Next keris from Polish Museum

[nechesh]

Tom, i don't believe the lack of intricate detail argues for a lower-tier carver. This may, infact, be a depiction of Durga or some other goddess form, but it is abstracted, IMO, in an attempt to conform to islamic law, so i don't think this is necessarily pre-Islamic. To be a pre-Islamic hilt from Jawa it would have to be at least 16thC or older and that would make this a pretty old chunk of wood. It has a nice patina, but i hardly think it is that old. I actually think the conception and execution of this hilt required an artisan of great skill. IMO it is high art.
I don't think this blade is etched but unstained. I just think it has been a very long time since it's last staining.

[Rick]

This stunning Ukiran perfectly fits the quote of the famous architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe :

" Less is more ."

[tom hyle]

Originally Posted by nechesh

IMO it is high art.

I agree, but that does not imply that there is anything especially difficult about the cuts or anything. The beauty and inspiration of the conception and the skill required for the execution are two pretty much entirely different things. I desire to explain myself as at least two persons seem to have somewhat misunderstood my statement. There is nothing particularly clumsy, amateurish, etc. about the execution of this piece (except perhaps the fingers, but I'm not convinced that's unintentional), however.......however, the cuts are simple, the surfaces are sweeping; there is little to no intricate detail (especially by Oceanic SE Asian terms); thus, everything about the carving, while not showing failure of skill, other than the debatable/unknown situation with the hands (which is exactly what I was pursuing of course), also does not display any especially great carving skill. I don't know this wood, but truly I'm pretty sure I could carve this, or come real close, given time and the will, and with my knives sharp and plenty to smoke, and I am no master carver; I often see carvings on this forum of which I would not say this. This simplicity in no way denigrates this sculpture! It could even be considered to speak of its essence.

[tom hyle]

Originally Posted by nechesh

I don't think this blade is etched but unstained. I just think it has been a very long time since it's last staining.

This is most likely the mechanism by which it became etched but not stained, agreed; the stain probably wore off. That would be my guess, but it didn't look like a Java k(e)ris to me, so I was not entirely sure it would've ever been stained. Actually, and I am a bit surprised by this, it seems there may still be some uncertainty concerning the island/tribe/etc. of origin; I figured it would be all nailed down by now; sometimes I like to leave a k(e)ris thread alone until that stuff is all nailed down, then talk about what interests me about these often lovely dagger-swords. In any event, one point I was trying obliquely to make is that only very slight if any etching would be needed or helpful in resurfacing this piece because it is already pretty well done, while staining, if appropriate, is needed; there seems to be constant confusion between these two technical processes, so the division is good to point out.

[BluErf]

Originally Posted by nechesh

Tom, i don't believe the lack of intricate detail argues for a lower-tier carver. This may, infact, be a depiction of Durga or some other goddess form, but it is abstracted, IMO, in an attempt to conform to islamic law, so i don't think this is necessarily pre-Islamic. To be a pre-Islamic hilt from Jawa it would have to be at least 16thC or older and that would make this a pretty old chunk of wood. It has a nice patina, but i hardly think it is that old.

I think Java's conversion to Islam took place over a period of time, and even then, was not complete. The pasisir areas retained much of their rashaksa, ganesha forms even til this day, albeit covered and hidden in floral motifs. E Java still has its tree of life motif with parrot head on top, and sometimes angels by the side. So this hilt could be 17th century or even 18th century.

However, the condition of the piece may not be an indication of age. Looking at the Karsten Jensen example above, who would believe that they are looking at a 16th century keris and hilt. There are other examples in the Karsten Jensen books in which the ivory hilt is still cream coloured, and the sheaths retained their original pigments. Preservation and use (abuse) are important factors in how the hilt would end up looking after centuries. This keris here could have ended up in the collection and hardly handled; "kept in a cool, dry place", I guess.