Keris Sheikh Ahmad Qomi

[HangPC2]

Keris Sheikh Ahmad Qomi










Sheikh Ahmad Qomi (1543-1631)

Sheikh Ahmad Qomi, was an Iranian expatriate who lived in Thailand for 26 years. He was a merchant, a religious figure and the architect of cultural relations between Persian And Siam. He was also one of the pioneers of promoting Islam in East Asia.

Sheikh Qomi was born in Iranian holy city of Qom in 1543 and moved to Bangkok in 1605 at the age of 62. He lived in Siam for 26 years until his death. He was trusted in Siam royal court and undertook top positions in government hierarchy of Siam thanks to his insight and intellect.

[David]

Where and from when does this illustration originate?

[Sajen]

Very interesting! I have the same quetion like David.

Regards,

Detlef

[HangPC2]

Originally Posted by David

Where and from when does this illustration originate?

Originally Posted by Sajen

Very interesting! I have the same quetion like David.

Regards,

Detlef

The Bunnag Lineage Club


http://www.bunnag.in.th/english/history_05.html

[David]

Sorry, i guess i wasn't clear enough and i am afraid you have misinterpreted my question. I don't want to know where you sourced the image from. I want to know what the source of the image itself is. In other words, when was the image created and where. In the smaller overall image it appears to be a door of some sort (it looks like there is a ring as a for handle half way down on the left) or the lid of a box.
I want to know when and where this image was created because i think it is fair to assume that the closer to the actual time of of this Sheik's life it was made, the more likely it is to be an accurate depiction of the form of his actual keris.

[PenangsangII]

with this article and painted image, I cannot help but wondering whether Siam (Ayothya) was actually a muslim state...?

[Gustav]

Originally Posted by PenangsangII

with this article and painted image, I cannot help but wondering whether Siam (Ayothya) was actually a muslim state...?

Yes, and this was one of its main mosques.

[PenangsangII]

Gustav, it looks like a Buddhist temple to me...

I am talking about Siam circa 1700 AD before it was sacked by Sukkhotai

[rasdan]

Smart answer Gustav. Cool research.

Penansang, I am not a specialist in this, but probably this would help.

http://journalarticle.ukm.my/514/1/1.pdf

Sheikh Ahmad (maybe the one discussed here) is mentioned in page 208 of this article.

I have no idea when the drawing in the first post of this thread were drawn.

[Gustav]

Originally Posted by rasdan

Smart answer Gustav. Cool research.

This is not cause of a research, Rasdan, this is an elementar fact.

The temple was constructed around 1630, so about the end of life of Sheikh Ahmad Qomi.

I will not comment this Ayutthaya-Sukhothai thing.

[rasdan]

Originally Posted by Gustav

This is not cause of a research, Rasdan, this is an elementar fact.

The temple was constructed around 1630, so about the end of life of Sheikh Ahmad Qomi.

I will not comment this Ayutthaya-Sukhothai thing.

The paper I forwarded also didn't suggest that it's a Muslim state. Nor did I ever think so. The part about not commenting further.. Right on mate!!

[Gustav]

Rasdan, only my first line was adressed to you. I have not even the slightest doubts that the question about Ayutthaya as a Muslim state and its sacking by Sukhothai after 1700 is something under your level.

[rasdan]

Originally Posted by Gustav

Rasdan, only my first line was adressed to you. I have not even the slightest doubts that the question about Ayutthaya as a Muslim state and its sacking by Sukhothai after 1700 is something under your level.

Ok, Gustav.

[Nathaniel]

Originally Posted by HangPC2

Keris Sheikh Ahmad Qomi










Sheikh Ahmad Qomi (1543-1631)

Sheikh Ahmad Qomi, was an Iranian expatriate who lived in Thailand for 26 years. He was a merchant, a religious figure and the architect of cultural relations between Persian And Siam. He was also one of the pioneers of promoting Islam in East Asia.

Sheikh Qomi was born in Iranian holy city of Qom in 1543 and moved to Bangkok in 1605 at the age of 62. He lived in Siam for 26 years until his death. He was trusted in Siam royal court and undertook top positions in government hierarchy of Siam thanks to his insight and intellect.

HangPC2,

Thank you for the interesting information about Sheikh Qomi. Coming from Iran, it is interesting that he is pictured with a kris?!? At age of 62 + coming from Iran you think he would have something more like a Jambiya at his belt. I know the influence of the Krit came more from Malay.

[Nathaniel]

Originally Posted by HangPC2

The Bunnag Lineage Club


http://www.bunnag.in.th/english/history_05.html

Interesting website, HangPC2.

Also this article is good from Thammsat University.

http://seap.einaudi.cornell.edu/syst...imThailand.pdf

[Nathaniel]

Originally Posted by David

Sorry, i guess i wasn't clear enough and i am afraid you have misinterpreted my question. I don't want to know where you sourced the image from. I want to know what the source of the image itself is. In other words, when was the image created and where. In the smaller overall image it appears to be a door of some sort (it looks like there is a ring as a for handle half way down on the left) or the lid of a box.
I want to know when and where this image was created because i think it is fair to assume that the closer to the actual time of of this Sheik's life it was made, the more likely it is to be an accurate depiction of the form of his actual keris.

Yes, I agree with David...the painting is on a door...a double door....to a Buddhist temple. I'm curious to know which Wat. I think the figure is painted to show the diversity of individuals/ groups in Ayutthaya/ early Rattanakosin period. I doubt you will be able to find out when that particular mural is done...but you might. I'm guessing this is a more recent mural...ie 1900's+


This could not be from a door of a Thai Mosque. You will not find human images depicted in the Mosque.

[Nathaniel]

And I think you guys might have your names mixed up...you mean Ayutthaya Kingdom before they where sacked by the Burmese twice in the 1700s. Sukhothai Kingdom never sacked Ayutthaya. Sukhothai however was on the decline and incorporated into Ayutthaya at tributary state in the late 1300's.

[Nathaniel]

Originally Posted by David

Sorry, i guess i wasn't clear enough and i am afraid you have misinterpreted my question. I don't want to know where you sourced the image from. I want to know what the source of the image itself is. In other words, when was the image created and where. In the smaller overall image it appears to be a door of some sort (it looks like there is a ring as a for handle half way down on the left) or the lid of a box.
I want to know when and where this image was created because i think it is fair to assume that the closer to the actual time of of this Sheik's life it was made, the more likely it is to be an accurate depiction of the form of his actual keris.

I was just told this door painting comes from Wat Somanat Wihan in Bangkok.

http://www.watsomanas.com/eng/history.php

"Wat Somanas Vihara is a second grade royel monastery. It was established by King Rama IV (who was a monk for 27 years before he ascended the Throne) in 1853 in memory of Her Royel Highness Princess Somanasvatanavadee, His first beloved Queen (Her Royal Highness Princess Somanasvatanavadee was born on Sunday, December 12, 1834, married in 1851 and passed away in 1852)."

There is a book on this temple's murals:

Temple Mural Paintings at Wat Somanat Wihan
Hard Cover
Large Format
Muang Boran
1995 Bangkok
116 pages
ISBN 9748235645

[David]

Nice research Nathaniel, thank you...

[Nathaniel]

Okay. Hmm latest update. I knew I had seen this picture before so even after I was told by a friend it was at this particular temple, I search through some of my Thai art books and found the same picture. The label says only that it is a door of a cabinet (which admittedly makes much better sense vs a Buddhist temple door), Ayutthaya period and that it is located in the National Museum in Bangkok.

[Nathaniel]

Okay, a little ridiculous I know but I continued to think about this one more...how if this painting is from a cabinet, I could picture the exact type of Thai cabinet it belongs too...often called a manuscript cabinet. I did a Google image search for "Thai Gold Lacquer Cabinet" to see what I could find so I could show the forum members some examples of what I'm talking about and came up with this

[Nathaniel]

and it turns out I was quite lucky too to find the same cabinet with the figure with the Keris...it is actually quite a famous cabinet...not only for the gentleman with the Keris, but also the European figure on the left panel door.

[Nathaniel]

And this cabinet was also featured in the "The Kingdom of Siam,” Asian Art Museum, San Francisco, February through May, 2005.

The article goes on to show that there has been quite a bit of academic thought into who the two figures on the cabinet might be/ represent!!!!


http://www-laep.ced.berkeley.edu/~xi.../France-R.html

This is what is said about the cabinet on this webpage, just in case it's deleted in the future:

60. Cabinet decorated with a European and an Indian or Persian, perhaps the French king Louis XIV and the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, approx. 1650–1750; lacquered and gilded wood

This cabinet has conventionally been thought to represent King Louis XIV (reigned 1643–1715) and Emperor Aurangzeb (reigned 1658–1707), and to date from the reign of King Narai (1656–1688), who exchanged ambassadors with both. Examples of such portraits, or engravings of them, are known to have been in Siam in the 1680s. It has recently been suggested that the figure on the right could be Shah Sulaiman of Persia (reigned 1666–1694) rather than Aurangzeb. For a detailed discussion of the possible identifications of the two main figures, are below.

National Museum, Bangkok, 115 (T. 101)

[Nathaniel]

The article then goes on to say:

"This well-known cabinet has conventionally been thought to represent Louis XIV (reigned 1643–1715) and the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb (reigned 1658–1707), and to date from the reign of King Narai (1656–1688), who exchanged ambassadors with both. 1

Western scholars are divided in their opinions. One has recently accepted the attribution to Narai’s reign. Another thinks it possible that while the woodcarving may date from that period, the fi gures and designs in gold must be later. 2 Neither believes the identifi cations of the two fi gures have been established convincingly; one suggests that “if the European fi gure really is Louis XIV … his companion could well be Shah Sulaiman of Persia (reigned 1666–1694) … rather than Aurangzeb.” 3

Leaving aside the date of the cabinet and its designs in gold for the moment, a few additional observations can be offered on the identifications of the figures. The European wears what looks like a Thai interpretation of seventeenth-century European armor, complete with surface decoration of foliate scrolls (some of which seem to have escaped to swirl around the figure’s elbows4). Then, the pose of the figure – with proper right foot pulled back and left foot forward, left hand at waist and right holding a vertical weapon – recalls that of Louis XIV in court portraits by such artists as Hyacinthe Rigaud. 5 A full-length portrait of the Sun King is known to have been present in Narai’s secondary capital of Lopburi6 (together with large numbers of French luxury goods bought by the Thais or given by the French as gifts to the king and court) and presumably the French ambassadors and missionaries had with them illustrated books or engravings that might have depicted their monarch.

As for “Aurangzeb,” no doubt a portrait of him – either a Mughal miniature or a European copy of one – might have reached the eyes of a Thai artist. But the features of the figure do not resemble those of Aurangzeb in his Mughal portraits. In them he is shown having a rather long, straight nose and a full beard tapering to a point. 7 Perhaps, though, the question is whether, for the Thais, this exotic figure stood for Aurangzeb (or the shah of Persia), not whether it resembled him.

Can we clarify further whether the figure was supposed to be an Indian or a Persian? Merchants and envoys of both nationalities were present in Siam to be looked at, and King Narai is said to have dressed in Persian style, so there must have been aspects of clothing that for Thais signaled “Indian” (or “Mughal”) as opposed to “Persian.” The robe of the figure on the cabinet could be a Thai rendition of either Indian or Persian dress. A puzzling feature is that on the lower body the sides of the robe seem to meet in the middle at the front, rather than one side wrapping all the way over the other as is shown on the upper body. The trousers seem too short for either Indians or Persians, both of whom are usually depicted in their own paintings with tight trousers long enough to gather at the top of the foot. The belt looks suspiciously Thai, and does not resemble the sash worn by both Persians or Indians in the seventeenth century – usually wound around and tucked into itself by Persians or knotted in front with long ends hanging down by Indians. The turban, by comparison with those shown in Persian and Mughal paintings of the second half of the seventeenth century, seems closer to Indian types, but if an Indian monarch is represented, where are the necklaces one would expect? And why would either a Persian or an Indian wear an Indonesian kris? 8

The gesture made by the Indian or Persian figure calls attention to itself, and may reward further study. In Indonesian art a related gesture seems to be associated with admonishing or berating; the gesture may have similar associations in South Asian Muslim contexts. 9 The possibility that here “Aurangzeb” is scolding “Louis XIV” is tantalizing.

Hiram Woodward has proposed a thought-provoking interpretation of the small figures in the sky above the main figures. He associates them deities of thunder and lightning, as well as the planet Rahu, who causes eclipses by swallowing the sun and moon. In Thai cosmology, such sky deities hover near the summit of Mt. Meru, the central mountain of the universe. Below them, on the upper slopes of Mt. Meru, reside the four guardian kings of the directions – two of whom may be represented here as the French and Indian or Persian monarchs. 10

European and Indian or Persian figures similar in type to those on this cabinet are found on the lacquered and gilded window shutters of a building at Wat Saket, Bangkok, that is thought to date from the reign of Rama I (1782– 1809). 11 These shutters could have been reused from an older building (as seems to have been fairly common). If they were indeed made in the reign of Rama I, however, then showing how the related figures on the cabinet could be more than 100 years earlier will require much more detailed analysis of the evolution of painting in Siam from 1650 to 1800 than has so far been undertaken.

On the back of the cabinet are two more figures painted in a style that appears unrelated to that of the figures on the front. The figure on the right has three (visible) heads, and so may represent Brahma; the figure on the left has no attributes that would identify him clearly, but the deity usually paired with Brahma in Thailand is Indra, the king of the gods, and this may well be who the left-hand figure represents.

The “Brahma,” however, stands on a short pedestal supported on the back of a crouching animal that seems to be a bear, and the “Indra’s” pedestal is supported by a monkey. Monkeys and bears figure prominently in the epic Ramayana (known in Thai as the Rammakian), and if the “Indra” were not paired with a three-headed figure, we might have identified it as Rama, the hero of the Ramayana, who is sometimes shown supported by the monkey hero Hanuman.

Paired guardians standing on short pedestals supported by giants, demons, or other creatures are found fairly commonly on window shutters, doors, and the backs of manuscript cabinets, but they usually have few distinguishing features, and seldom can be identified by name. 12

If the figures on the back of the cabinet are indeed Brahma and Indra, then they, together with the two figures on the front, might conceivably be construed as the four guardian kings of the directions. Brahma is not usually thought of as a king, however, and Indra resides not on the slopes of Mt. Meru but in the Heaven of the Thirty- Three Gods at its summit. Only one other cabinet is known to bear four large princely figures, and it does not aid in identifying the figures here. 13

Michael Wright has suggested that the panels decorated by the figures on the back of the cabinet – so different in style and treatment from those on the front – may have been rescued from an older cabinet (or other context) and reused. He also points out their resemblance to figures painted on the back of the doors of the ordination hall of Wat Yai Suwannaram, Phetburi, the date of which is, unfortunately, quite uncertain. 14 Also comparable in their stances and elongation are standing celestials in the murals of Wat Prasat, Nonthaburi, which have been assigned dates ranging from the mid-1600s to the mid-1700s. 15

Both sides of the cabinet are decorated with landscapes filled with real and fantastic creatures such as deer, phoenixes, a tiger, and a Chinese lion. Through the foliage-filled sky on one side fly a male celestial and a garuda grappling with serpents. 16

1 This view is expressed, for instance, in Somdet phra narai lae phra chao lui thi 14, 61. See also Wright, “Gilt-lacquer Painting,” 32–34. Wright is cautious, but “can find nothing about the cabinet to contradict the tradition.”

2 Woodward, “Structures,” 3; Listopad, “Phra Narai,” 311–312.

3 Woodward, “Structures,” 3.

4 Calling to mind Woodward’s discussion of the playful element in the cabinet painter’s approach, “Structures,” 5.

5 Two well-known portraits by Rigaud of Louis XIV in a similar pose date from 1701 (in regal robes) and about 1702 (in armor); Burke, Fabrication, fig. 1; Maumené and d’Harcourt, Iconographie, 98–99 and pl. 14. Th e pose was established as appropriate for royal portraits by Van Dyke in his Charles I Dismounted of approx. 1635. An anonymous French portrait from about 1670 shows Louis XIV in armor, standing in a related pose (but reversed); Maumené and d’Harcourt, Iconographie, 57–59 and pl. 8. To make progress in identifying other possible models for the “Louis XIV” on the cabinet will require checking portraits of the monarch by such artists as Pierre Mignard, Henri Testelin, and Robert Nanteuil. Early copies of such portraits will also need to be checked, as will engravings after them. The odd hat with two feathers worn by the fi gure on the cabinet remains puzzling. Louis XIV is sometimes shown wearing a vaguely similar hat, but decorated with floppy plumes rather than two erect feathers; Burke, Fabrication, figs. 18, 24. The little dog also does not seem to appear in portraits of Louis XIV, though it was an accessory in other aristocratic portraits.

6 Van Der Cruysse, Siam and the West, 340; also 265.

7 Gascoigne, Great Mughals, 214, 239.

8 The answer to this question may be simply that krises were fairly frequent attributes of door guardians. Krises are brandished by the Chinese-Thai guardians on the doors of a late- Ayutthaya cabinet in the National Museum Bangkok, for instance. See No. na Paknam, Wiwatthanakan lai thai (1st ed.), figs. 248–249. On the other hand, wearing a kris seems to have been the style for Thai courtiers in Narai’s period. See Jacq-Hergoulac’h, “Dessins de Charles LeBrun,” 30–35.

9 Natasha Reichle proposed this interesting possibility, citing the use of gesture as a warning by door guardians and other protective figures in East Javanese art, and in East Javanese narrative reliefs. See Fontein, Sculpture of Indonesia, 130; Kinney, Worshipping Siva, figs. 127, 146, 154, 247, 258, 259. Information on the implications of this gesture in present-day Pakistan was provided by Altaf Bhatti.

10 Woodward, “Structures, Names,” typescript, 3–6. I appreciate Hiram Woodward’s kindly sharing this unpublished paper.

11 Wannipha, Chittrakam samai rattanakosin, 65, 73–74.

12 For example, Wannipha, Chittrakam samai rattanakosin, 21 (Phutthaisawan Chapel); 29 (ordination hall of Wat Dusitdaram); 55 (ordination hall of Wat Ratchasittharam). For such figures on cabinets, see Kongkaeo, Tu lai thong, Part One, 32-34, 100, 156–158 and Part 2, Vol. 3, 216–218 (a cabinet with an inscribed date equivalent to 1784).

13 Kongkaeo, Tu lai thong, Part One, 70–75. Two of the figures on this cabinet are fairly easy to identify: one is carried by Garuda, and is Vishnu or perhaps Rama; another, carried by a monkey warrior – probably Hanuman – would seem to be Rama again. The other two figures are carried by a demon and a lion.

14 Wright, “Siamese Gilt Lacquer Painting,” 33. The painted doors are illustrated in Samut phap sinlapakam wat yai suwannaram, fig. 16.

15 Santi and Kamol, Chittrakam faphanang samai ayutthaya, 99, fig. 74; Chittrakam faphanang sakun chang nonthaburi, 15 (English text) and fig. 12.

16 The sides are illustrated in Kongkaeo, Tu lai thong, Part One, 248, 250."

[Nathaniel]

So there you go David! There is your answer...they are not sure who gentleman is with the keris in his belt for certain...just academic and non academic speculation...my opinion is it's just basic artistic license but it shows at least ethnic groups the artist knew, however the details are construed...which is very common with artist renditions anyways...but the period of the cabinet is at least known It was fun researching it! Always thrilling when you find the answer!

[David]

Brilliant!

[dbhmgb]

Thank you Nathaniel, that was very interesting!

Dan

[HangPC2]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel

and it turns out I was quite lucky too to find the same cabinet with the figure with the Keris...it is actually quite a famous cabinet...not only for the gentleman with the Keris, but also the European figure on the left panel door.

Thanks Nathaniel


European figure ?


France, Dutch or Portuguese ?

Originally Posted by Nathaniel

Can we clarify further whether the figure was supposed to be an Indian or a Persian? Merchants and envoys of both nationalities were present in Siam to be looked at, and King Narai is said to have dressed in Persian style, so there must have been aspects of clothing that for Thais signaled “Indian” (or “Mughal”) as opposed to “Persian.”

Example





Sultan Sulaiman (Phra Chao Mueng Songkhla)


Sultan of Singgora (Songkhla)


Ethnic : Malay


Costume : Ottoman clothing









Malay Turban ?


A 1602 Dutch engraving ( entitled “ Triumphal procession near the city of Patani ” ) of the entourage of Patani’s famed Raja Hijau (1584-1616). The Queen rides a decoratively harnessed elephant, accompanied by her maids-in-waiting (and plausibly her sisters, the future Rajas Biru and Ungu) on other elephants. Noblemen accompany the entourage, which has its full complement of Malay palace guards and soldiers in Portuguese-supplied helmets and battle gear. According to the original German and Latin text, two elephants in the vanguard carry armaments in honour of the late King and Raja Hijau’s father, Sultan Bahadur Shah.

Image: Isaac Commelin, “ Hoe de Koninginne van Patana haer gaet vermaecken ” in Begin ende Voortgangh van de Vereenighde Nederlandsche Geoctroyeerde Oost-Indische Compagnie (Beginning and Ending of the Dutch East India Company), 1646, extracted from the Atlas of Mutual Heritage, Nationaal Archief, Nederland (National Archive of the Netherlands).

[PenangsangII]

so Siam ? Ayuthaya was indeed a muslim state....

over the years the history of Siam was reconstructed to befit the Thai nationalism. I am sorry, thats is at least what many in Malaysia, esp in the northern part see it.....

[David]

Originally Posted by PenangsangII

so Siam ? Ayuthaya was indeed a muslim state....

over the years the history of Siam was reconstructed to befit the Thai nationalism. I am sorry, thats is at least what many in Malaysia, esp in the northern part see it.....

I am not really interested in entertaining such a contentious question on this forum, especially since it seems to have little to do with keris.
Many nations reconstruct their history somewhat, including, i dare say, Malaysia.
I does seem strange to me however that a cabinet depicting such clear human form would be the product of a Islamic culture. It should also be understood that the history of Ayutthaya was recorded by many others besides the Thai themselves as they traded openly with states as far away as France.