![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,273
|
![]()
Actually the hilt looks like a Malayan version (regarding the style of ornamentation) of a Madurese type, discussed here: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...t=madura+surya, to me.
Perhaps they copied also such hilts, besides Palembang ones: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=13963 There is of course the possibility, the hilt is a recent work, done somewhere in Indonesia. It simply don't look like an old Madura hilt to me. Actually most probably the combination hilt+pendokok isn't original, the visible half of bungkul looks strange. Last edited by Gustav; 26th June 2011 at 11:59 AM. Reason: the last sentence added |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 1,086
|
![]()
Thanks for the feedback provided thusfar. As far as whether or not the handle is a recent production all I can say having the advantage of piece in hand, is that the ivory has a nice mellow patina to it, and fine age cracks, that is more typically associated with an antique piece. While it is possible to artificially age ivory, it just doesn't have that same look and feel as an aged piece. I can only speak to the patina aspect of this though and not any stylistic elements.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,740
|
![]()
The hilt looks old to me and is very finely carved but I agree with Gustav that it does not seem to be Madurese, and a Malaysian origin is an interesting assumption and is matching with the style of pendokok.
Best regards Jean |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,273
|
![]()
Yes, as Dave Henkel wrote about Kelantan and Terengganu: "around 1920 - 1940. There was a craze in those days for innovation and hybrid styles abound".
Some of the older Hulu Burung Serindit also do look Madurese inspired to me, also the appearance of more elaborate pamor patterns on Peninsular keris. Last edited by Gustav; 26th June 2011 at 08:55 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,991
|
![]()
I beg to disagree with the Malaysian attribution of manufacture of this hilt.
Certainly, the blade is not Madurese. Certainly the selut is not Madurese. However, stylistically and in execution and material this hilt has every appearance of a piece originating in Madura, in fact I have several with similar motifs -- I just now tried to find them so I could photograph, but they are not amongst my collection hilts and must be on keris, and that then becomes half a days work, which I am not prepared to do just to prove a point. Let me put this to you:- if you saw this hilt away from the keris it is now on, would anybody say:- "ah yes --- Malay copy --- not Madura" I most sincerely doubt it. The simple fact of the matter is this:- once we move away from an area that is under the direct influence of a karaton, and where dress codes are more or less enforced, during the period from around, say, 1850, through to 1950, and even up until the present day, people would upgrade their keris with superior components that fell into their hands, whether those components were correct to local dress or not. I have seen a great many examples of this practice over the years, and even in rural areas of Jawa it can apply. I have nominated this time frame because this is the period when there was an explosion of trade and communication across Maritime S.E.Asia. Then there is the confusion caused by mating incorrect components that is carried out by over enthusiastic collectors and avaricious dealers. When we seek to nominate a point of origin for a particular item, be it part of a keris, or something else entirely, it is always wise to use known facts as our point of reference. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,740
|
![]()
Hello Alan,
Thank you for the correction and please show us the pictures of your similar hilts when the opportunity arises. As I said, I never saw a Madurese donoriko hilt with such a style of decoration except this one in a recent auction. Best regards Jean |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,273
|
![]()
There are two things, which are strange with this hilt in my eyes.
At first, if we look at this hilt as a concrete iconographic ensemble, it is lacking at least three components: the drapery abowe the bungkul, the second pair of wings, and the "medaillon" at the back of hilt. They are always coming with this iconographic type. Exactly the substitutes of these lacking details are most strange in performance: the stiff floral ornamentic abowe of bungkul, the undefined feature instead of second pair of wings, and the strange flower vase with even more strange podium. The hilt Jean posted is of course a completely other iconographic type, yet also the lines there are a little bit more flowing. The hilt in question has an other, static feeling, it is also absolutely two-dimensional. If the details and execution are strange, we always are seduced to question the age and place of manufacture. And then we see such blade and pendokok coming with it in this case. Of course I could be wrong, these are simply my doubts regarding this hilt. Added some pictures of "normal" execution of this iconographic ensemble for comparison (sorry about flash): |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|