A most interesting keris, with figure

S.Workman · 19th August 2014, 06:26 PM

Holy frijoles, no one can tell me about this fellow? Maybe the post went downstream too fast....

Rick · 19th August 2014, 09:37 PM

Looks like a little rust at the tip you might want to address .

Maybe more specific questions would be warranted .

A. G. Maisey · 19th August 2014, 11:14 PM

The dress appears to be genuine timoho and it is excellent.

The blade probably dates from the second half of the 19th century and is more likely to be from Lombok than Bali, Bali is not out of the question, its just that manipulated pamors seem to occur more frequently in keris that are certainly Lombok. It is not an unusual pamor. The garap is very good.

The carving on the gandhik is very non-typical, in my opinion it is much later than the blade and has probably been added to the blade to enhance sale value.

In its original form it would have been a good, upper-middle quality keris which in Bali/Lombok at that point in time would have served as both weapon and for social necessity.

This is the type of Balinese keris that seems to have left Bali in the period between about 1920 and 1960, we must of course exclude the the period of the Japanese occupation, but it does qualify as the type of keris that visitors to Bali brought home with them during both the pre-WWII tourist period and the tourist period through to about 1960, or perhaps a little later. Even in the early 1970's old keris were being reworked in Bali to make them more attractive to visitors. In 1982 I bought an old keris with a re-worked gandhik in a photo-processing shop in Bali, it was the last reasonably priced keris I was ever able to buy in Bali.

S.Workman · 19th August 2014, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

The dress appears to be genuine timoho and it is excellent.

The blade probably dates from the second half of the 19th century and is more likely to be from Lombok than Bali, Bali is not out of the question, its just that manipulated pamors seem to occur more frequently in keris that are certainly Lombok. It is not an unusual pamor. The garap is very good.

The carving on the gandhik is very non-typical, in my opinion it is much later than the blade and has probably been added to the blade to enhance sale value.

In its original form it would have been a good, upper-middle quality keris which in Bali/Lombok at that point in time would have served as both weapon and for social necessity.

This is the type of Balinese keris that seems to have left Bali in the period between about 1920 and 1960, we must of course exclude the the period of the Japanese occupation, but it does qualify as the type of keris that visitors to Bali brought home with them during both the pre-WWII tourist period and the tourist period through to about 1960, or perhaps a little later. Even in the early 1970's old keris were being reworked in Bali to make them more attractive to visitors. In 1982 I bought an old keris with a re-worked gandhik in a photo-processing shop in Bali, it was the last reasonably priced keris I was ever able to buy in Bali.

It was said to have been a part of a collection that was very old. I guess this brings up the question of "authentic", i.e., at what point in a keris' life do changes become forgeries? Was there ever a type of decoration like this in that region? All the other figures I have seen seem to be more flat, almost like outlines.
As far as the pamor goes, I like it. I suppose if you have seen hundreds or thousands of keris, it may be no big deal, but I can certainly get lost in the pattern myself.

David · 20th August 2014, 12:24 AM

Well you chimed in Alan. I was composing my post while you were posting yours so you answered some of my questions while i was writing them.

David · 20th August 2014, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.Workman

I guess this brings up the question of "authentic", i.e., at what point in a keris' life do changes become forgeries? Was there ever a type of decoration like this in that region? All the other figures I have seen seem to be more flat, almost like outlines.

I don't think this is an issue of "forgery". Keris are often altered for legitimate cultural purposes so just because the figure on the gandik may not have been there initially that does not necessarily mean this keris is not "authentic".

A. G. Maisey · 20th August 2014, 06:03 AM

I consider this keris 100% authentic, but I have never seen a Bali keris with this type of ornamentation on the gandhik. Usually if there is a gandhik carving it is a Bhoma or something similar, not a human figure in a yoga position.To my mind there is not really any place for this figure in the keris culture that is associated with Bali. I guess it probably qualifies as a puthut, but I've never seen a puthut rendered like this.

But that does not make it non-authentic, nor a forgery. Most definitely not a forgery.

My first thought on the carving was as I said, enhance sale value, but it may have been put there or ordered to be put there by a yoga practitioner.

As to "old collection", well, if I die tomorrow --- Heaven Forbid!! --- my collection can be sold as an "old collection". My personal collection dates from 1953, but it incorporates my grandfather's collection which was put together immediately after WWI, around 1919 through to around 1930.

The tourists started to find their way to Bali not long after the puputans, and by the 1920's it was certainly on the tourist map.

Yes, it is a nice pamor motif, but not uncommon.

On the question of when does an alteration become a forgery, or perhaps, let us say, when does an alteration remove legitimacy from a keris. That's a hard question to answer. I think I must consider any blade that has been deliberately altered, rather than enhanced must be considered non-legit. For instance, the straight keris that is turned into a waved keris, the big old Tuban keris that is recarved to make it look like a more prestigious classification. This sort of thing. Not the addition of a good quality skilful carving that does not alter the body of the blade.

S.Workman · 20th August 2014, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

I consider this keris 100% authentic, but I have never seen a Bali keris with this type of ornamentation on the gandhik. Usually if there is a gandhik carving it is a Bhoma or something similar, not a human figure in a yoga position.To my mind there is not really any place for this figure in the keris culture that is associated with Bali. I guess it probably qualifies as a puthut, but I've never seen a puthut rendered like this.

But that does not make it non-authentic, nor a forgery. Most definitely not a forgery.

My first thought on the carving was as I said, enhance sale value, but it may have been put there or ordered to be put there by a yoga practitioner.

As to "old collection", well, if I die tomorrow --- Heaven Forbid!! --- my collection can be sold as an "old collection". My personal collection dates from 1953, but it incorporates my grandfather's collection which was put together immediately after WWI, around 1919 through to around 1930.

The tourists started to find their way to Bali not long after the puputans, and by the 1920's it was certainly on the tourist map.

Yes, it is a nice pamor motif, but not uncommon.

On the question of when does an alteration become a forgery, or perhaps, let us say, when does an alteration remove legitimacy from a keris. That's a hard question to answer. I think I must consider any blade that has been deliberately altered, rather than enhanced must be considered non-legit. For instance, the straight keris that is turned into a waved keris, the big old Tuban keris that is recarved to make it look like a more prestigious classification. This sort of thing. Not the addition of a good quality skilful carving that does not alter the body of the blade.

Thanks for all that Alan. Hopefully your collection will be with you and whole for a long time! How does one identify Bhoma? And, is that a different pronunciation and spelling of Bhima from Bhima Swerga? What identifying marks can an artisan give Bhima so as to make him recognizable on such a small carving, or was he the only human (?) figure engraved on blades?
Your timing is spot on though, it's said to be from a post WWI collection, so that makes sense. I think a 2 of my other keris are from the same collection.

sirek · 24th August 2014, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.Workman

All the other figures I have seen seem to be more flat, almost like outlines.

I want to share this Hanuman figure on my Bali keris, it is not an old keris but I liked how detailed Hanuman was made.
(and Hanuman is not as common as as the: singa, liman, naga)

David · 25th August 2014, 04:36 PM

Are you sure that is supposed to be Hanuman? It looks to me like the tail is scaled as in a snake and that the figure is seated on the coil. I've never seen Hanuman in this position, but it does remind me of Manasa, goddess of the snakes in some statue renderings i have seen.

Rick · 25th August 2014, 04:53 PM

Looks like Hanuman vs a Naga .

Jean · 20th August 2014, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

The blade probably dates from the second half of the 19th century and is more likely to be from Lombok than Bali, Bali is not out of the question, its just that manipulated pamors seem to occur more frequently in keris that are certainly Lombok. It is not an unusual pamor.

Hello S. Workman,
I attach the pics of 2 blades with a similar pamor and identified as Uler Lulut (snake skin) according to the latest balinese kris book published by the Neka Museum. Yours may be called Uler Lulut Wengkon because of the clearly marked peripheral frame.
Regards

David · 19th August 2014, 11:21 PM

Well, to be truthful i was waiting to hear what a few others had to say first.
It is indeed a very attractive keris and i can understand why you were drawn to it. I would love to see a straight on shot from the front of the gandik and the figure there. I guess the first question that comes to mind is whether or not this figure was original to the blade.
Beautifully matched dress of timoho pelet wood.
And yes, i would attend to that rust. It looks very minor now and easy to deal with , but that can change quickly.

25th August 2014, 04:53 PM	#11
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,347	Looks like Hanuman vs a Naga . Attached Images

19th August 2014, 06:26 PM	#1
S.Workman Member Join Date: May 2014 Posts: 116	Holy frijoles, no one can tell me about this fellow? Maybe the post went downstream too fast....

19th August 2014, 09:37 PM	#2
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,347	Looks like a little rust at the tip you might want to address . Maybe more specific questions would be warranted .

19th August 2014, 11:14 PM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	The dress appears to be genuine timoho and it is excellent. The blade probably dates from the second half of the 19th century and is more likely to be from Lombok than Bali, Bali is not out of the question, its just that manipulated pamors seem to occur more frequently in keris that are certainly Lombok. It is not an unusual pamor. The garap is very good. The carving on the gandhik is very non-typical, in my opinion it is much later than the blade and has probably been added to the blade to enhance sale value. In its original form it would have been a good, upper-middle quality keris which in Bali/Lombok at that point in time would have served as both weapon and for social necessity. This is the type of Balinese keris that seems to have left Bali in the period between about 1920 and 1960, we must of course exclude the the period of the Japanese occupation, but it does qualify as the type of keris that visitors to Bali brought home with them during both the pre-WWII tourist period and the tourist period through to about 1960, or perhaps a little later. Even in the early 1970's old keris were being reworked in Bali to make them more attractive to visitors. In 1982 I bought an old keris with a re-worked gandhik in a photo-processing shop in Bali, it was the last reasonably priced keris I was ever able to buy in Bali.

20th August 2014, 12:24 AM	#5
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,229	Well you chimed in Alan. I was composing my post while you were posting yours so you answered some of my questions while i was writing them.

20th August 2014, 06:03 AM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	I consider this keris 100% authentic, but I have never seen a Bali keris with this type of ornamentation on the gandhik. Usually if there is a gandhik carving it is a Bhoma or something similar, not a human figure in a yoga position.To my mind there is not really any place for this figure in the keris culture that is associated with Bali. I guess it probably qualifies as a puthut, but I've never seen a puthut rendered like this. But that does not make it non-authentic, nor a forgery. Most definitely not a forgery. My first thought on the carving was as I said, enhance sale value, but it may have been put there or ordered to be put there by a yoga practitioner. As to "old collection", well, if I die tomorrow --- Heaven Forbid!! --- my collection can be sold as an "old collection". My personal collection dates from 1953, but it incorporates my grandfather's collection which was put together immediately after WWI, around 1919 through to around 1930. The tourists started to find their way to Bali not long after the puputans, and by the 1920's it was certainly on the tourist map. Yes, it is a nice pamor motif, but not uncommon. On the question of when does an alteration become a forgery, or perhaps, let us say, when does an alteration remove legitimacy from a keris. That's a hard question to answer. I think I must consider any blade that has been deliberately altered, rather than enhanced must be considered non-legit. For instance, the straight keris that is turned into a waved keris, the big old Tuban keris that is recarved to make it look like a more prestigious classification. This sort of thing. Not the addition of a good quality skilful carving that does not alter the body of the blade.

25th August 2014, 04:36 PM	#10
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,229	Are you sure that is supposed to be Hanuman? It looks to me like the tail is scaled as in a snake and that the figure is seated on the coil. I've never seen Hanuman in this position, but it does remind me of Manasa, goddess of the snakes in some statue renderings i have seen.

19th August 2014, 11:21 PM	#13
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,229	Well, to be truthful i was waiting to hear what a few others had to say first. It is indeed a very attractive keris and i can understand why you were drawn to it. I would love to see a straight on shot from the front of the gandik and the figure there. I guess the first question that comes to mind is whether or not this figure was original to the blade. Beautifully matched dress of timoho pelet wood. And yes, i would attend to that rust. It looks very minor now and easy to deal with , but that can change quickly.