A Balinese Keris for Analysis

kai · 28th September 2020, 12:21 AM

Hello Alan,

I did not mention Sasak culture/language/whatever?

If kepompong is Indonesian only as expected, it is clearly modern usage.

That the word kusia was known in Klungkung for such a type of hilt in the early 20th century seems to be a rather convincing bit of trivia that would be rather hard to get wrong. This seems to suggest that it isn't limited to Lombok (as expected from the close ties for the Balinese population on [parts of] both islands).

Quote:

Whether something is kocetkocetan or kusia or whether they are both the same is subject to opinion too. EK makes the differentiation subject to the presence of tusks.

Ok, let's assume that this is based on a genuine Balinese source. So, what do tusks signify/symbolize in Balinese religion/culture?

Regards,
Kai

A. G. Maisey · 28th September 2020, 01:07 AM

Kai, I most sincerely apologise for taking an approach in my post #38 that was not limited only to you.

The discussion relating to this hilt form has drawn a number of factors into consideration, and although my response was addressed to you, the way in which I phrased that response was intended to cover the field of discussion.

I acknowledge that this was an error on my part, and I have now corrected that error, as well another error that gave EK as the source for the "tusk" differentiation.

I'm sorry, but I am not able to assume that the point of differentiation made in BBK is either correct or incorrect, I only wish to comment that this point of differentiation has been put forward.

As to "tusks" having any cultural significance in this context I cannot say. The word used that is translated as "tusk" is not a tusk as a native English speaker might consider a tusk to be. As I noted, the use of "tusk" (ie, "taring") is Neka's, not mine.

Perhaps, as with many concepts that relate to the keris, and indeed, to many cultural or religious matters in other cultures, it might be necessary to adopt a way of thinking that permits some sort of understanding of exactly what a particular representation of something might represent. Insofar as Javanese & Balinese societies are concerned, the interpretation can easily encompass more than a single one.

28th September 2020, 01:07 AM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,017	Kai, I most sincerely apologise for taking an approach in my post #38 that was not limited only to you. The discussion relating to this hilt form has drawn a number of factors into consideration, and although my response was addressed to you, the way in which I phrased that response was intended to cover the field of discussion. I acknowledge that this was an error on my part, and I have now corrected that error, as well another error that gave EK as the source for the "tusk" differentiation. I'm sorry, but I am not able to assume that the point of differentiation made in BBK is either correct or incorrect, I only wish to comment that this point of differentiation has been put forward. As to "tusks" having any cultural significance in this context I cannot say. The word used that is translated as "tusk" is not a tusk as a native English speaker might consider a tusk to be. As I noted, the use of "tusk" (ie, "taring") is Neka's, not mine. Perhaps, as with many concepts that relate to the keris, and indeed, to many cultural or religious matters in other cultures, it might be necessary to adopt a way of thinking that permits some sort of understanding of exactly what a particular representation of something might represent. Insofar as Javanese & Balinese societies are concerned, the interpretation can easily encompass more than a single one.