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

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, 01:56 PM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,017	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.