confuse more than assist.
Regarding classification of your hilt, if we just consider the pawakan of your hilt, it is vaguely conical---the lower part is fatter than the upper part and this upper part comes to a peak, as dictated by material.My understanding of classification of Madura hilts comes from Suhartono Rahardjo's little book.In this he seems to classify anything vaguely conical, or anything roundish but with total foliate cover, as "janggelan".He classifies handles that we would normally call "raksasa" as "putra satu", in other words you need a distinctly recognisable raksasa face and form to be able to classify as "putra satu".
My opinion on this subject is not what I would call an informed opinion. I have had no instruction worthy of consideration from any acknowledged authority on Madura keris. Thus, I am not prepared to say that I consider anything to be the case in respect of Madura hilts, which is a specialised field of study in its own right.What I am prepared to comment on is this:- if we look at a sufficient number of old Madura hilts, we can see common form and common features, expressed in differing ways, in all the hilt forms, sometimes one aspect will be emphasised and we will have a donoriko, sometimes different aspects will be emphasised and we will have a janggelan, and so on, but there is a commonality of overall style that is impossible to mistake, the differences of one hilt to another are only the result of different things being emphasised in the interpretation. If you put a large number of Madura handles on a table in front of you, it is almost as if the different styles morph into one another.
Now I will say this:- except for very clearly defined forms that are well known and beyond argument, I loathe and detest the classification of all things to do with keris. The Javanese, indeed the Indonesian, mind is pre-programmed to a classificatory approach to the whole of life; this is dictated by societal structure, and it flows through into every other aspect of Javanese thought and action. It is natural that the study of keris along traditional lines requires that everything should to be classified. However, the danger in this is that classification becomes to be seen as an end in itself:- once the object is classified, that is all we need to know about it. Classify, interpret on the basis of the classification, place into the relevant pigeonhole.
This is not knowledge, and it is not study.
Indentification of point of origin in respect of time and place, and original reason for being, combined with original nomenclature may be considered to be some degree of knowledge and understanding.
Putting things into pigeonholes is not.
Incidentally Michael, is this hilt of yours bone, or is it denatured antler? It is very often, very difficult to identify one from the other, but looking closely at the grain pattern where the core of the material is exposed, to my eye this looks more like denatured antler, than bone.
|