“Old Javanese Gold: The Hunter Thompson Collection,” Yale University Art Gallery

Gustav · 30th April 2016, 01:07 PM

Rasdan, thank you very much!

http://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/123754

So now this hilt is attributed to the late 15th cent. So even somebody like John Miksic (?) changes his opinions.

See also the

"Note: This electronic record was created from historic documentation that does not necessarily reflect the Yale University Art Gallery’s complete or current knowledge about the object. Review and updating of such records is ongoing."

There, among other fascinating objects, is also a part of a Gowa/Makassar type Mendak/Selut, which still has the "initial" attribution "1000-1400".

http://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/123749

Maybe the time is close to update also that one?

Nevertheless, I would be very interested in indicators, which make possible the attribution of this very interesting hilt to Majapahit periode.

Jean · 30th April 2016, 01:31 PM

Hi Gustav,
Thanks for the pics of this masterpiece hilt, I have no clue to attribute it to the Majapahit period but see some similarities with the one made from horn

which you showed recently.
Regards

rasdan · 30th April 2016, 01:54 PM

You're welcome Gustav,

Speaking of pendongkok, to digress a bit, earlier this month I came to know that a person here in Malaysia found a gold pendongkok with ruby 4 feet in the ground using a metal detector. The weight is about 60 grams with 8 large rubies each encircled with another 8 smaller rubies. 2 of the rubies are missing. I should really purchase a metal detector to start a new hobby.

Here are the images from this person's Facebook. His name is Raja Kamaruzaman.

Gustav · 30th April 2016, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rasdan

Speaking of pendongkok, to digress a bit, earlier this month I came to know that a person here in Malaysia found a gold pendongkok with ruby 4 feet in the ground using a metal detector. The weight is about 60 grams with 8 large rubies each encircled with another 8 smaller rubies. 2 of the rubies are missing. I should really purchase a metal detector to start a new hobby.

Here are the images from this person's Facebook. His name is Raja Kamaruzaman.

Thank you for posting these, Rasdan! It actually should be a topic for a new thread. The early Gowa/Makassar hilts with specific Selut could indeed be a type, which started in Majapahit time and are spread to countries which stood in tributary contacts with Majapahit. Later there are locally made copies of these in Central Sumatra, Sulawesi and Sumbawa.

The treatment of motifs at the base of some of these hilts could indeed serve as an example of an early stage of development of these motifs, perhaps the earliest still graspable.

rasdan · 30th April 2016, 06:14 PM

No problem Gustav.

I put it here because I don't have many info about it. Just the pictures. Anyhow, I'll update you guys if any more info on this pendongkok surfaced.

David · 30th April 2016, 09:50 PM

Gustav, thanks for posting these larger photos of this hilt. They are much easier to read than the small ones in the book.

A. G. Maisey · 1st May 2016, 01:32 AM

Gustav, just to set the record straight, what I wrote in post # 8 was this:-

"--- Stylistically this hilt seems to be Majapahit.
Personally, I would not question it---"

I have restricted my comments to stylistic attributions.

I have made no attempt to affix a date to this hilt, and I will not do so.

Why?

Because in my opinion this is close to absolutely impossible.

Stylistically it may be attributed to Majapahit, but the year of manufacture could be any time from the early 1300's through to the modern era.

In my initial post of several years ago I was very cautious in my reluctance to commit to any actual dates, and my attitudes on trying to affix dates in the Western sense to some Javanese artefacts have only become more inflexible since I wrote my first post.

I'm not going to get involved in the game of providing indicators in order to support my opinion that this hilt is stylistically Majapahit. This is not at all the way in which I form an opinion on what I believe to be the applicable style for any Javanese art or architecture. I have my own area of speciality, and that speciality does not include in depth training in Javanese art history, thus, when I wish to form an opinion in respect of the particular style of any Javanese artefact, with the exception of the keris, I use the works of people who are recognised authorities in this field. John Miksic is one such authority.

I have no intention at all of getting involved in any defence of Miksic's ideas, however, I will mention in passing that his stylistic attributions do not seem to be at variance with most of the other recognised authorities in this field.

If you believe that you have found a way to demonstrate that his stylistic attribution of this hilt to Majapahit is incorrect, why not write to him? Over the years I have written to a number of recognised authorities in a number of fields, in fact I have even phoned them, and in general I have found these very well known people to be quite receptive to new ideas. I believe that one of the indicators of a believable and reliable authority is that he or she has the ability to change his or her mind as new evidence becomes available.

If you have new evidence, present it to Miksic and suggest that he consider it.

Edit --- Just an after-thought Gustav:- rather than approaching John Miksic, you might find Pauline Lunsingh Scheurleer a better bet.
I believe her level of expertise in Old Javanese stylistic differentiation is probably about as good as it gets.

David · 1st May 2016, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gustav

Thank you for posting these, Rasdan! It actually should be a topic for a new thread.

I have to agree with Gustav here. Post this on a separate thread so that it gets the attention it deserves.
Gonna have to get myself one of them damnfangled metal detectors...

A. G. Maisey · 30th April 2016, 01:56 PM

Gustav, "late 15th century" places this hilt squarely in the Majapahit era.

The 15th century began in 1400 and ended in 1499.

The most generally accepted date for the end of the Majapahit era is 1525.

Yes, I do consider this hilt to be stylistically Majapahit, however, please pay careful attention to what I have written: "stylistically Majapahit" neither means nor implies that the hilt was made in the Majapahit era, what it does mean is that the style in which the figure is modelled is a style that can be considered consistent with Majapahit style.

Frankly, I have no idea when this hilt might have been made in terms of actual dates. In the ethic of Javanese keris world, which is the ethic I was primarily educated in, actual dates and time, as understood in the Western World are not particularly important, what is important is the way in which keris, and other objects are classified in terms of style and belief systems.

This is a completely different world view to the world view of Western World connoisseurs and museum curators.

I do understand that the Javanese approach is way out of synch with most people in the Western World, but the Javanese people do own their own culture, and as such, they have the right to make their own rules in respect of that culture.

It is only when cultural artifacts move outside the culture that owns them that they are subjected to attempts at understanding that use a totally foreign world view, and generate an understanding that is at variance with the people who own the culture. This is of course very relevant to the outsiders, but is in most cases of no interest at all to the owners of the culture.

Gustav · 30th April 2016, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Gustav, "late 15th century" places this hilt squarely in the Majapahit era.

The 15th century began in 1400 and ended in 1499.

Alan, despite my poor education I am very well aware of the fact, that 15th cent. began in 1400 and ended in 1499.

I also am aware of the fact, Majapahit existed in late 15th cent.

Let's recapitulate.

As you perhaps noticed, the first dating for the hilt in question in an online presentation of the book at the time this thread was started, was 1000-1400. This actually isn't so good fit for Majapahit era, yet you wrote, you wouldn't question Miksic's (?) attribution.

In the book there apparently was no dating, on website the dating is now changed to late 15th cent.

I would like to repeat and perhaps expand my question: could you please name the indicators, which allow stylistic attribution of this hilt to Majapahit era?

I am interested in these, because I for myself see some stylistic indicators, which would allow to say late 1600ties.

30th April 2016, 01:07 PM	#1
Gustav Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,295	Rasdan, thank you very much! http://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/123754 So now this hilt is attributed to the late 15th cent. So even somebody like John Miksic (?) changes his opinions. See also the "Note: This electronic record was created from historic documentation that does not necessarily reflect the Yale University Art Gallery’s complete or current knowledge about the object. Review and updating of such records is ongoing." There, among other fascinating objects, is also a part of a Gowa/Makassar type Mendak/Selut, which still has the "initial" attribution "1000-1400". http://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/123749 Maybe the time is close to update also that one? Nevertheless, I would be very interested in indicators, which make possible the attribution of this very interesting hilt to Majapahit periode. Attached Images Last edited by Gustav; 30th April 2016 at 01:17 PM.

30th April 2016, 01:54 PM	#3
rasdan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Kuala Lumpur Posts: 369	You're welcome Gustav, Speaking of pendongkok, to digress a bit, earlier this month I came to know that a person here in Malaysia found a gold pendongkok with ruby 4 feet in the ground using a metal detector. The weight is about 60 grams with 8 large rubies each encircled with another 8 smaller rubies. 2 of the rubies are missing. I should really purchase a metal detector to start a new hobby. Here are the images from this person's Facebook. His name is Raja Kamaruzaman. Attached Images

1st May 2016, 01:32 AM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	Gustav, just to set the record straight, what I wrote in post # 8 was this:- "--- Stylistically this hilt seems to be Majapahit. Personally, I would not question it---" I have restricted my comments to stylistic attributions. I have made no attempt to affix a date to this hilt, and I will not do so. Why? Because in my opinion this is close to absolutely impossible. Stylistically it may be attributed to Majapahit, but the year of manufacture could be any time from the early 1300's through to the modern era. In my initial post of several years ago I was very cautious in my reluctance to commit to any actual dates, and my attitudes on trying to affix dates in the Western sense to some Javanese artefacts have only become more inflexible since I wrote my first post. I'm not going to get involved in the game of providing indicators in order to support my opinion that this hilt is stylistically Majapahit. This is not at all the way in which I form an opinion on what I believe to be the applicable style for any Javanese art or architecture. I have my own area of speciality, and that speciality does not include in depth training in Javanese art history, thus, when I wish to form an opinion in respect of the particular style of any Javanese artefact, with the exception of the keris, I use the works of people who are recognised authorities in this field. John Miksic is one such authority. I have no intention at all of getting involved in any defence of Miksic's ideas, however, I will mention in passing that his stylistic attributions do not seem to be at variance with most of the other recognised authorities in this field. If you believe that you have found a way to demonstrate that his stylistic attribution of this hilt to Majapahit is incorrect, why not write to him? Over the years I have written to a number of recognised authorities in a number of fields, in fact I have even phoned them, and in general I have found these very well known people to be quite receptive to new ideas. I believe that one of the indicators of a believable and reliable authority is that he or she has the ability to change his or her mind as new evidence becomes available. If you have new evidence, present it to Miksic and suggest that he consider it. Edit --- Just an after-thought Gustav:- rather than approaching John Miksic, you might find Pauline Lunsingh Scheurleer a better bet. I believe her level of expertise in Old Javanese stylistic differentiation is probably about as good as it gets. Last edited by A. G. Maisey; 1st May 2016 at 03:10 AM. Reason: After-thought

30th April 2016, 01:31 PM	#2
Jean Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,740	Hi Gustav, Thanks for the pics of this masterpiece hilt, I have no clue to attribute it to the Majapahit period but see some similarities with the one made from horn which you showed recently. Regards

30th April 2016, 06:14 PM	#5
rasdan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Kuala Lumpur Posts: 369	No problem Gustav. I put it here because I don't have many info about it. Just the pictures. Anyhow, I'll update you guys if any more info on this pendongkok surfaced.

30th April 2016, 09:50 PM	#6
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,229	Gustav, thanks for posting these larger photos of this hilt. They are much easier to read than the small ones in the book.

30th April 2016, 01:56 PM	#9
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	Gustav, "late 15th century" places this hilt squarely in the Majapahit era. The 15th century began in 1400 and ended in 1499. The most generally accepted date for the end of the Majapahit era is 1525. Yes, I do consider this hilt to be stylistically Majapahit, however, please pay careful attention to what I have written: "stylistically Majapahit" neither means nor implies that the hilt was made in the Majapahit era, what it does mean is that the style in which the figure is modelled is a style that can be considered consistent with Majapahit style. Frankly, I have no idea when this hilt might have been made in terms of actual dates. In the ethic of Javanese keris world, which is the ethic I was primarily educated in, actual dates and time, as understood in the Western World are not particularly important, what is important is the way in which keris, and other objects are classified in terms of style and belief systems. This is a completely different world view to the world view of Western World connoisseurs and museum curators. I do understand that the Javanese approach is way out of synch with most people in the Western World, but the Javanese people do own their own culture, and as such, they have the right to make their own rules in respect of that culture. It is only when cultural artifacts move outside the culture that owns them that they are subjected to attempts at understanding that use a totally foreign world view, and generate an understanding that is at variance with the people who own the culture. This is of course very relevant to the outsiders, but is in most cases of no interest at all to the owners of the culture.