MANDAU HANDLE

[David]

Well i couldn't tell you the age of this hilt, though it does appear that the point on the antler has been intentionally darkened. For me whether it is old or new is not nearly as important as whether it is authenic and beautiful and it does appear (to my novice eyes) to be a true and well executed expression of a Dayak artform and well worth collecting. Still, it is important for us as collectors to understand exactly what we are collecting. If it is new and presented for sale as an old piece that is a problem. I am sure there are many collectors who are quite willing to add newly crafted pieces to their collections, especially if it means keeping what would otherwise be a dying artform alive. We deal with the same issues in the keris world, perhaps on an even larger scale. There are absolutely exquisite modern works of the keris artform being produced today, though many dealers seem to feel that they must present them as old pieces in order to sell them (or get more money for them). But there is a market for well made new keris and some collectors make it their specialty.

[Maurice]

Originally Posted by David

Still, it is important for us as collectors to understand exactly what we are collecting. If it is new and presented for sale as an old piece that is a problem. I am sure there are many collectors who are quite willing to add newly crafted pieces to their collections, especially if it means keeping what would otherwise be a dying artform alive. .

I do agree with this. There are people who like it for the age and authentic items.
There are also people who like the "style" weather it is old or new.
For me I wood say (although I have newly made indonesian weapons in my collection in generally) I like the old mandaus.
This because they were made by the dayaks while they had very little of no influences of outside (modern) society.

[Dajak]

Hi Willem this is nice carving but not the old style


Ben

[asomotif]

One more for the sake of conversation.

Old or new ? tourist or non tourist ?

Best regards,
Willem

[David]

Originally Posted by asomotif

One more for the sake of conversation.
Old or new ? tourist or non tourist ?

Willem, these terms are meaningless unless defined. Everyone has a different impression as to what is truly old. I'm almost 50yrs. young myself, but some might consider that old.
"Tourist" is a term that get's thrown around alot. I usually try to avoid it if something is made in an authentic manner from within the indigenous populous. Many modern day keris are exquisitely made in a tradtional manner, but then sold directly to western collectors. I do not consider these to be "tourist" keris even though they never served an ethnographic function. I do not know if mandau are made in a similar manner for a similar market, but perhaps you can see what i am getting at.
This last picture is unfortunately out of focus which only makes assessment even more difficult. To my eyes it appears to be an authentic enthnographic artifact. I am not familar enough with Dayak styles to judge it's age stylisticly, but even in the bad photo it at least appears to have some wear and age. It would be interesting to see the blade it is connected to.

[Dajak]

Hi Willem it is new style

Tourist if it is made for not using and decoration


Ben

[asomotif]

Dear David,

Fully agree that these terms need some deifinition.
Although Ben had no problem interpeting these terms
He has even his own terms : new style / old style.

In Dajak art I think that 'old style' is a style where the motifs are strongly anthropomorphic. like leeches and elbows and arm sticking out of the design.

The big hilt I posted has very clear figures, the hornbills are clearly hornbills, and the dragons are clearly dragons. No mistake about that.
That is also what I feel should be considere 'new style'

Anyway , the last hilt I posted is a bit of a mystery to me.
It does not seem very old, but take a look at the blade...