Perhaps there is a possibility to continue the discussion from
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...7&page=1&pp=30 here.
My interest is the stylistic analysis of this hilt. Alan writes " Stylistically this hilt seems to be Majapahit."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey
I can understand your doubts, gentlemen, however, John Miksic is one of the notable authorities in this field. He has spent considerable time in Indonesia.
People with a reputation tend to guard it and to be cautious, rather than not.
I suggest you google Miksic and ask yourself if he would be likely to endanger his own reputation.
As for the object itself.
(...)
Stylistically this hilt seems to be Majapahit.
Personally, I would not question it --- most especially would I not question it on the basis of information from a photograph.
|
Also David shares this opinion.
[QUOTE=David]
I do believe that this hilt from
Old Javanese Gold is most probably from the Mojopahit period, so older than Gustav believes the horn hilt to be (17th century).
[/QUOTE
David also provided the description of this hilt in the actual book:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David
Gustav, if you have not obtained Miksic's book yet (as you mention in the thread you linked us to on this gold hilt), he has very little to say about it despite the hilt appearing both on the front and back dust cover, as the full-page chapter lead photo for the Middle and Late Classic Period section of the catalog and once again as a series of three photos showing various sides of the hilt. He does not specifically date the hilt and only writes:
"Its sharp nose and smooth and rather swollen and rounded body are quite similar to those seen in depictions of humans and mythical heroes in shadow puppets (wayang kulit) and in illustrations in other media, such as wayang beber (painted cloth scrolls used in telling stories) and illuminated manuscripts. The monster wears a necklace, originally set in stone."
|
to which I replied:
[QUOTE=Gustav]
Regarding the hilt from "Old Javanese Gold" - The ornamentation of Bungkul is pretty much the same as on later (?) hilts. As far as I see in the picture, the figure has male organs where we could expect them to appear. A little quiz to the readers, who are still with us - what are two very unusual symbolic/ornamental features found on this hilt? Both can not be found on other demonic figural hilts from early European collections (the adornments at the ears and necklace, "originally set in stone" left aside. Correct me if I am wrong, yet the kind of securing stones at Majapahit Period is well known and was different, with two or four little "claws". And the bordures of the stones are remarkably intact, while the stones are gone). And this is, what leaves me with a question mark, when I look at the depictions of this hilt.
Of course, I am not somebody to criticize John Miksic (I am not sure if description of this hilt is his at all), yet besides the very sloppy dating "1000-1400", which appeared on internet presentations of this book, it is very strange to compare a hilt possibly coming from Majapahit period to Wayang Kulit figures of "humans and mythical heroes" (because there is only one "human" figure from 17th cent., which is Wayang Klitik, the earliest Wayang Kulit "human" ones are even later made), and the old existing Wayang Beber, from Gedompol and Gelaran, are not earlier then 1700. Why is the writer comparing this hilt with much later artefacts, and not art of Majapahit, "1000-1400"?
QUOTE]
So I am very interested in a description of indicators, which would lead to dating of this hilt as coming from Majapahit period. Especially, if in the published book there indeed would be no mentioning of a time period, to which this hilt could be attributed.