Balinese Keris hilt ID

[Jean]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Carvers and other artists may copy, or attempt to copy, old forms, but very often they err when depicting attributes of the various characters, especially when they are working from memory. Combine these errors with the well known variations that are inherent in Balinese depictions of Hindu deities, and what we have is often an unsolvable puzzle. We may be able to guess the intended identity of the character, but can we be certain? I rather think not.

Hello Alan,
Thank you for the interesting historical and culltural insight of modern Bali and I agree that the depiction of balinese gods on kris hilts has been progressively corrupted since 1920 although some modern specimens are extremely finely made.
Regards

[David]

Originally Posted by Jean

I am not a museum curator but this style of hilt is usually identified as Ravana from the leaf or sword in his right hand
Regards

Well, i was going to suggest that, but giving the line of our conversation here thought it best just to post it without much comment.

[Battara]

Even keeping in mind Alan's wonderful and insightful history summary (and you did a great job, thank you), I would still say that this Met example is Ravana and well. I'm with you Jean.

[mariusgmioc]

Regarding the example from the Metropolitan, LaRocca identifies a very similar figure featured on the cover of his book, as Rahvana.

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

[A. G. Maisey]

I am not arguing against this recent character being Ravana.

However, an opinion without evidence to support that opinion is only as good as the person giving the opinion.

Since none of us here are noted authorities on the identification of the characters shown in Balinese totogan hilts, may I suggest that when we give an opinion, we support that opinion with either evidence or rational argument?

[David]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Regarding the example from the Metropolitan, LaRocca identifies a very similar figure featured on the cover of his book, as Rahvana.

True, people attribute. Even supposedly learned people attribute. That still doesn't mean that they are ultimately correct. I do wonder where that leaves us as collectors though. While i fully understand Alan's reasoning on why we cannot really know the true intention of the maker and the actual purpose behind the creation of any specific figural hilt does that mean that these hilts defy collector categorization completely. There are, of course, good points and bad points to the concept of categorization in this field. We may not know, for instance, if a hilt that appears in this classic form we have in the past IDed as Bayu was intended to actually be Bayu, or perhaps represent the owners ancestor in the form of Bayu or whether it is just an artistic representation that happens to follow this form we know as Bayu. But what about for the sake of communication between collectors. For instance, i am fairly sure that if i said to many of you that i have an interesting Bali Bayu hilt, in all likelihood you would have a pretty good idea of what to expect before i finally present a photo of said hilt. This seems to be the way it goes in most collecting. We name things so that we have a common understanding of what we are talking about with each other.

[Rick]

Carvers also make handles that defy classification.
In a hundred years maybe this guy will have a official name.

[David]

That fellow is pretty fearsome. We should give him a name before he hurts somebody.

[A. G. Maisey]

David, my point in mention of the true original intent of the maker is a fairly extreme example of just how difficult it can be to correctly identify the character depicted in a hilt figure.

I used this example to make a point, and it seems to me that the point has been made.

However, if we take one step back from the extreme we are still left with a figure that bears certain physical characteristics that may permit the identification of that figure as an identifiable character from the Balinese pantheon of gods, or from Balinese folk lore.

Alternatively, if the physical characteristics that a particular figure may bear cannot be aligned with the characteristics associated with a known deity or folk figure, then the figure is no more than artistic drivel:- it bears no association with a deity or a folk character.

Yes, certainly, we can loosely --- mostly very loosely --- refer to some hilt figure as a recognised character, and as collectors we tend to do this without a great deal of critical thought:- if a hilt figure looks more or less like one that we have already given a name to, we tag the new figure with that name too, and as you point out, others understand what we are talking about.

This is using a name, correct, or incorrect, as a device with which to communicate, and that's fair enough, as far as it goes.

Personally, I would prefer to see a slightly more rigorous approach. Using Bayu as an example, I would like to see an approach where if we name a figure as Bayu, we give our reasons for doing this, but more than that :- we name the source that we used to gather the information that permitted us to provide reasons.

I don't believe that any of us simply pull names out of the air and stick them on figures. Not at all, we have reasons for doing so.

Where did those reasons come from?

Perhaps over time we may find that we have that Black Beast of inaccurate information by the tail, where all roads ultimately lead back to one original incorrect or dubious source.

Failure to use the passion to collect as a vehicle by which to gain knowledge only deprives us of the greatest pleasure that a passion to collect can offer.

[David]

Alan, i believe i have already asked these questions. Where does the attribution to Bayu stem from? When was it first assigned this name by a museum curator or collector? What are the clues that first led to that attribution? This certainly wasn't a name that I pulled out of thin air. I have seen hilts with these particular characteristic called "Bayu" pretty much since i started studying the keris. As i clearly stated in my post #7 this does not make that attribution correct. But considering that we seem to be able to find examples of this hilt that do go back to pre-pupatan Bali i'm not sure we can mark this form down as "artistic drivel". If you remember we went through pretty much the same thing when we have discussed the so-called "Durga" hilts.
I am certainly not suggesting that we abandon a more rigorous approach. But frankly, from the way you make it sound, there is not much hope in finding anybody who has any real and verifiable answer to these questions. You seem to be painting this all as "lost information". Perhaps i have misunderstood you there.

[A. G. Maisey]

David, we're not in debate here, we're involved in a non-antagonistic discussion.

We're not scoring points, nor do any of us seem to be holding opposing points of view that we need to convince others to adopt.

In fact, my review of what has been put forward in this thread to date, seems to indicate that we're all pretty much on the same page.

To clarify my opinion in respect of the identification of the characters depicted in Balinese totogan hilts:-

if we survey the entire range of these hilts, what we find is that similar characters appear again and again.

note I have said "similar", I have not said "the same".

these characters for the most part appear to be either some deity or other, or alternatively a character taken from Balinese folk myth or belief

in the case of a deity, we are dealing with religion and religious belief, thus when a deity is shown it should be shown with one or another particular attributes that identify it as a particular deity, such identification is not something that can be open to opinion, it either is a particular deity, or it is not, and in either case the reasons should be able to be given to support the identification

where a folk character is shown, it is possible to have varying interpretations of the same character, sometimes identifying characteristics will be clear, sometimes not, but in any case we should be able to say why we think that a particular folk figure is shown.

I am confident that no serious person is going to randomly attach a name in a haphazard manner to any totogan hilt character, and that being so, it would in everybody's best interests if when we gave a name, we also gave a reference:- all too often somebody will give a name to something and then many others will pick that name up and use it, whether it is correct or not; yes, certainly this assists in communication, but it may not assist in accuracy.

I a previous post I used the term:-

"artistic drivel"

my exact usage was:-

"Alternatively, if the physical characteristics that a particular figure may bear cannot be aligned with the characteristics associated with a known deity or folk figure, then the figure is no more than artistic drivel:- it bears no association with a deity or a folk character."

it seems that my usage here was not clearly understood.

the word "artistic" probably needs no clarification, however the word "drivel" is not now in common usage and perhaps does need to be clarified. In the context in which I have used this word I have implied that an artistic creation that uses as its subject a figure with established attributes, but that fails to show any of those attributes, is like unto the freely flowing empty speech of a child or an idiot. (Oxford on Historical Principles)

In the case of Balinese totogan hilts that are made in the modern era, the art content of the subject is often prioritised at the expense of the symbolic content that is required for clear identification, thus, the art flows freely, but in the absence of the required symbolism, that art lacks meaning. In other words, it is drivel.

My usage was most definitely not associated grammatically nor was it implied in reference to the form of Bayu, but rather with the interpretation given by a maker to any Balinese totogan hilt figure.

I do not accept that it is no longer possible for Balinese totogan hilt characters to be confidently identified. Some characters can be easily and unarguably identified, however because of the inconsistencies in the ways in which other characters are shown, positive identification can become difficult for a person within Balinese society, and close to impossible for somebody who is not a member of that society.

For those of us who are not a part of Balinese society, it is obvious that we rely upon information that has been given to us by either a person, or in print. The information sourced from another person probably cannot be used as a reference, but the information sourced from printed matter certainly can and should be used as a reference.

This identification of keris hilt characters has often cropped up in discussion in this Forum. David has mentioned the Durga discussions, and my memory of those discussions seems to be that nobody had ever heard Durga mentioned in connection with the relevant hilt form, until a particular writer used the name, and failed to provide a reference.

Perhaps a similar situation applies in relation to Bayu:- we all recognise what a Bayu hilt should look like, the name assists communication between a particular group of collectors, but is it an accurate name for this hilt character?

It may be, or alternatively it may not be, but if we continue to accept the name without question we shall never know what is correct and what is not correct.

[mariusgmioc]

Regarding the attributes that would allow us to consider the figure of my hilt as Batara Bayu, what about this?!

Primary features
1. it holds in his right hand the bejeweled receptacle of Water of Life (toya mreta)
2. it holds with his left hand the Sacred Sash (kain poleng) worn around his waist
3. it displays its formidable talon-like nails (panchanaka)

Secondary features
4. strong, burly appearance
5. large mustache
6. benevolent grin
7. elaborate head-dress.

Most of these arguments are in LaRocca's book.

[A. G. Maisey]

Let's look at the formal attributes of Dewa Bayu.

Dewa Bayu is actually the manifestation of Sanghyang Widhi in his power to create the wind. People say Bayu is the "God of the Wind", this is not strictly so, Bayu is actually representative of the power of Sanghyang Widhi to create the wind. We need to think of all these minor deities as manifestations of Sanghyang Widhi's powers. To the Balinese people Sanghyang Widhi is actually three deities, the Trisakti (Holy Trinity):- Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva ( creator, preserver, destroyer)

Bayu is Vedic in origin, and in mainline Hindu belief he is known as Vayu. His charioteer is Indra. In the Vedas he is not particularly outstanding, and although he is not associated with the winds, he supposedly gave birth to them near the rivers of heaven, so he is not "The God of the Winds", he is the "Creator of the Winds". But like all the minor gods, he is actually an abstract idea that in fact is a manifestation of the One God: Sanghyang Widhi.

We know he is handsome in appearance.

In later mythology he is given the guardianship of the north-west part of of the universe. In the Mahabharata he is identified as the father of Bhima and of Hanuman.

Vayu should be represented as a youthful person of powerful build, he should be black in colour and he can have either four or two arms. His eyes are red and he is dressed in white. His brow must be waved and he wears many ornaments.

In his right hand there should be a banner and in his left hand there should be a danda (danda in this context means "stick", it is also the general Hindu word for "punishment").

Some authorities believe that the right hand should be held in the pataka-hasta position, others believe that the right hand should hold an ankusa (angkus).

Vayu's hair should be unordered and untidy, and if seated it should be on a deer or on a simhasana (in this context this word means "throne"). The deer is his vehicle, the throne is an interpretation of the word that also means the house of a high priest.

Vayu moves very quickly, and appears very quickly.

In the Vishnudharmottara it is stated that both the clothing of, and Vayu himself should be sky-blue and that he should carry a chakra and a dhvaja ( a discus and a banner --- 'chakra' has other meanings, but in this context it means 'discus').

Vayu's mouth should be open.

Siwa gave a bow to Vayu.

(Ref.:- Elements of Hindu Iconography-- T.A.G.Rao)

I had hoped i would not need to get into this sort of thing, but maybe it would have saved time if I'd begun my contributions to this thread with what I have written above.

We know that when Hindu deities come into Jawa Hindu, and then into Bali Hindu, their attributes and characters can undergo a process of modification, but generally the major elements are retained. If we consider the above, it can be seen that there is very little in common between Vayu as recognised in mainline Hindu belief and Bayu as many people believe he appears in Balinese totogan hilts.

Mr. La Rocca's arguments just don't seem to get a run anywhere. Admittedly, he does not put himself forward as expert in this field, he has drawn upon information from other people, so then we should ask:- who provided this information to Mr. La Rocca?

Incidentally, a kain poleng is the black and white chequered waist cloth that is draped around statues and worn as a garment by some people on some occasions. It is not the name of a sash or waist band. In art it is shown as the waist cloth worn by the figure in post #21.

I have not "thrown my hands in the air" and decided that everything is "lost knowledge", but I do believe that the necessary information that we need to put forward an informed opinion in respect of the identification of Balinese totogan hilt figures is sadly deficient.

I have tried for years to get some consistent clarity into this matter, but I have been unsuccessful. What we really need is comprehensive reference that gives lots of pictures and lots of explanations. I do not know of such a reference --- I've got a heap of references on Balinese and Indonesian art and culture, but nothing has the sort of information we need.

Perhaps one of us may be able to find such a reference?

[mariusgmioc]

Thank you very much Alan for this very interesting and insightful information! And we go back to square 1. Interesting how different levels of knowledge leads to different interpretations. At a very superficial knowledge, the hilt depicts a strangely looking guy holding something in his arm. Then, if you start inquiring, you find out that the guy is probably Bayu, only to realize that it might not be so once you gain more insight knowledge of the subject.

[A. G. Maisey]

Its a matter of the more one knows, the less one knows.

Was a time I was pretty positive of a lot of things, these days I find I know less with every passing day.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Its a matter of the more one knows, the less one knows.

Was a time I was pretty positive of a lot of things, these days I find I know less with every passing day.

It's called wisdom!

[Rocarnice]

Hi there,

Got interested in this thread as I have a Keris Bali Hilt (Ukiran Pemangku) that seems to have similarly evolved as the silver hilt (Bayu) depicted by Jean on 19.01.
I once asked the forum 10 years ago, but at that time no clear pictures were available to ID the blade with Kinatah; Not much couldn't be said of the Hilt either.
Perhaps someone of you could tell me more about this Hilt?
Hope the pictures attached are clear.

Thanks.

[A. G. Maisey]

Rocanice, you already have the correct name and description for this hilt:- you have called it an "Ukiran Pemangku".

As it is Balinese, it should not be called "ukiran" as this is Javanese terminology, it should be called "danganan", however, the "pemangku" (or more correctly "pamangku") is correct.

A "pamangku" is a priest, or to be completely correct a Balinese temple priest, as there are other types of priest.

This hilt can be given as:-danganan Pemangku.

The figure is identifiable by the beard and moustache, the kindly and/or happy face, the religious implement in the left hand.

The name you have given the photograph is " Keris Bali ukiran Brahmaan":- a pamangku is a member of the Brahman Caste, so this is also an adequate description of the hilt.

[Jean]

Hello Rocarnice,
Nice hilt, made from ebony or buffalo horn?
The style of hair is not common for a hilt depicting a priest, see more standard specimens attached.
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Yep Jean, true:- Balinese priests don't usually sport Siciliano facial hair, but don't doubt for one moment that we are looking at somebody's representation of a pamangku, its just that art trumps tradition. How can you create a hilt like Rocanice's if you don't control the whiskers?

[Jean]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Yep Jean, true:- Balinese priests don't usually sport Siciliano facial hair, but don't doubt for one moment that we are looking at somebody's representation of a pamangku, its just that art trumps tradition. How can you create a hilt like Rocanice's if you don't control the whiskers?

Oops, sorry Alan, I meant the style of hairdressing (kind of diadem versus tiara), not the beard....

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

... but don't doubt for one moment that we are looking at somebody's representation of a pamangku, its just that art trumps tradition.

Given our previous discussion on the "Bayu" hilts how can we be sure beyond doubt that the artist's intention was to create pamangku here rather than it merely being an "artistic" work not completely connected to this character?

[A. G. Maisey]

Jean:- artistic expression; this is a hilt that was created purely for art:- if you need to stick gemstones onto it, you need an excuse to accommodate the gemstones.

David:- speaking only for myself, I'm quite confident that I'm looking at a figure that is intended to be a pamangku, my confidence is based in the fact that every figure of this type that I have ever seen and asked about has been identified by a Balinese person as a pamangku, many different Balinese people have been asked. As for everybody else, well, quite obviously they cannot be certain.

I rather feel that this particular pamangku style hilt is a pretty recent creation, I cannot recall ever having seen a truly old one.

[Rocarnice]

Hi all,

Thank you very much for your higly interesting thoughts and insights on this Hilt.
The hilt is made of silver which turned black due to oxidation and is set with gold ornaments. More than 10 years ago an old Indonesian person approached me and gave it to me saying this hilt should be honoured and cared for as only priests of the highest caste (Brahmaan) may have it on the "Wilah" to be used for ceremonial purposes.
Anyway I feel personally strongly attached to it, and it feels like a soul that is with me. There seems to be something mystical about it. Meeting that old guy changed my life and that's what I am doing ever since, taking care of it...

[krissman]

The Arms and Armor Department at the Metropolitan Museum of Art has a number of Indonesian weapons in its collections, even though they are clearly secondary to the scope of its primary collections (European and Japanese arms and armor). Moreover there is no one on the staff who is particularly knowledgeable about the subject. What information they do have comes either from the catalog records created by George Cameron Stone (author of STONE'S GLOSSARY, who left the Indonesian pieces and much of the rest of his personal collection to the Museum), or from staff research in the standard books on the subject. I am pretty sure that any attributions given to a hilt by the Museum would have been based on those sources and not because the curator had any particular expertise in the subject.

My son is a conservator in the Department of Arms and Armor and I try to visit him several times a year. During those trips I spend a day or so in the Department's library, looking at the collections and trying to answer any questions they may have about these "strange" pieces that they don't really know much about. They are gradually photographing all of their collections. Images of all of the Museum's collections are being posted online with whatever information (often minimal) they happen to have. The quality of that information varies widely depending on which department posted it. The public is invited to view the photos; scholars and collectors may suggest changes or improvements to catalog data if they see fit. Priority is given to posting online images of objects found in exhibits or museum publications, so there aren't very many Indonesian weapons up yet. The keris hilt on the cover of the GODS OF WAR book mentioned above is online, identified as a "dagger handle." The Museum avoids using "native" words to identify objects, particularly when two or more terms, such as "keris" vs. "kris", are being used by the collector and scholarly communities. Generic terms--dagger, sword, halberd, etc.--are used instead. To see what has been posted, follow this link and enter your search terms: http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection.

[David]

Thanks for this info Krissman.
The hilt in question was identified elsewhere on the MM of Art as Bayu, in another area. I would have to do some digging to find it again. However i am absolutely sure of that since i am the one who found that entry.
It is possible that they have since taken it down or changed their description.
You are absolutely correct that the museum heavily favors its European arms over Keris.