Figural horn (possibly rhino) hilt

[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]

Alan, thank you very much for your response.

I will try to answer your questions, but I will need some time to go through some books.

Please be gentle afterwards.

[Gustav]

Perhaps we (because it should be a discussion between many people in the ideal case) should start with the typical ornaments found on Bungkul of 16th/17th cent. hilts depicting naked figures of what is commonly called demonic character. These are my observations, I will try to be as exact as possible:

There are four upright triangular elements, dominating in size. The forward and the rear are mostly nearly identical to each other, as are the right and left ones.

The forward and rear consist of an elongated oval mirror, which sometimes is further partitioned, like on the initial hilt of this thread. There are tendrils on both sides of this mirror and above. So these two triangular elements are symmetrical in themselves.

The right and the left consist mostly of an bigger scroll (which in its size dominates the triangular element like the mirror the other pair). The second one, curving to the opposite direction is placed beside, sometimes the place for it is to small and it stays underdeveloped. From the top of the bigger scroll another smaller one in opposite direction is spouting/growing. So these "side triangles" are perhaps symmetrical in thought, yet not in the execution.

Above/between the upright triangles smaller downright ones are placed, and these consist mostly of tendrils with one more prominent scroll often more clearly distinguishable.

In the deep cuts between the upright and downright triangular elements sometimes more clearly the four edges of a cubic structure are visible.

This is the standard situation, which may slightly vary from hilt to hilt.

Now to the possible symbolic content of these features, at first the forward and rear triangles. This is the part, where I can only speculate and list the possibilities I am aware of.

The upright triangle as form could be expression of Gunungan and/or Kalpataru (the divine three). If together with the oval mirror in it, the range of interpretations widens. Then it could depict a Lotus plant with the blossom in the middle, which as whole can sometimes also be seen as a substitute for the divine tree. Important - Lotus as the base of a figure - the earliest clear depiction of a Mendak is a Lotus (on statue of Bhima/Kertolo in Museum Nasional). Lotus symbolizes the purity of divine descent, symbol of creativity and fertility, which leads to the understanding of the blossom (oval mirror) as Yoni and depiction as female genitals (the male genitals are that of the naked figure, they are placed exactly over the mirror. They sometimes have distinguishable Palang balls and do clearly belong to the shivaitic context. If you wish - when Keris is held in the hand, the Lingga is in the upright position pointing to Yoni (activated so to speak)). One more symbolic layer for the mirror is that of depiction of a Bintulu. Bintulu are often found at the base of East Javanese bronze figures, and have protective function. This all was always more or less clear.

Now to the right and left upright triangles. There are two possibilities:

1) the main element could be the bigger scrolll/tendril (which in size corresponds to the oval mirror)

2) we have the same three branches composition, which is distorted by the legs of the naked figure and becomes asymmetrical.

My thoughts to the first possibility: upright or downright scrolls are often prominent in gateways (Naga Temple in Blitar, 14th cent. or even more appropriate, gateway of mosque in Sendang Duwur, 16th cent.), and the source of this feature most probably is Makara. Together with the oval mirror in the middle of them, interpreted as Bintulu, it could be understand as a repercussion of Kala-Bintulu arch found at gateways of temples (and even schematically depicted on earliest Sunggingans as framing of water sources).

The second possibility - there is a depiction of the divine tree in van der Hoop, plate CXXXI. This is an asymmetrical Cirebon interpretation, and is quite close in general style to the triangles in question.

Well, time to sleep. It will be continued.

[Gustav]

Purely illustrative attachment to my previous post, the last picture is a base of a pillar from mosque in Demak, 15th/16th cent., as an example for a feature similar to one found on a base of hilts:

[Gustav]

David, regarding the Lingga-Yoni symbols on Keris hilt, an excerpt of my babbling from post #30.

[QUOTE=Gustav]

The upright triangle as form could be expression of Gunungan and/or Kalpataru (the divine three). If together with the oval mirror in it, the range of interpretations widens. Then it could depict a Lotus plant with the blossom in the middle, which as whole can sometimes also be seen as a substitute for the divine tree. Important - Lotus as the base of a figure - the earliest clear depiction of a Mendak is a Lotus (on statue of Bhima/Kertolo in Museum Nasional). Lotus symbolizes the purity of divine descent, symbol of creativity and fertility, which leads to the understanding of the blossom (oval mirror) as Yoni and depiction as female genitals (the male genitals are that of the naked figure, they are placed exactly over the mirror. They sometimes have distinguishable Palang balls and do clearly belong to the shivaitic context. If you wish - when Keris is held in the hand, the Lingga is in the upright position pointing to Yoni (activated so to speak)). One more symbolic layer for the mirror is that of depiction of a Bintulu. Bintulu are often found at the base of East Javanese bronze figures, and have protective function. This all was always more or less clear.

QUOTE]

So, once more, Lingga - with sometimes more clearly distinguishable Palang - is depicted as male organ of the Buta/Rakshasa/Yaksha figure (pointing to the Yoni in the Tumpal), and exactly this Lingga is missing on your more recent examples and on most later Pasisir hilts, like the one attached. And yes - when there is no visible Lingga depicted (like on ALL published figural hilts from 16th/17th cent. or earlier, depicting ARISTOCRATIC characters), there is also no Yoni in the Tumpal. And vice versa. Absolutely logical.

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 mytical 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"?

Alan, you wrote: "Stylistically this hilt seems to be Majapahit." What are the features which allow this dating and don't appear later?

[Gustav]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

G

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.

I don't believe it is so simple. An example - there were very ugly Indonesian (and of course Malaysian) made Tajong hilts for years. Now the Indonesian carvers have reached very high level in reproducing Tajong hilt. The source of this improvement is the book "Spirit of Wood", with its detailed drawings, and surely genuine examples held in hand, because some things you understand only having the object in the hand.

Another example could be the Indonesian made Malela blades. There is a dealer, who presented a Malela blade on this Forum, and years later another one, by the same maker. The improvement was very big.

I don't really know, if the interest in blades and hilts, such as the ones found in old European collections, is growing. That interest could be marginal, yet I believe it could grow in future. For myself I have almost no interest in modern Keris culture in Indonesia, yet even I have noticed two blades in last five years, which imitate the big beefy old keris. These blades were artificially aged, and one of them appeared in an Indonesian Keris magazine, another one in a European publication, both times as old blades. Judging by details I am nearly sure it could be the same maker.

And I have seen at least one copy of an old Sunggingan from Dresden.

Of course, reproducing an old hilt could be a more delicate matter. I am not so sure about the more recent hilts David presented - for me they have some more "back to the roots" elements then normally seen. Of course here I could be easily wrong.

One of the rules is, when there is demand, there will be a supply.

May be the Indonesian carvers are half illiterate, perhaps they don't use internet, yet their customers, and they should be dealers and bigger style dealers, certainly are and use.