[A. G. Maisey]

You will probably think much longer on this hilt style, IP. It has been in my thoughts since I first encountered it, and I really forget how long ago that is.

In fact, I am not taking any argument anywhere, I am only laying out a few ideas for consideration, currently I do not wish to push any firm ideas on this hilt style, except for one:- my personal belief is that every idea I have so far encountered in respect of this hilt style is wrong. I am not yet ready to push a replacement idea.

In the study of things related to pre-Islamic Jawa, and to Bali, an understanding of mainline Hindu beliefs is useful, but as with most belief systems, there are a number of ways for the beliefs to be understood. Mainline Hindu belief has four major belief systems and I don't know how many sects.

Gopinatha Rao's "Iconography" was re-published sometime in the 1990's, it was originally four volumes, in the republication those four volumes were republished in two volumes. I've had it for about 20 years, I had been aware of it long before i bought it, but had never seen a complete copy. When I got it I set out to read it cover to cover. I failed. I dive into from time to time, but in all honesty I do not find it to be of much use.

There are a number of variations in all the Hindu stories and beliefs, and since my principal interest is Jawa-Bali, I have needed to concentrate on that. Although we speak of Jawa-Hindu, and Bali-Hindu, there is variation between these belief systems and mainline Hindu. Jawa-Hindu was a synthesis of Hindu + Buddhist + plus indigenous Javanese belief. Bali-Hindu is indigenous Balinese belief + Hindu-Buddhist belief imported from Jawa + Hindu belief and Buddhist belief that entered Bali prior to the Javanese influences that came into play. In recent times this syncretic mix has been overlaid with all kinds of external influences, including those which have arisen from the time of formation of the new political entity of "Indonesia". Bali-Hindu is now known as Agama Hindu Dharma.

When we consider Balinese interpretations of Hindu or Buddhist figures we often see interpretations that would not be recognized by a follower of mainline Hindu or Buddhist belief. We find that characteristics get mixed, or misinterpreted, and then we have the indigenous characters, whose characteristics are sometimes mixed with characteristics of Hindu or Buddhist characters.I have come to a place where I am inclined to believe that perhaps the carver of a figure is really the only person who knows exactly who or what he has carved --- the rest of us can only guess.

IP, you might find Dowson's "Classical Dictionary of Hindu Mythology" to be of interest, it was first published around 1870, and has been through many re-prints since.

Edit

Oh yeah, that little figure the left. I cannot recall having read who or what that might be, but the demon kerbau was only the asura Mahisa in animal form, when the demon buff was killed, Mahisa emerged from its throat. In some sculptures of this type Durga is seen touching the head of the little figure, in Javanese culture this is an extremely insulting thing to do. It might be Mahisa. There are plenty of references on Javanese sculpture, you'll probably find an educated opinion in one of them. I'm only guessing.