BLING

Jean · 29th May 2018, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

Thanks Alan. On closer inspection it seems to have animal features (snout and hair). I wonder if it might be intended as Hauman.
While we have discussed that many newer hilts are carved with no particular intention of diety of persona, i would think that there might be more intention for a keris that is considered to be of royal lineage.

I enlarged the pic and David is right. If it depicts Hanuman he should normally have a tail in the back. The style of carving (eyes, eyebrows, beard, ect) looks recent IMO.
Regards

A. G. Maisey · 29th May 2018, 10:27 AM

Hanoman is one of the Vanaras from the Ramayana.

Only one of them, yes, perhaps the best known, but only one Vanara.

Some of the others are:-

Bali (Vali), Angada, Kesari, Nala, Nila, Sugriwa.

There are maybe double this many Vanaras again.

Not every figural keris hilt in the form of a monkey is Hanoman.

Different people can have different reasons for wanting some other monkey figure as their personal keris hilt. How can anybody possibly know what was in the mind of the person who ordered that figural hilt in the first place?

It is very incorrect to assume that just because we see a monkey figure used as a Balinese keris hilt, that figure is automatically Hanoman.

This is the reason I will not put names on most of these figures found on Balinese hilts, be they monkeys or otherwise:- I was not privy to the private thoughts of the first owner of that figure, nor to the private thoughts of the man who carved it.

Jean · 29th May 2018, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

It is very incorrect to assume that just because we see a monkey figure used as a Balinese keris hilt, that figure is automatically Hanoman.

Thank you Alan and you are right but frankly it is not very critical for me to know if the mythical monkey figure is Hanuman or Sugriwa (the 2 most famous ones).
The monkey hilt from Neka Museum has long thumb nails but the feet carving is not very clear (claws or not?).
I attach the pics of 2 Balinese monkey hilts from my collection, the recent wooden specimen should depict Hanuman since he holds a gada (mace) which is the attribute of Hanuman.
Regards

Gustav · 29th May 2018, 05:18 PM

Kinatah on the blade with monkey hilt doesn't seem to be an old one, the motifs are quite adventurous as is their execution; the second, if it's older, is at least refurbished. Also the blades are most probably not older then end of 19th cent. and (besides Kinatah) not really refined.

Jean · 29th May 2018, 08:09 PM

Thank you Gustav, it is my impression also from the pics but we would need to see the blades for a more accurate assessment. It seems to me that the descriptions from Pande Neka (in his book for instance) are often very enthusiastic.
Regards

Bjorn · 29th May 2018, 08:56 PM

Definitely interesting to see these pieces. Personally I'd also feel more comfortable with a more restrained style, but for a raja such keris do seem appropriately lavish.

I actually do like the kinatah on the blades. It's the blink on the jejeran that bothers me somewhat, especially on the right one. It seems to fit the kocetan better as the gold fits more snugly to its contours.

And I love the bintulu motif on the left blade.

Thanks for sharing, Alan.

A. G. Maisey · 29th May 2018, 11:55 PM

Here is a summary of the newspaper article:-

Since Keris Ki Baju Rante , a pusaka keris from the Karangasem Kerajaan, came to the Neka Museum, other keris from the Karangasem Kerajaan have followed.
At the present time the Neka Museum has Ki Taman Mayura, Ki Taman Ujung, Ki Baju Upas, Ki Baru Bengkel, Ki Baru Kumandang.
The two keris shown in this thread are Ki Taman Mayura and Ki Taman Ujung, they were made by Mpu Keris Kerajaan Karangasem Pande Rudaya who was an 18th century Kerajaan Karangasem pande.

The newspaper article does not say if the kinatah work dates from the 18th century, nor does it say if the dress of these keris dates from the 18th century. What it does most clearly state is that the keris themselves date from the 18th century.

The obsession of western collectors with what they regard as "originality" is not a part traditional Balinese or Javanese cultural values.

We all know that the dress for a keris can be and is changed from time to time.

It is a similar situation with the kinatah work on a keris. Kinatah was and is often bestowed on a keris because of some action or service performed by the custodian of the keris, or by the custodian of the keris to honour the keris for actions performed by the keris that were of benefit to the custodian.

Most old keris with kinatah that we see today did not start life adorned in gold, that gold came later.

It could well be that the kinatah work on Ki Taman Mayura and Ki Taman Ujung has been placed upon these keris at some time later than the time of their being brought into existence. The exuberance of the dress could well be very recent, and could perhaps be viewed from a Balinese perspective as the presentation of two important and highly respected keris in a manner befitting their status.

I have commented a number of times that the value systems of collectors in the various societies outside the traditional societies of Bali and Jawa vary considerably from the value systems of the people who are members of these traditional societies and who own the cultural values espoused by these societies.

Perhaps once again we can see the divide in understanding between the owners of a culture and those who accumulate artifacts from the culture.

If we are to understand the products of a culture other than our own, we do need to have a minimal understanding of the value systems of that culture. In respect of Balinese culture it may assist our understanding if we realise that when something that is associated with the Balinese belief system is made, that work involved in the making is in fact work that is dedicated to God.

A Balinese pusaka keris has a nature that can be likened to a shrine. This characteristic is not unique to Balinese weaponry, it is a nature that is also found in other Hindu weaponry, as noted by Robert Elgood.

Just as the meru is prepared for the visit of a being from the Hidden World, so the keris is also prepared for such a visit. Just as a meru is made more beautiful for the visit of a deity or an ancestor, so the keris can also be made more beautiful for such visits.

I personally believe that it is incumbent upon all those who assert that they have an interest in the Keris to attempt to gain some understanding of the culture that produced the Keris.

I acknowledge that my beliefs may not be the beliefs of others, but the failure to understand that in which we have an interest deprives us of a better enjoyment of that in which we have an interest.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

29th May 2018, 10:27 AM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Hanoman is one of the Vanaras from the Ramayana. Only one of them, yes, perhaps the best known, but only one Vanara. Some of the others are:- Bali (Vali), Angada, Kesari, Nala, Nila, Sugriwa. There are maybe double this many Vanaras again. Not every figural keris hilt in the form of a monkey is Hanoman. Different people can have different reasons for wanting some other monkey figure as their personal keris hilt. How can anybody possibly know what was in the mind of the person who ordered that figural hilt in the first place? It is very incorrect to assume that just because we see a monkey figure used as a Balinese keris hilt, that figure is automatically Hanoman. This is the reason I will not put names on most of these figures found on Balinese hilts, be they monkeys or otherwise:- I was not privy to the private thoughts of the first owner of that figure, nor to the private thoughts of the man who carved it.

29th May 2018, 05:18 PM	#4
Gustav Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,273	Kinatah on the blade with monkey hilt doesn't seem to be an old one, the motifs are quite adventurous as is their execution; the second, if it's older, is at least refurbished. Also the blades are most probably not older then end of 19th cent. and (besides Kinatah) not really refined.

29th May 2018, 08:09 PM	#5
Jean Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,740	Thank you Gustav, it is my impression also from the pics but we would need to see the blades for a more accurate assessment. It seems to me that the descriptions from Pande Neka (in his book for instance) are often very enthusiastic. Regards

29th May 2018, 08:56 PM	#6
Bjorn Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Netherlands Posts: 188	Definitely interesting to see these pieces. Personally I'd also feel more comfortable with a more restrained style, but for a raja such keris do seem appropriately lavish. I actually do like the kinatah on the blades. It's the blink on the jejeran that bothers me somewhat, especially on the right one. It seems to fit the kocetan better as the gold fits more snugly to its contours. And I love the bintulu motif on the left blade. Thanks for sharing, Alan.

29th May 2018, 11:55 PM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Here is a summary of the newspaper article:- Since Keris Ki Baju Rante , a pusaka keris from the Karangasem Kerajaan, came to the Neka Museum, other keris from the Karangasem Kerajaan have followed. At the present time the Neka Museum has Ki Taman Mayura, Ki Taman Ujung, Ki Baju Upas, Ki Baru Bengkel, Ki Baru Kumandang. The two keris shown in this thread are Ki Taman Mayura and Ki Taman Ujung, they were made by Mpu Keris Kerajaan Karangasem Pande Rudaya who was an 18th century Kerajaan Karangasem pande. The newspaper article does not say if the kinatah work dates from the 18th century, nor does it say if the dress of these keris dates from the 18th century. What it does most clearly state is that the keris themselves date from the 18th century. The obsession of western collectors with what they regard as "originality" is not a part traditional Balinese or Javanese cultural values. We all know that the dress for a keris can be and is changed from time to time. It is a similar situation with the kinatah work on a keris. Kinatah was and is often bestowed on a keris because of some action or service performed by the custodian of the keris, or by the custodian of the keris to honour the keris for actions performed by the keris that were of benefit to the custodian. Most old keris with kinatah that we see today did not start life adorned in gold, that gold came later. It could well be that the kinatah work on Ki Taman Mayura and Ki Taman Ujung has been placed upon these keris at some time later than the time of their being brought into existence. The exuberance of the dress could well be very recent, and could perhaps be viewed from a Balinese perspective as the presentation of two important and highly respected keris in a manner befitting their status. I have commented a number of times that the value systems of collectors in the various societies outside the traditional societies of Bali and Jawa vary considerably from the value systems of the people who are members of these traditional societies and who own the cultural values espoused by these societies. Perhaps once again we can see the divide in understanding between the owners of a culture and those who accumulate artifacts from the culture. If we are to understand the products of a culture other than our own, we do need to have a minimal understanding of the value systems of that culture. In respect of Balinese culture it may assist our understanding if we realise that when something that is associated with the Balinese belief system is made, that work involved in the making is in fact work that is dedicated to God. A Balinese pusaka keris has a nature that can be likened to a shrine. This characteristic is not unique to Balinese weaponry, it is a nature that is also found in other Hindu weaponry, as noted by Robert Elgood. Just as the meru is prepared for the visit of a being from the Hidden World, so the keris is also prepared for such a visit. Just as a meru is made more beautiful for the visit of a deity or an ancestor, so the keris can also be made more beautiful for such visits. I personally believe that it is incumbent upon all those who assert that they have an interest in the Keris to attempt to gain some understanding of the culture that produced the Keris. I acknowledge that my beliefs may not be the beliefs of others, but the failure to understand that in which we have an interest deprives us of a better enjoyment of that in which we have an interest.