Figural horn (possibly rhino) hilt

[David]

Kai, here are a couple of examples which i am sure have been carved within the last 100 years. To my eye you can still see aspects of the lingam/yoni symbolism in the tumpals carved here.
I am also including a front shot of the older example i showed earlier for a comparison of the tumpals used there. I am uncertain of the actual age of this hilt.

[kai]

Hello David,

here are a couple of examples which i am sure have been carved within the last 100 years. To my eye you can still see aspects of the lingam/yoni symbolism in the tumpals carved here.

Yes, these 2 do qualify as modern. Very similar workmanship, indeed.

While it is evident that these are offspring of the old style hilts, it's not about the similarity (nor quality of workmanship) but rather differences in detail.

I am also including a front shot of the older example i showed earlier for a comparison of the tumpals used there. I am uncertain of the actual age of this hilt.

Thanks, a really nice one! This "man in green" style makes it even more difficult to place (and the wear doesn't help either to discern details).

We need close-ups from all sides of this hilt for analysis. It might be older than you think...

Regards,
Kai

[David]

Originally Posted by kai

Yes, these 2 do qualify as modern. Very similar workmanship, indeed.
While it is evident that these are offspring of the old style hilts, it's not about the similarity (nor quality of workmanship) but rather differences in detail.

Well, i only posted these hilts because Gustav seemed to be implying that the lingam/yoni symbolism is not to be found in the tumpal of "modern" versions of these hilts. While stylized i maintain that symbolism is indeed present in these examples. I have seen many other more modern versions where it is not.

Originally Posted by kai

Thanks, a really nice one! This "man in green" style makes it even more difficult to place (and the wear doesn't help either to discern details).
We need close-ups from all sides of this hilt for analysis. It might be older than you think...

I don't really want to detract from this thread too much by posting a series of images of this hilt. While worn it does seem to also incorporate the lingam/yoni into the tumpal. However, i have posted all sides of it before so you can check this thread out if you want a closer look. I am aware that it is pretty old.
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ight=buta+hilt

[Gustav]

As Jean and Kai pointed out, the devil is in the details. The details of eyes, eyebrows, ears, hair, fingers and so on are extremely important. I never would judge the age of a hilt by only one indicator, yet the total allows an opinion.

I am very sorry, yet I am reluctant to go into the smaller details, because I have no interest to participate in or to sponsor the indonesian Keris business.

Regarding more recent carvings (thank you David), I would say, the presentation of Lingga-Yoni symbolism differs from the old depictions on Bungkul of a hilt. I would even say, in more recent times this symbolism mostly is not understood by the carver, just the ornaments depicted, or the degree of "hiding" a symbol is a completely other one.

Regarding the symbolism within Tumpal, there is another important component, the Lotus blossom. "In the esoteric vajrayana-buddhism it signifies the female principle or the female genitals (as a substitute for the hindu yoni - Liebert, Iconographic Dictionary of the Indian Religions). In fact, the state of dissolution of Yoni-Lotus motif / the state of Tumpal motif as general arrangement for ornaments on Bungkul is a very important indicator for the stage of development and thus the approximate age of a hilt.

Regarding the material, I even doubt, if most of us would recognize it, when held in hand. The appearance of rhino horn can be very different, along with it comes the degree of polish and the age (I have the feeling, they become denser with age and you can't recognize the end grains well anymore). There is a big collection of 17th cent. chinese drinking horns in Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, and there are remarkable differences in appearance of the material. Of course, also because the chinese used horn of all three rhino species which lived in Asia. The very tip of the head of rhino hilt from Vienna (surely 17th cent., possibly much earlier) is covered with a small cap made from gold and gems, yet next to it you don't see any end grains.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for your informative response Gustav.

I understand your reasons for not wanting to expand upon what you have already written. I'm sure that some people will be disappointed by this, but I am equally sure that your decision has been taken after due consideration.

Regrettably I am presently unable to verify exactly what Liebert published in his list of Sanskrit terms, but if he mentioned only the lotus blossom as a substitution for the lingga/yoni, he was quite incorrect --- in spite of his eminence. In Tantric Buddhism (Vajrayana Buddhism) the blossom of the lotus can in some instances be interpreted as a substitution for the yoni, it is the stem of the lotus that can be interpreted as the lingga, thus, in Tantric symbolism when it is intended that the lotus be understood in a similar way to that in which the lingga/yoni is understood, the blossom must be accompanied by the stem. I am uncertain if this reading was applicable to Tantrism as it was practiced in Hindu Jawa. It may have been, but the evidence that I can recall seems to point to the more usual interpretations of the lotus, even amongst practitioners of Tantrism.

Actually, there are quite a lot of interpretations in the Hindu-Buddhist realm for the lotus, and it is not at all difficult to err when we attempt to understand exactly how a lotus in a particular place and time was intended to be understood.

Moreover, it is important to remember that the foundation symbolism in the Javanese keris is twofold:- the link to ancestor worship, and the link to the worship of Siwa (Shiva). These two ideologies join together and are expressed through the Gunungan. Any reading of the symbolism to be found in the Javanese keris must be done from a base of Javanese understanding within the applicable time frame. We cannot take mainstream religious understandings and expect that these can be used to understand the way in which beliefs, symbols and practices were understood in Hindu-Jawa. So, although we may believe that it is valid to interpret some symbol according to an understanding held in a different place, and at a different time, we must question this belief if it does not fit comfortably with the beliefs and practices that were current in Jawa prior to Islamic domination.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are we not discussing this matter in terms of 16th century Jawa?

When did the Islamic domination of Jawa really start to get rolling?

Perhaps we should ask ourselves if any mention of Tantrism is at all relevant at that time in Javanese history.

When we consider the iconography of Old Javanese art, there is also the necessity to take into account the interpretations of individual craftsmen, particularly so when we realise that keris and other dagger hilts in early Jawa were sometimes, possibly often, carved by their owners, not by craftsmen dedicated to the work.

[Gustav]

[QUOTE=A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for your illuminating and considered response Gustav.

I do understand your reluctance to share your knowledge with us, and I am certain you have brought tears to the eyes of many who were so eagerly awaiting your revelations.

QUOTE]

Alan, why such attitude?

I know, that you don't need any answers (as the thread "The Size of the Keris" clearly showed), and if, then only as a stage to demonstrate for another time your superior knowledge, superior ability to articulate and some other abilities.

Your posts in this thread are implying, that you most probably don't pay much attention to iconographical elements of 16th/17th cent. javanese figural hilts, to possible correspondences in East Javanese and Ming art, developments and dissolutions of these elements in later hilts, to the analysis of these elements.

Well, it's also a way.

Instead, in your last post, you deny that Tantric symbolism is still present in 16th/17th cent. javanese figural hilts. If the hilt carvers of today share your view, it's understandable, why the copies of old hilts are mostly quite well distinguishable.

Nevertheless, in your post #7 you are asking me to expand on comments about:

1) some indicators, which are typical for early figural hilts and doesn't appear on later Pasisir figural hilts, and this particular hilt has many of them

2) symbolism within the Tumpal, and the state of development of the reversed Tumpal under the feet of the figure

3) one very important feature, in which modern replicas of these hilts mostly fail.

I must say, you have always been very reluctant to answer such kind of direct questions in the past, and I have learned, that such questions, and especially from you, mostly are provocations. And they also once more let me think about your proximity with hilt carvers.

To the hilt - in my initial post I wrote: possibly 17th cent. and possibly rhino horn. Judging by the execution of iconographical details (unfortunately not by the proper javanese indicator of age) it could be one. There most probably will be no possibility to be certain about the material, yet - if it is an old one, it would be something very rare even if made from Kerbau horn, because there are only three other figural 16th/17th cent. javanese hilts published, and perhaps a couple more in private collections.

I suppose, the blade it came with doesn't really belong to the context, because of the amount of glue used to secure this ensemble. I also wouldn't expect such work from Indonesia, unless it was done by a blind person under time pressure.

[A. G. Maisey]

Gustav, as soon as I noted your response to my supposedly offensive comments, I attempted to rectify the misunderstanding of intent, however, the further comments that you yourself have indulged yourself in, I myself find to be unworthy of you. After reflection, I have come to the conclusion that there is a degree in confusion, or perhaps misunderstanding floating around here, so in an attempt to bring things back onto a congenial footing I offer the following:-

Please accept my apologies if my comments have offended you Gustav.
I had no intention of causing offence, I did have the intention of writing in a light hearted manner, because I personally do not regard much of this present discussion as having a lot of depth, however, I do realise that not everybody may feel the same way as I do, so I have tried as best I can to keep the ball rolling --- so to speak.

In fact, the words to which you seem to have taken offence are pretty much exactly what I would say in a situation where I was face to face with you, and in my country, between friends, those words would be understood as gentle bantering.

I acknowledge that I made an error in my choice of words, and I again aplogise for any and all offence I may have given. The spoken word does not always have the same effect when written, as it does when spoken, especially so when the exchange is across cultures.

The misunderstood words have been removed and less poetic ones have been substituted.

~~~~~

Gustav, your claim that I don't need any answers is totally incorrect, just as is your perception that I use this Forum as a parade ground.

In fact, when I ask a question, I need as many answers as I can get, most especially so when I believe that the person whom I have asked can provide knowledge that I do not have, or a way of understanding something, that is different to my own. This is often the case with somebody who has an interest in a subject and who has gained his understanding or knowledge from sources at variance with my own sources.

In the matter of the additional information that I requested, and that you refused to provide, I will make this further comment:-

I know you to be a very intelligent and diligent observer. I know that you sometimes see things that I do not, and that you sometimes remember things that I do not. I also know that you sometimes interpret things in a way that is at variance with my own understandings. Because of your personal attributes, and of your completely different educational sources I often find your observations and opinions to be useful.

In respect of the interpretation of Javanese iconography, it is true that I try to understand Javanese symbols in ways that could be acceptable a Javanese mind of the relevant time. The greater part of my life has been given over to attempting to gain a limited ability to do this, as a consequence I do not try to interpret Javanese iconography in accordance with Chinese, Indian, Persian, or European understandings.

For example, I ask you to consider the Javanese representation of the well known Singo Barong. Just exactly where does this symbol originate, and how is it understood in its society of origin, in comparison with the way it is understood in Jawa and Bali?

The exchanges over time between Jawa and many other societies are well known, and well documented, as is the inescapable fact that when Jawa accepts anything at all from outside Javanese culture, it takes that element, whatever it may be, gives it a good shake, mixes it with a few local spices, and turns it into something that would not be recognised in the place where it originated.

Now, Tantrism in Jawa.
Gustav, what some people regard as Tantrism is still present at a grass roots level in Jawa right now, and nobody can deny that it was definitely present at the time of the Kingdom of Singasari.

But is it Tantrism, or is it a way of understanding that is indigenous to Jawa?

Sooner or later Tantrism seems to make its appearance in some keris related discussions, which is to a degree perfectly understandable. However, when we consider the question of Tantric symbolism in post 14th century Jawa I believe that we need to try to understand that symbolism in the context of the time of production, not in the context of the time of origin of the symbol.

Time alters perception.

That which was so yesterday is not necessarily so today.

To look at a symbol, identify it as Tantric --- or for that matter anything else --- and immediately attach all the interpretations attributed to it at the time of its birth as a symbol, is a very simplistic and very often incorrect approach.

All symbols must be interpreted within the context of the time and place where the symbol was used, not in the context of the time and place where it was first created.

Gustav, I find your accusation that I indulge myself in troll-like behaviour to be on the one hand quite offensive, but on the other hand rather laughable, so in the final analysis I'm inclined to simply dismiss these comments. I understand that your misinterpretation of my initial comment in post #26 was not to your liking, so I'll take your unworthy comment as payback. Game over.

However, in respect of direct questions, a direct question is in my experience the only way to get a direct answer, and both the direct question, and its corresponding answer will usually give a clear understanding of the level of knowledge of both the questioner and the person who provides the response.

This is the reason that the traditional way in which keris knowledge is taught in Jawa is by the student asking the teacher a question, and teacher providing a response that is at a level with the present understanding of his pupil, as demonstrated by the question.

An answer will always be given, but just as a professor of nuclear science will tailor his answer to suit a questioner in kindergarten, as opposed to a PhD. candidate, so the teacher of keris knowledge will tailor his answer in accordance with the level of knowledge of his questioner.

In other words it is unwise to to try to teach children who do not yet know their ABC, the intricacies of Elizabethan literature.

When I ask questions in respect of the keris it is probably true to say that I do it for either one of two reasons:-

1) because I want to know something I do not know
2) to try to make others think

Yes, I do know several people who carve keris hilts, but the people I know are all based in Solo, and they work only in Solonese styles, they do not work in the figural styles found in East Jawa, North Coast Jawa, Bali, or Sumatera.

In fact, in my experience the traditional artisans of Jawa are totally uninterested in the opinions of people outside their own personal circle of acquaintances, and even then what opinions even their own acquaintances may voice, they find to be irrelevant:- "my family has always done it this way, I'll continue to do it this way."

Actually, all the people I know who carve hilts do not own computers, do not understand how to use the internet, and in most cases are only marginally literate. Their language is Javanese, when they use Bahasa Indonesia they are very limited and tend to use it mixed with the local dialect, they most certainly have no understanding of English at all.

There is a cottage industry, in Sumenep mostly, that produces modern copies of old styles, but Blind Freddy can see the difference between these productions and genuinely old hilts.

Intentional fakery at a production level is very, very rare in the World of the Keris, and when it does occur it is almost invariably directed at the local Indonesian market, and for much bigger money than any buyer outside Indonesia would ever be willing to pay.

Material?
To me, of no interest and not really worthy of discussion. This rhino horn thing has been discussed to death, long before this thread began.

To me, the true value of this present discussion has been in the other matters that we have discussed.

[Gustav]

[QUOTE=A. G. Maisey]

Any reading of the symbolism to be found in the Javanese keris must be done from a base of Javanese understanding within the applicable time frame. We cannot take mainstream religious understandings and expect that these can be used to understand the way in which beliefs, symbols and practices were understood in Hindu-Jawa. So, although we may believe that it is valid to interpret some symbol according to an understanding held in a different place, and at a different time, we must question this belief if it does not fit comfortably with the beliefs and practices that were current in Jawa prior to Islamic domination.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are we not discussing this matter in terms of 16th century Jawa?

When did the Islamic domination of Jawa really start to get rolling?

QUOTE]

In the book "Art of Indonesia/Pusaka" (Periplus 1998, there are many editions of this book) there is an article by Suwati Kartiwa with K.R.T. Hardjonagoro. On page 173 a wall plaque is depicted, dated 1711. The text says: "In Cirebon, one of the oldest cities in Java, wooden plaques hang on house walls near the entrance door to protect the household from evil influences. Cirebon art combines motifs from various sources: the figure on this example has an elephant's head like the Hindu god Ganesa, and stands on a cloudlike ground reminiscent of south Chinese art of Ming Dynasty." So it is well possible the people at that time were aware of the function of Ganesa as master and remover of obstacles. See also plate LXIII from van der Hoop, Indonesische Siermotieven.

There are many such examples of elements (and conceptions) of hindu art living further in the art of 16th/17th cent., especially in coastal cities, yet also elsewhere. There are the famous wall plaques from Keraton Kasepuhan in Cirebon. A relief from Mosque in Mantingan depicts a completely scroll-covered ape and a crab, which corresponds to the Setubandha episode from Hikayat Seri Rama. Museum Nasional has a gold plaque depicting this episode, dated 14th/15th cent., East Java. An interesting coincidence - the scroll covered body could be the same tendence of "hiding" a figure exposed on old hilt of David http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ight=buta+hilt. As I understand, for some people this is a sign of somewhat later stage in development, yet we are able to found figures with limbs merging into foliage already in the art of Majapahit (Eggebrecht, Versunkene Königreiche Indonesiens, 1995: cat nr. 149, Museum Nasional, Inv. Nr. 422b).

We have many symbols from Candi Sukuh depicted on gateway of mosque in Sendang Duwur such as the Garuda wings and the "Rainbow" arch with Kala and two deer heads substituting Makara.

In fact, I think the coastal cities with their elements of Muslim Chinese art influenced art of Majapahit for some time bevor the collapse of Majapahit, and symbols/motifs and their meanings from the art of Majapahit lived forth for some time in coastal cities after Majapahit ceased to exist. There almost never is a "pure" state of something. This, of course is nothing new, yet important in context of these figural hilts.

Of course at some time some elements ceased to be understood as symbols, became just motifs, and then disappeared. This development could in some cases be a possibility for a rough estimation of age.

[Gustav]

Well, continuing the journey a few thoughts about the four edges visible in the deep cuts between the triangles.

These edges are a feature, which indeed disappear in later Pasisir figural hilts. They are very good distinguishable as a socket/pedestal of the figure in Early Gowa style gold hilts, actually in all early hilts depicting an aristocratic character (Vienna, Munich). The hilt in Vienna (before 1607) still has the original paint, and the socket is painted in dark red - it perhaps insinuates the Majapahit style brick architecture.

These four edges, sometimes still as socket/pedestal are seen in most 16th/17th cent. figural hilts with demonic naked figures. They sometimes are practically indistinguishable in pictures, yet clearly seen when held in hand. This makes them hardly reproducible today, because carvers in Indonesia are still working from pictures, I suppose (I will write in a separate post about it later).

Yet these edges continue to appear in Cirebon and Tegal hilts of other styles at the typical "waist"! It is a very good example for a certain feature ceasing to appear in original context and wandering to a new, currently appearing one.

In figural Rakshasa/Yaksha hilts the development is very clear - the cuts between the triangles are closing, the edges in the cuts disappear, the individual symbols within the triangles disappear, the triangles become all the same size, at the end we have a continuous Tumpal board.

A speculation about the socket/pedestal in context of naked Rakshasa/Yaksha figures - perhaps there is a possibility to interpret it as a rock, and then, to regard the whole ensemble in the context of a mountain hermit (which as a form of religious existence is very popular at the end of Majapahit rule as well as in early Islamic period until Mataram II - it really is a junction). Here I remember the sheath of Nr. 2881 from Dresden. On it a mountain scenery is depicted, with many small buildings, indistinguishable in photographs, which I called "Candi like" back then. Now I understand - these most probably are hermitages. Mount Penanggungan and many other were full of them. Also in front of Gandar (where Gandhik of Keris rests behind, left edge in the picture) of both Viennese and Sendai Sunggingan there is a depiction of a very simple architectonic structure with roof, at exactly the same place - now I also understand it as hermitage, becouse of Mountain scenery on both Sunggingan (depicted is the Sunggingan from Vienna, before 1607).

Actually the same scenery is depicted on gateway of Sendang Duwur - mountains with many small caves/buildings, which possibly are hermitages.