I also believe that the sample above is actually hippo ivory. Not much evidence to form a basis of my belief apart from the dotted line present on hippo ivory matches with the one on these hilts and the following observations.

I noticed that there are 3 main types of ivory normally used to make keris hilts. Elephant (with cross hatch), "hippo" (mainly refered to as "gigi ikan" with the dots) and another one with no dots or cross hatch. The third type is normally smaller in size. Probably this is the real "gigi ikan"? :shrug:

The thing about "gigi ikan" versus elephant ivory and hippo's tooth is that, some people here consider "gigi ikan" as clean while elephant ivory and hippo (if that is the material) as unclean according to teachings in Islam. Probably this is the reason why the material is being presented as gigi ikan in the first place.

Currently, "hippo" ivory fetches a bit higher price here as opposed to elephant ivory (probably for the above reason) However when we look to old Malay saying "Sudah dapat gading betuah, tanduk tidak berguna lagi". Meaning a person had something much more valuable (elephant ivory) compared to horn.

If "gigi ikan" is being regarded highly in the old days, probably the saying will say "sudah dapat gigi ikan bertuah...." but this is not the case. (Notice that the cleanliness issue does not seem to play any role here) Probably people the really old times are not aware or does not subscribe to the belief that elephant ivory are unclean hence the above old saying. Therefore, my speculation that this "gigi ikan" thing is actually market driven due to the cleanliness issue that arose not very long ago.

But, it's just my speculation that is built on a very brittle foundation.. :D

Hello Rasdan,
Thank you for the interesting Malaysian perspective. Gigi ikan (fish tooth) should normally refer to the spermwhale tooth (the most common) and dugong tooth/tusk (rarer and smaller in size), and they are known as marine ivory. I am not mentioning walrus ivory as I don't think that it was commonly used in the Malay region.
I checked the book Senjata Pusaka Bugis and found that they described most of the old ivory hilts shown in the book as dugong ivory (and few as elephant ivory), but I have my doubts about it considering the size and curvature of the Bugis hilts. :confused:
Regards

Jean, I would be very interested in a written evidence regarding this point, becouse I searched for it and found nothing that would support a theory of direct trade between Bugis and Africa.

First and foremost, let me be very clear:-

Jean, my remarks were not an attack upon you, nor upon anybody else.

I am simply try to get some solid evidence for the "hippo ivory" thing. As I have already remarked:- I have never heard mention of hippos until a few years ago. Why?

Jean, there is not challenge to trade links between Maritime SE Asia and Africa and the Middle East. It is established fact that trade was carried on for hundreds of years; the Malays began to extend trade links in about the 5th century, and there are populations of Malay people in a number of other countries, including a large presence in Madagascar --- just off the coast of Africa. There is no need to prove any connection between Maritime SE Asia and places far west, that connection is well documented and not at all open to challenge.

There is no difficulty at all in presenting a logical argument that hippo ivory could have made it to SE Asia, and could have been used in hilts.

But in my questioning post I did not ask for re-iteration of possibilities, beliefs nor logical argument. I asked for something slightly more positive.

In respect of this material only appearing in Sumatera and Peninsula hilts, well, maybe. These are the only hilts that have that pistol grip like curve that requires maximum manipulation of the material; in a Javanese or Balinese hilt the same material could be used and the ugly flaw of a dotted line avoided. The material could have been used, but we simply do not know.

I have a number of the hilts of the type that is associated with hippos. A couple have dotted lines, most do not. Mix these hilts, close your eyes, and try to identify one from the other. I've tried this, and I cannot. They all feel exactly the same. As to patina:- with the ones I have, he patina on the ones with dotted lines is pretty much the same as on the others, which I believe are marine ivory. Possibly others have a more sensitive touch than do I, and can differentiate on this basis, but I cannot.

I have a moderate collection of ivory pieces , and over 100 ivory keris hilts. Some pieces of known whales tooth do have colour variation on inside and outside, others do not.

Rasdan, thank you for your input. In my experience ordinary people in Indonesia do not differentiate between one kind of ivory and another. Its all "gading", even tagua nuts are referred to as gading by non-specialists and non-dealers. Why? Because to ordinary people all ivory -like materials look the same . Thus, if we have a colloquial expression --- " no use for horn if you've already got ivory" one could not reasonably expect a differentiation in colloquial usage.

If in Malaysia supposed hippo now brings a higher price than other ivory, it would interest me to know when this began to occur. I am inclined to believe that here we have evidence of input from the western world affecting the Malay market. Not dissimilar to the well known Keris Majapahit example.

Gigi ikan is a term that I would never expect to hear in Indonesia from a person with no keris connections, nor dealer connections.

Now, we've had a recitation of belief. It has been interesting and I accept it as belief. Maybe even entrenched belief. Is there anything just a little stronger out there?

Hello Gustav,
Alan replied to this point and he is fully correct that some of the Madagascar people are from mixed Malay origin. I will try to find more written evidence about the subject.
Regards

Hello Rick,
Yes indeed, if you google "hippo ivory sale" you will find this site which proposes many tusks at a very attractive price (cheaper than registered elephant ivory).
Regards

Jean, I don't know if these are Bugis people. The references I have only say "Malay".

They might be Bugis, but I don't know.

What I'm mostly interested in is this:-

when was the first mention of hippo ivory being used in these hilts, who made it, and upon what basis.

Following on from that, the proof that these hilts are definitely hippo ivory, not just the possibility that they could be hippo ivory.

I found a recent and interesting article about the various types of ivory at the following address:
http://stoneplus.cst.cmich.edu/zoogems/ivory.html
Nothing very new in it but a good summary with references and it confirms the dotted line and the higher density of hippo ivory (and spermwhale ivory) than elephant ivory especially. It also says that Schreger lines are only found in elephant or mamooth ivory :)
Regards

Hello Alan,
If you google "Malagasy people" and select Wikipedia you will read that: the "first Austronesian settlers (in Madagascar) arrived between the 3rd and 10th century from Borneo" but I can't comment on it and agree that they may be Bugis or not.
Regards

Jean, Madagascar people had nothing to do with Bugis trade. Regarding the settlement of Madagascar, it is still absolutely unclear if it was a deliberate act (more or less regular visits of Austronesians) or an accident. As I understand, the latest insights incline to see it as an onetime accident. More clear seems now, these people should be of South Borneo origin, and for sure this settlement was completed before 900 AD.

As I said, I searched a while ago about Bugis trade, and I even don't have found evidence Bugis traded directly with Ceylon=the Bugis vessels have reached Ceylon.

Gustav,
I agree, the Malay settlement in Madagascar occurred much earlier than the Bugis trade indeed. :)
Regards

Hi Jean,

The ones they have in the keris bugis book I think is probably sperm whale tooth. (Again a guessing game here) In the past, I had bought something that is being sold as dugong tooth. It's certainly does not look like ivory. Looks more like bone. (If it is really dugong's tooth that is - I don't even know if dugongs have large teeth/tusks to tell you the truth) It is very small to have a bugis hilt to be carved out of it, so I had it made into a hilt by gluing it section by section.

G'day Alan,

Yes, I agree that probably everything that look like ivory is labeled as elephant ivory by the general public in the past. This had probably annulled my second point.

But, what about the dots? It really correlates with the dots on hippo ivory. Pattani pekaka hilts (large Jawa Demam) is normally made from this kind of material and it can be very large. It is hard for me to imagine any ivory other than elephant that can provide the size. I certainly have very little experience with this kind of material, but are there any other type of material that have these dots? (I had seen these dots in a picture of a cross section of hippo ivory, but can't find it at the moment)

I have to make clear about the market of gigi ikan and elephant ivory here in Malaysia. The difference is not quite substantial. If we have two similar hilt, one is elephant and one is marine, the marine is gonna be a bit expensive. If we only have elephant, the the price would be pretty much the same with the marine one.

Jean, one of my deficiencies is that I am somewhat of a dinosaur.

I very seldom use internet sources for serious research, and when I do, I look for reference works or citations attached to the net source.

Regrettably Wikipedia very often has neither and that is the case with this Malagasy reference you have directed me to. In essence, it is somebody's opinion, but we don't know who, and we don't know how reliable that opinion is.

But in any case, all of this is very much off to one side. There is plenty of evidence of far reaching Malay trade links, and even if the Malays themselves were not roaming hither and yon, other peoples from far west were wandering over to S.E.Asia. Lots of movement.

I do not deny the possibility of hippos contributing to keris accoutrements.

That is not at all what was in my mind when I began this chain of posts.

Two questions:-

1) who first raised the matter of hippo ivory being used in keris hilts, and when was this first raised?

2) what solid evidence exists that can substantiate that possibility and turn it into fact?

This is what I would like to know.

Until we have answers to these two questions, especially the second one, the possibility of hippo ivory used as material for keris hilts is just that:- a possibility. No more.

As an aside, there is a theory that everything in the world gradually moves to the east. I have bought genuine, excavated, Roman beads (authenticated) in Jawa. No reason why hippo ivory should not have moved to the east, along with a multitude of other things. That is possibility. What I would like to see is positivity.


Rasdan, I know there are dots in some hilts.

I also know that in spite of all the ivory I own, I know very little about ivory, certainly not sufficient to identify simply by looking and lifting whether something comes from one beast, or a different beast.

Accordingly, I am not arguing against the possibility of hippo ivory in keris hilts.

I am asking for two things, as above.

With those answers I can then begin to wonder why it is that I have never heard mention of hippo ivory until very, very recently. Did the old-timers not know from what beast the material their keris hilts came? Then there is the dealer question. Dealers are sharp. They pass up on nothing that might generate an extra few rupiah.

Dear Rasdan,

look post #15 this thread. Agree with you that this dots a very clear sign for hippo ivory.

Regards,

Detlef

G'day Alan,

Yes if we are about to scientifically prove that it is hippo then what we had been doing is certainly inadequate and I surely don't have any answers.. :)

Hi Detlef,

Wow, the picture is right there and I can't remember?. Must be that apocalypse thing. (actually I jumped to the end of the thread :) ) Thanks for kindly pointing out the pic! :D

Hi Rasdan,

have posted the same picture by a other thread some time ago, I think you remember it from this time. :D

Regards,

Detlef

Thanks Rasdan.

But if we cannot prove this hippo ivory thing, is it possible to at least identify the first time that it was raised as a possibility, upon what basis, and by whom?

Dear Alan,

The spotted line is only found in hippo ivory.
Probably it is a western collector thing that we want to know the exact origin of ivory, and that we not accept a term as "marine ivory".

One of your points is that salesmen in Indonesia do not use the term hippo.
But do they make a big selling point of the fact if a hilt is made from elefant ivory ?
And in these cases do they specifiy this into asian elephant, african elephant and/or even mammoth ivory ?

Best regards,
Willem

Well, i will say that personal, from my own preferences as a Western collector, i am less interested in exactly what kind of ivory a hilt might be made of than i am the quality of the carving and the condition and patina of the piece. Elephant or hippo, i could care less really. It does seem to me that marine ivory (a term i do accept and usually assume is whale tooth since most dungong doesn't seem to have the mass to allow for the carving of many hilt forms) tends to age to a nice warm orange color that i do really like, but beyond that i really have no ivory preferences. :shrug:

Hello Alan,
I think that it will be very difficult to identify when and where the hippo ivory issue for making kris hilts started or when it was first documented, especially because it probably happened a long time ago and not in Java nor Bali.
And about scientifically proving the hippo ivory thing we would need to resort to a recognized materials analysis laboratory but personally I have no access to any at present. According to the litterature (Webster) the physical properties of hippo ivory differ from elephant ivory especially its specific gravity (1.8 to 1.95 versus 1.7 to 1.85) and its hardness (5 versus 2.5-3, this is the most marked difference). This shows the more mineralized structure of hippo ivory. These 2 physical differences are well (although qualitatively) reflected in the hilts attributed to hippo ivory IMO, together with the generally better ageing performance (less discolouring and cracks) and the presence of the famous dotted line. There are probably some more modern and decisive techniques (radiation, DNA analysis) able to differentiate them also but I am not aware of any.
What do our distinguished members from Singapore have to say about the subject?
Regards

Hello Willem,
Personally I fully accept the term "marine ivory" for kris hilts materials but for me it refers to spermwhale tooth, dugong tooth/tusk, and walrus tusk only.
I think that walrus ivory had been seldom used for making kris hilts and that because of the small size of the dugong tooth/tusk, it can only be used for relatively small and straight hilts (Jawa demam, putrasatu) but not for curved Bugis hilts for instance.
Best regards

G'day Alan,

I presume it probably started by a westerner recently. In my case, I stumbled upon the pic that Detlef had shown us earlier in this thread and I googled hippo ivory to see the possibility and I think it is possible that it is hippo since I didn't found anything else that matches the dotted criteria.

I did wondered how hippo ivory arrived here and the possibility that the people at that time "disguise" it as the cool sounding gigi ikan instead of the ugly hippo's tooth (assuming that people at that time know what is a hippo and have a common perception think that it is ugly and unclean) due to marketability and the cleanliness issue, but I never pursued the quest any further and I won't be able to defend my "theory" above. :)

Thank you gentlemen.


Willem, yes, I have read in this Forum many times that the dotted line proves that a material is hippo ivory. Many, many times.

What I would like to know is this:-

1) what is the source of this information? Hopefully it will be a credible source, possibly a book, or paper by some respected authority, or researcher, and with a verification from one or more other sources. I am looking for fact, not opinion.

2) when was this issue of "hippo ivory" relative to keris hilts first identified, and by whom?


Jean, I think you are naming "Webster" as the source for identification of hippo ivory by presence of a dotted line?

Who is Webster, how reliable is his work, when was it produced? Is there verification?

I have not raised the matter of where and when hippo ivory was first used, rather I have raised the matter of who first made the claim that certain keris hilts were made of hippo ivory, and when did this occur.


Rasdan, yes, I believe you're correct. I feel that it is absolutely a belief that is anchored in the western keris world, and a relatively new belief at that. This is the reason that I am attempting to fix a beginning point for this entry of the hippo ivory belief into keris collecting.

I'm not arguing against the possibility of hippo ivory, but what I would like to see is a qualifier when the possibility of hippo ivory arises, for example:-

"because of the dotted line (Webster) there is a high probability that this hilt is made of hippo ivory"

rather than:-

" this hilt is of hippo ivory"


David, this is not a comment on hippo ivory, but on quality of workmanship.

Thirty years ago in Surabaya I bought a large number of keris hilts from several different dealers. Some were wood, some were various kinds of ivory, some were in other materials. Some were old, some were recent. Most were Madurese and intricately carved.

The highest prices were paid for the finest workmanship. Material had very little impact on price. I paid more for some wooden hilts than I did for some ivory hilts. The determining factor for price was quality, not material.

In Jawa this situation prevailed through until the tree huggers swung into action and succeeded in getting the international trade in ivory banned. As predicted, the price of ivory immediately sky-rocketed and the illegal ivory trade along with mass extinctions of elephants took off like gang busters.

If you want make something more valuable, ban trade in that item.

Only want to add some reading stuff.

Here one site from cites: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/p...vory-guide.pdf
And here one from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: http://www.lab.fws.gov/ivory_natural.php#hippo
And here one from the International Ivory Society: http://www.internationalivorysociety...y-bob-weisblut

And there will a booklet coming for ivory identification: http://dcgia.org/2012/10/14/ivory-id...op-bobby-mann/

Aaarghhh, Detlef beat me. I was busy typing when he added several links. :D Never mind, I will just continue. ;)


Dear Alan,

1) Cites has a very destinctive interest in ivory and ivory trade.
They describe the dotted line on their website in an identification guide which was published in 1991 by the World Wildlife Fund.
The researcha was done by : United States National Fish & Wildlife Forensics Laboratory, located in Ashland, Oregon.
I consider them a respected authority on the subject.
http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/p...vory-guide.pdf

2) Absolutely impossible to say who first identified hippo ivory in relation to a keris hilt.
Who first identified elephant ivory in relation to the same ?
Who first identified buffallo horn as a material used for keris hilts ?
I don't think anyone can say who first identified these materials.
seems irrelevant to me who identified it first.
Who identifies it now ?, and based on which criteria ?

For me, the first time I came accross this knowledge was probably 9 years ago when I saw a very attarctive rencong for sale at "Aalderink Oriental Art" a gallery in Amsterdam, established in 1929. It is a respected gallery of good reputation.
The owner showed me the rencong which had a massive ivory hilt. He showed me the dotted line and explained that this indicated hippo ivory.
Then from a drawer he took a large hippo tusk that was partly in its original shape and partly grounded to a smooth surface. and there again was this distinctive dotted line.
Although I can be stubborn and headstrong, (according to my wife, my mother, my father and my sister, all respected autorities on the subject ;) :D )
I just had no reason to question this gallery owners authority on the subject and gladly accepted this little learning opportunity. :)

In the end, the material is not very important, it is the beauty of the item that counts. but in cases where I can identify the material I see no reason why I should avoid it. And it makes some nice conversation now and then.

Best regards,
Willem

I am constantly amazed at how far afield we get sometimes . ;) :)

Hello Alan,
The results from Webster (Robert) are referenced in the article from Richard V. Dietrich (Central Michigan University) which I listed in post #48.
I have no access to Webster's paper but it is included in the Gems & Gemolology Subject Index compiled by R.V. Dietrich (CMU) and A.A. Levinson (University of Calgary) as follows:
"Ivory distinguished from bone, Winter 1948-49, Volume VI, pages 105-110" (if I understand it correctly).
Actually the results from Webster as referenced by R.V. Dietrich concern the measurement of the specific gravity and hardness of hippo ivory as compared to other types of ivory and bone.
His work is not referenced in the CITES article bibliography probably because it is too old...
Regards

Thank you gentlemen. What you have jointly provided is exactly the sort of information I was seeking.

I cannot open the CITES link, but will accept that it endorses what you are all telling me.

In any case, my initial post has had the effect I had hoped for, and I thank you all for your participation in this interesting discussion.

Happy Christmas!!!

Guys, before saying this, I would like to state that in the company of most of you gentlemen, I know next to nothing about keris. I'm an intellectual dwarf on the matter. My knowledge is so small that it gathers at the feet of your knowledge, together with other small knowledges, just to bow down in the dust and WORSHIP! I realize that a lot of you have been collecting for half a lifetime – more in some instances – and that you possess a quality of knowledge that only comes with submersion in a topic for years on end. I have nothing but the utmost respect for all of you!

When it comes to ivory, it is likewise important to me to state that my knowledge on the subject doesn't come from arms collecting, but as a consequence of my job. As I have said before, I put bread on our table as a CITES Management Authority for our Nature Agency under The Danish Environmental Ministry and am now going on my 6th year. In other words: It's part of my daily work to look at random peoples' old stuff, make a source species ID and tell the owners if they need to apply for a CITES-permit/certificate before selling the item in question. I also work borders with our customs agency, ID'ing items coming in through the mail as well as carried by travellers in the airport.

By this time, I would estimate the amount of items from CITES-contained species that have passed through my hands, to number in the low thousands -conservatively set. When giving my opinion on a source species, the requirements of my position and the possible legal gravity that my judgement potentially carries, has cultivated in me a strong sense of carefulness: I might need, to later stand up in court and reiterate my opinion on the source of a given material in front of a judge. For that reason, I will ever only state that a material is from a certain species, if I with every fibre of my being consider it so. Any doubt at all, and I let it go.

A perspective which becomes apparent with sufficient time spent in this field, is that the guidelines for identification of ivories are exactly that: Guidelines! The more pieces you see, the more you become aware of the existence of anomalies and how completely far and strangely removed from the norm these often are. When you not only look at weapon hilts, but everything, from raw tusks and teeth, in longitudinal- and transsection, to tiny little jewelry and scrap ivory, it becomes very clear: A strong ID is not as easy as ticking of a certain box and then you have your species. This was the point of my first post:

To encourage other collectors to likewise be cautious and base their assessments on careful consideration of the whole piece presented, rather than quickly looking for a single character fit.


Regarding the piece at hand, my opinion is still, from the photographic material here presented, that the source might as well be some other kind of ivory than hippo. If I failed to make it clear in my first post, please let me explain here, that I mentioned walrus not because I found it a likely source in this case. I mentioned having seen similar “dots in a row” in walrus ivory (likewise with elephant) – none of which have an interstitial zone as part of their physiological structure. I mentioned this, merely to support my point that basing a species ID on a single character in a given piece of ivory, is a fallacy.

My thoughts on topic of hippo ivory in the context at hand, are much in alignment with Allan Maisley's. Like Allan, I would also very much like to see written proof that hippo ivory was carved and used in this way in South East Asia. Please note, that I don't say that I do not believe it, simply that I would like to see the source. In the face of new evidence, I am always up for changing my opinion!

Secondly, and for me more importantly, I would like a source to “dots in a row” being a sure-shot character for the ID of hippo ivory. Willem, my Borneo-guru, you belong right up there in the group of gentlemen that I first mentioned, but I humbly believe you to be wrong on this matter. I know Espinosa & Mann, very – very - well, but nowhere do I remember them making a reference to these “dots in a row”.


I would like to check it out now myself, but hey, it's New Years and I have an impatient girlfriend, actually waiting around for me this time.. Therefore, in the words of some Roman: Nunc est bibendum! :D



Happy New Years guys, - Thor

Hello Thor,
We are very lucky to have an ivory expert among us! :)
Personally I am convinced by your arguments since you are the specialist and admit that I have been too quick to accept the presence of the dotted line along with other qualitative or visual indicators (feeling of higher density & hardness, colour, structure) as a proven indicator that a piece is made from hippo ivory. I agree that this evidence was not sufficiently documented.
If my question is not too difficult, could you please tell us how do you positively identify carved hippo ivory pieces subject to your inspection?
And a more detailed one: did you ever notice a dotted line in some pieces identified as spermwhale ivory?
If I have the opportunity to meet you I will be glad to show you my pieces in question provided that your Customs Authorities do not seize them :D
Thank you and happy New Year!
Jean

Hello Thor,

please can you provide pictures of clearly determined walrus and elephant ivory with this "dots in a row"?

Hello Thor,

the provided links I and Willem have posted don't tell something about "dots in a row" but confirm this with other words. very clear in this link: http://www.internationalivorysociety...y-bob-weisblut like follow: "There is a nerve root that looks like a "dash" or curved line properly referred to as a "TIZ". "

And sometimes a picture can tell much more as written words. The picture is taken from here: http://www.beyars.com/de_elfenbein-f...pferdzahn.html Unfortunately all written in german language.

And here for comparison the handle from one of my badik handles. Sorry for be a pain in this matter but I am very very positive about to assign hippo ivory by this "dots in a row".

Best regards,

Detlef

Thor, I thank you most sincerely for your further post.

It seems that your professional background is not all that dissimilar from my own, not that I work in border control ivory identification nor for a CITES agency, but rather that when I give a professional opinion I must be able to substantiate that opinion beyond the point of dispute.

I have not yet been able to open the CITES link that was provided, but it would seem from what you say that the material in this link is of the nature of guidelines, rather definitive statements.

I much appreciate both your input to this thread, and the professionalism of that input. Thank you very much. I do hope you stay involved in our shared interest.