[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you Jean.

I do not understand Dutch. I have not the slightest inkling of what the text on the photographed page says.

I can see the hilts, and over the last 50+ years of visits to Bali, similar hilts have always been identified to me as variations in representations of Ganesha.

I am not arguing against the true identification being different to the opinions of multiple people in Bali over an extended period, but I would very much like to see some confirmation of Mr. van Veenendaal's opinion, and from an authoritative source.

I do know for a fact that Balinese craftsmen and artists do vary the ways in which they present well known characters.

I know that Ganesha is an extremely popular subject for carvers and other artists in Bali. I also know that figures identified as Ganesha come in a variety of different representations, from a frightening raksasa-like form --- that the carver told me was Ganesha as Gajah Mada, who was seen as terrible in Bali --- to Ganesha as a child in a playful mood.
(Gajah Mada was candified as Ganesha).

I personally have around 50 representations of Ganesha, ranging from a stone statue in my garden, to a tiny fob on my watchchain. Each representation is different.

I doubt that I have ever seen a Balinese representation of Ganesha that would be accepted by a mainline Hindu devotee as a genuine representation of Ganesha.

I have never encountered mention of Raja Sri Gajah Waktra from a Balinese person in reference to a physical representation of Raja Sri Gajah Waktra. I cannot recall seeing in any printed work a physical representation of Raja Sri Gajah Waktra. I only know of this person from reading.

If Mr. van Veenendaal was able to positively identify these "Ganesha variations" as being, in fact, representations of Raja Sri Gajah Waktra, this would be a valuable addition to our knowledge of the Balinese plastic arts, not only for people in Western cultures, but perhaps even for the Balinese people them selves.

Thus, an authoritative verification of the forms that Mr. van Veenendaal identifies as Raja Sri Gajah Waktra would seem to me to be something very desirable.

EDIT

I've been thinking about this all day, and I think I might have an answer, I'm away from home at the moment and cannot check anything, so I'm just going to float a couple of ideas and perhaps somebody with access to sources can confirm. It would help if I could read the Dutch text of Mr. van Veenendaals, but I cannot, so I'm guessing.

In the text of Mr. van Veenendaal he refers to "Sri Gajah Waktra". The name in this form refers to an archaic Balinese ruler so, correctly it is "Raja Sri Gajah Waktra", who was known by other names as well. The "Gajah Waktra" part is a title.

However, if we drop the "Sri" and give the name as "Gajahwaktra" then we are talking about a character from the Sutasoma kakawin who tries to eat Prince Sutasoma.

I probably should mention also that some people believe that the Sutasoma Gajahwaktra is in fact an incarnation of Rudra who of course is an incarnation of Siwa who is the father of Ganesha.Thus Gajahwaktra is actually a representation of Ganesha.

There is another story too that I only half recall and want to check, where Ganesha breaks his tusk and then gets named as Gajahwaktra or Ratkatundra(?). So in fact, Ganesha and Gajahwaktra are the same in this story. I'm pretty sure that this story is a Balinese story.

So, depending on the way the name is presented, and depending on the context these demonic representations of Ganesha might legitimately be named as "Gajahwaktra" --- but I have never encountered this usage.

What we might have in the van Veendendaal text is a confusion in identities --- but perhaps the rest of the Dutch text negates that idea.