Balinese Keris hilt ID

[David]

Originally Posted by Jean

I am not a museum curator but this style of hilt is usually identified as Ravana from the leaf or sword in his right hand
Regards

Well, i was going to suggest that, but giving the line of our conversation here thought it best just to post it without much comment.

[Battara]

Even keeping in mind Alan's wonderful and insightful history summary (and you did a great job, thank you), I would still say that this Met example is Ravana and well. I'm with you Jean.

[mariusgmioc]

Regarding the example from the Metropolitan, LaRocca identifies a very similar figure featured on the cover of his book, as Rahvana.

http://www.metmuseum.org/research/me...Arms_and_Armor

[A. G. Maisey]

I am not arguing against this recent character being Ravana.

However, an opinion without evidence to support that opinion is only as good as the person giving the opinion.

Since none of us here are noted authorities on the identification of the characters shown in Balinese totogan hilts, may I suggest that when we give an opinion, we support that opinion with either evidence or rational argument?

[David]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Regarding the example from the Metropolitan, LaRocca identifies a very similar figure featured on the cover of his book, as Rahvana.

True, people attribute. Even supposedly learned people attribute. That still doesn't mean that they are ultimately correct. I do wonder where that leaves us as collectors though. While i fully understand Alan's reasoning on why we cannot really know the true intention of the maker and the actual purpose behind the creation of any specific figural hilt does that mean that these hilts defy collector categorization completely. There are, of course, good points and bad points to the concept of categorization in this field. We may not know, for instance, if a hilt that appears in this classic form we have in the past IDed as Bayu was intended to actually be Bayu, or perhaps represent the owners ancestor in the form of Bayu or whether it is just an artistic representation that happens to follow this form we know as Bayu. But what about for the sake of communication between collectors. For instance, i am fairly sure that if i said to many of you that i have an interesting Bali Bayu hilt, in all likelihood you would have a pretty good idea of what to expect before i finally present a photo of said hilt. This seems to be the way it goes in most collecting. We name things so that we have a common understanding of what we are talking about with each other.

[Rick]

Carvers also make handles that defy classification.
In a hundred years maybe this guy will have a official name.

[David]

That fellow is pretty fearsome. We should give him a name before he hurts somebody.

[A. G. Maisey]

David, my point in mention of the true original intent of the maker is a fairly extreme example of just how difficult it can be to correctly identify the character depicted in a hilt figure.

I used this example to make a point, and it seems to me that the point has been made.

However, if we take one step back from the extreme we are still left with a figure that bears certain physical characteristics that may permit the identification of that figure as an identifiable character from the Balinese pantheon of gods, or from Balinese folk lore.

Alternatively, if the physical characteristics that a particular figure may bear cannot be aligned with the characteristics associated with a known deity or folk figure, then the figure is no more than artistic drivel:- it bears no association with a deity or a folk character.

Yes, certainly, we can loosely --- mostly very loosely --- refer to some hilt figure as a recognised character, and as collectors we tend to do this without a great deal of critical thought:- if a hilt figure looks more or less like one that we have already given a name to, we tag the new figure with that name too, and as you point out, others understand what we are talking about.

This is using a name, correct, or incorrect, as a device with which to communicate, and that's fair enough, as far as it goes.

Personally, I would prefer to see a slightly more rigorous approach. Using Bayu as an example, I would like to see an approach where if we name a figure as Bayu, we give our reasons for doing this, but more than that :- we name the source that we used to gather the information that permitted us to provide reasons.

I don't believe that any of us simply pull names out of the air and stick them on figures. Not at all, we have reasons for doing so.

Where did those reasons come from?

Perhaps over time we may find that we have that Black Beast of inaccurate information by the tail, where all roads ultimately lead back to one original incorrect or dubious source.

Failure to use the passion to collect as a vehicle by which to gain knowledge only deprives us of the greatest pleasure that a passion to collect can offer.