Not quite the same quality but possibly relevant

Perhaps either Gustav or Alan could expand on how these last two posts of this gold hilt from the book Old Javanese Gold or these Nyamba hilts are pertinent to our discussions so far on the original hilt posted. It seems to me that the original post brought two questions into the discussion.
1. A question of material used (is it rhino horn?)
2. A question on judging age based upon the specific ornamental features of the presented hilt.
Certainly these most recent additions to the discussion have nothing to do with the first question, which i tend to agree with Alan is personally of lesser interest to me.
I do believe that this hilt from Old Javanese Gold is most probably from the Mojopahit period, so older than Gustav believes the horn hilt to be (17th century). While it does present a stylized yoni i cannot say that it also presents the lingam in the tumpal at the base of the hilt that Gustav points us to in the horn example. Though the basic form of the buta hilt is similar enough to both Gustav's horn example as well as my more recent wooden ones the specific stylistic ornamental flourishes are not quite the same to either. So i am curious what direction or what further conclusions we can reach by viewing this or Alan's added examples that help us with the initial questions at hand.
Gustav, if you have not obtained Miksic's book yet (as you mention in the thread you linked us to on this gold hilt), he has very little to say about it despite the hilt appearing both on the front and back dust cover, as the full-page chapter lead photo for the Middle and Late Classic Period section of the catalog and once again as a series of three photos showing various sides of the hilt. He does not specifically date the hilt and only writes:
"Its sharp nose and smooth and rather swollen and rounded body are quite similar to those seen in depictions of humans and mythical heroes in shadow puppets (wayang kulit) and in illustrations in other media, such as wayang beber (painted cloth scrolls used in telling stories) and illuminated manuscripts. The monster wears a necklace, originally set in stone."

Yep, I agree with you David.

A few posts back I considered starting a new thread to discuss all this age & symbolism stuff, but I've had a bit on my plate recently and I didn't do it.

If, as moderator, you have the ability to begin a thread and move these possibly irrelevant posts to it, why not do so? Then Gustav and I and anybody else who felt like it could ramble on about symbols and icons and etc, etc, etc to our hearts content and upset nobody.

But you know the way it is:- you start off talking about the weather to somebody, and before you know where you are you're discussing Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and from there the discussion jumps to the problems involved in restoring steam locomotives --- and availability of good coking coal, and what 7X5 box trailer full of beach sand weighs --- this sort of diversion never stops. That's what happens with non-formal discussions:- they wander all over the place --- and this Forum is a venue for informal discussion, so discussions are bound to get off the tracks from time to time.

On the subject of those hilts I posted pics of:- all three are fairly old, but I have no idea how old, the one with the gemstone bandul around his neck is by far the oldest, if judged on construction and appearance. All are known in Jawa as either nyamba or minat jenggul.

Oh yes --- we cannot have a yoni without a lingga in Hindu, or Hindu-Jawa iconography. This situation could be read as something extremely unlucky. Lingga = male, yoni = female, lingga+yoni = universal stability, one without the other? not good, not good at all. Lots of ways to read this singularity if it intentionally occurred, but basically what you have is the collapse of the cosmos.

So --- if we think we see an intentional lingga by itself, or an intentional yoni by itself, maybe we should pause a moment and ask if we understand what we think we are seeing.

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?

Alan, a sarcastic response is really not necessary. I was neither chiding you gentlemen for the direction the thread was taking nor trying to curtail your rights as members to wander off to discuss other aspects of hilts or even Einstein's Theory of Relativity if it suits you. After a bit of back and forth on the two questions i mentioned above Gustav posted the Old Javanese Gold cover pictures as an "afterthought" and made no other comment. You then followed with some Nyamba hilts with the comment that they may be "possibly relevant". I then asked if you gentlemen could expand on these ideas, i.e. what is your "afterthought" and how are these "relevant". That is all. Not trying to stifle whatever direction you are taking. You see, i generally say pretty much exactly what i mean. I would ask that you not read any other motivations into my posts. I am mostly just following along with this discussion, not taking sides or trying to promote or disprove any of the presented theories. I am asking questions, perhaps the wrong ones that don't open the door to higher knowledge, but questions no less. In other words, i have no dog in this race.
Gustav, on the description provided in the book itself, i presented it to you for no other reason than that you stated in the linked thread that you did not yet own this book. So i presented the passage so that you would know what had been written there on this hilt. It appears on page 249 beneath 3 rather small photographs of various angles of this hilt. They may have given you a wide date range (1000-1400) on the website, but i can find no place where any dating is applied to this hilt in the book. Alan may be correct. Perhaps i don't understand what i am seeing. The photos are also pretty small in the book, much, much smaller than the close-up images used on the books cover. There is some scroll work in the area where one would expect to find the male organ, but i would have to use a great deal of imagination to see it as such (even when i magnified the region). Still, i concede that might be its symbolic intention. Very hard to tell without larger images.

Gustav, i hope you don't mind that i re-edited your last photo to show more detail. :)

David, there is not one breath of sarcasm in what I wrote in post 43.

Not even a whisper.

None. Nil. Nothing.

No sarcasm.

I do regret that you interpreted my remarks as sarcasm, but I assure you that when I do use sarcasm, it is very obvious and usually more than slightly cutting.

What I wrote in post #43 was relaxed, friendly conversation.

I do not like being called a troll.

I do not like being accused of being sarcastic.

I am neither of these things, and in this particular Forum I go out of my way to try not to offend anyone.

I'm out of this discussion.

Alan, taking offense to my suggestion of sarcasm is also not really necessary. I am completely fine with your insistence that whatever the tone was with which you responded to me was not sarcasm. Call it what you will. I am not attached to names. But no matter what you want to call it i certainly was not offended by it. :)
But i certainly never made any statement or accusation of you trolling this site and don't see how you managed to go there in your response. I am afraid that it is you who seem to be offended in this case, and i do regret that you could find the simple one line suggestion in my response that a sarcastic response was unnecessary something to take such offense about. :confused:

Thank you for your clarification David.

You may not have been offended by my remarks in post 45, but your initial reading of what I had written understood my remarks to be sarcastic.

If you assessed what I had written as sarcastic, others would too.

Since in my opinion there was not even a hint of sarcasm in what I had written, and since I do try very hard to keep my posts free of all and any remarks that could cause offence or criticism, it is clear to me that when I write in a relaxed, friendly style, my comments tend to come across as being delivered in a manner that is not intended.

In this thread this misinterpretation has occurred on two occasions, once in your post 45, and once in Gustav's post 27, where Gustav made comments which indicated that he considered that I was engaging in troll-like behaviour.

Two misinterpretations by two different people indicates to me that even when I am trying to be relaxed and friendly, those who read my words attach a totally different intent to them.

Clearly I am at fault, not you, not Gustav.

Accordingly I will not be posting any further comments to this thread.

Guys, as a an outsider (not a participant in this discussion) I didn't find Alan's remark can be regarded as what has been accused. He is just raising some of his concerns and sharing his knowledge with us. It is quite sad that this discussion ended this way. I was really enjoying it. I hope Alan will continue to contribute to this forum and I hope we can continue this discussion in the future.