Next keris from Polish Museum

nechesh · 14th June 2005, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuancd

Never the less, his book is great and his method the best. To date kriss, he has no method, he just read the inventory of the museum and says that if they entered the museum at a recorded date then they must have been forged before. Some other people used the same method to date Japanese suits of armour.

That's why we all have something to learn from his book.

Sorry Cedric, but i just can't comprehend how this could possible be the best method of dating. Say a Javanese keris is collected in the early part of the 19thC but is in fact a Keris Mojopahit from the 14thC. To say then that this keris is older than the 19thC, while correct, tells us very little about the blade.

Thank you, BTW, for posting the photos of the other Durga hilts. Seeing these first two clearly point out the subtlties in the carving of Wolviex's example, though i am sure the ivory is a much harder material to work in. Still, the flow of lines is much more dynamic and well proportioned than your examples. I wonder if the hand on the other side of your examples have the same foreshortened middle fingers???

tuancd · 15th June 2005, 12:01 AM

Dear Nechesh,

museums in Europe have started from the 14th century and even before. Of course, and unfortunately, inventories don't come back to that date and more over regarding keris.

nevertheless and since we talk of Durga hulus there are two of them, one from the General Wrangler Samling collection (first traced) in 1676 (p 87 of Den Indonenesiske kris of Seir Jensen) the second and more known, Durga hilt made of rhinoceros horn and decorated with gold and rubies (first traced 1618; Der Deutsche Orden in Vienna) (One of the first inventories that we know with out doubt so far).
So you are absolutely right, you say no one can confirm it is from 14th century. At least I can say it is at least from 14th (ref Candi Suku) to end of 16th. I even can bet on it

for the second aspect here are the pictures.
the wooden one is also used and slightly damage on the hand. I suppose it is due to a hurting of a stronger material, but it can also be the wear of the thumb
The ivory one is obviously much later 19th or early 20th c, I would say and cannot be compared.

I’ll try to scan the pictures of the book to show the Durgas from Sier’s book I’m talking about.

15th June 2005, 12:01 AM	#2
tuancd Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Paris - Bruxelles Posts: 32	Dear Nechesh, museums in Europe have started from the 14th century and even before. Of course, and unfortunately, inventories don't come back to that date and more over regarding keris. nevertheless and since we talk of Durga hulus there are two of them, one from the General Wrangler Samling collection (first traced) in 1676 (p 87 of Den Indonenesiske kris of Seir Jensen) the second and more known, Durga hilt made of rhinoceros horn and decorated with gold and rubies (first traced 1618; Der Deutsche Orden in Vienna) (One of the first inventories that we know with out doubt so far). So you are absolutely right, you say no one can confirm it is from 14th century. At least I can say it is at least from 14th (ref Candi Suku) to end of 16th. I even can bet on it for the second aspect here are the pictures. the wooden one is also used and slightly damage on the hand. I suppose it is due to a hurting of a stronger material, but it can also be the wear of the thumb The ivory one is obviously much later 19th or early 20th c, I would say and cannot be compared. I’ll try to scan the pictures of the book to show the Durgas from Sier’s book I’m talking about. Attached Images