Quote:
Originally Posted by RobT
Gustav,
So, if I understand you correctly, the proper spelling would be cenangan but, since that is a fairly recent coined catchall term for related forms of simple hilts, both of my examples should more properly be called tapukan? With this post I have provided an example complete with hair covering. The wood of this hilt is one piece but the wood of the second kris I showed is in two pieces. As for that second kris, you may very well be correct about the “crosspiece and the long part” not being original to each other. The figure in the wood of the gandar and that of the wranka don’t match. Also, that large brown patch where the two parts of the sheath join appears to be some kind of wood putty. There is also evidence of extensive repair to the same area on the back side of the keris.
Sincerely,
RobT
|
Rob,
as Alan indicated, we are moving in direction of a mine field. Let me illustrate this.
There is a serie of books about Arts of Dutch East Indies by J.E. Jasper, a Dutch official, who started to gather materials for it around 1914. The book which deals with Pamor and weapons was published in 1930. As in almost every book, there are inconsistencies and possible errors, but it is a very good look on Keris betwwen the world wars.
Let's take a look on non-figural Balinese Keris hilts in that book. About the form with gold wire braiding between Selut with stones and an end piece with Liking Paku figurine, he writes - it is called Loceng (which is Loncengan), in North Bali called Grantim (Gerantiman). If such hilt (in North Bali) has a plain Selut (apparently still with braiding), it is called Loceng (Loncengan). If such hilt, with Selut and Liking Paku finial, appears with plain wooden body, without braiding, it is called Telaga Ngembeng. After a couple of paragraphs he calls exactly the same hilt form Tapuk (Tapukan).
A paragraph later he speaks about hilts for Sudra people, mentions a hilt with Ijuk wrapping without giving a name.
As we see, it most probably is quite a mess in itself, and a complete mess compared with today's hilt terminology. And almost every book is so - it is a picture of writers or his informants clique and its beliefs.
In Nekas book (2010), page 128, bottom row, we have three hilts, all with a selut, two integral, two with finials - all three of them he calls Cenangan. The left and central ones are a form Jasper calls Djaglir, the right one could be called Loncengan, and, if we assume Neka uses Cenganan as a substitute for Loncengan "everything would be still OK", as Billie Holiday sings.
The problem appears, when on page 133, bottom row, three plain wooden hilts are presented, without metal Selut and finial, with hair and Ijuk wrapping, like in your #10. Neka calls them Loncengan. Some people in very recent past, including myself, were calling them Tapukan. But - if Lonceng means "plain" - they surely are plain! And so what if about 100 years before Loncengan was a name for hilt with metal Selut and finial, reserved for Triwangsa - today is today, and the same word constantly shifts the area of what it describes.
So - all depends to which clique you belong, which book do you use. And everything changes constantly in a living culture, and people often contradict to themselves.