Philippine Sword?

[David]

Originally Posted by Ian

Recent Census Data from Indonesia indicate that Hindus make up about 1.74% of the total population.

Indonesian is indeed mostly Muslim. However Bali has an 86% Hindu population. About 15% of the population of Lombok also identifies as Hindu. So the majority religious make-up of Indonesia as a whole is not particularly significant if this pedang lurus is from Bali or even Lombok. What's more, Hinduism left a significant mark on Indonesia as a whole up through the Mojopahit era and those influences remain throughout regardless of Islam being the major religion in the region today. Keep in mind that the keris itself was a dagger of Hindu Jawa that was embraced by the Islam after the fall of the Mojopahit empire. There are aspects of the keris that hold inherent Hindu symbolism that was kept in place despite the advent of Islam. And one can find elements of dress that incorporate figurative representation, in mostly Islamic areas such as Madura well after Islam became the dominate religion there.
Further, what is usual for Hinduism in India does not necessarily apply to Hinduism in Indonesia. The god names and the symbols that represent them are often not the same. So we cannot really compare images of Hindu gods on Indian weapons and expect them to relate to weapons found in Indonesia that bear Hindu references.
These faces do not appear to me to be the Hindu sun god Surya. Dewa Surya is indeed venerated in Bali, but images i have seen of him do not include any facial hair (though we should note that i do not believe the face on the sheath has any facial hair).
This pedang does have some unusual features for a Javanese pedang lurus. The S-shaped cross guard is not a feature you generally see on pedangs from Jawa. This could be some sort of hybrid piece. It could indeed have some European influences. But i am not convinced as a whole that it is from Jawa, though the blade might be. Or it may well be Balinese or from Lombok. It certainly is interesting.

[Edster]

Why does the face have to be some sort of Symbolism? Why can't it just be Art? Images of Javanese facial masks are cultural, look similar, but without the ear. Once the face was made on the sword pommel, the scabbard maker just followed suit, but sans ear.

Just a thought.
Ed

[David]

Originally Posted by Edster

Why does the face have to be some sort of Symbolism? Why can't it just be Art? Images of Javanese facial masks are cultural, look similar, but without the ear. Once the face was made on the sword pommel, the scabbard maker just followed suit, but sans ear.

Well, in most cases with an original ensemble the person who made the hilt would also be the person to make the sheath. Of course this may not be an original ensemble. But i would say that it would be highly unlikely that a face would be placed on the dress of an old Indonesian sword just to simply be decorative. There would always be some meaning behind such an addition to the dress. In Jawa masks that are part of the culture (not made for import or tourists) always have some significance. They are Wayang Topeng and are used in a form of sacred theatre.
But these faces don't particularly resemble any of the Wayang Topeng i have seen. When a face is placed on a hilt and/or sheath like this it is there for a purpose, generally as a guardian to protect the owner and the blade. These guardians can be gods, demons or ancestral spirits, but they are not there merely to be decorative art.

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by Edster

Why does the face have to be some sort of Symbolism? Why can't it just be Art? Images of Javanese facial masks are cultural, look similar, but without the ear. Once the face was made on the sword pommel, the scabbard maker just followed suit, but sans ear.

Just a thought.
Ed

Ed, everything is symbolic, the point is you need to know the meaning.
Especially on weapons, even on European swords, the oak acorn is the strength... Any single piece of decoration has a meaning, and sometimes use.
So yes these two faces have a symbolic.

[Edster]

Kubur,

I see you are a student of philosophy as well as ethnographic weapons. In my simple way I meant that "symbolism" is a cultural expression while "art" is a personal expression. Both efforts exhibit "meaning" and sometimes they overlap. Often when archaeologists view an puzzling object the default explanation is "it must have symbolic/religious meaning/significance". But sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Can we agree that all man made objects have "meaning"? Otherwise, what's the point of the effort? Sometimes the meaning is cultural or personal or objective/use. The sword in question exhibits all three.

Best regards,
Ed