Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Gustav · 27th April 2016, 12:25 AM

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?

27th April 2016, 12:25 AM	#44
Gustav Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,273	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? Attached Images Last edited by Gustav; 27th April 2016 at 02:09 AM.