![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Germany, Dortmund
Posts: 9,144
|
![]()
Hello Gustav,
I don't think that this is a Nyamba hilt in classic form, it look like a raksasa hilt from Cirebon. I doubt the given age of this handle. Regards, Detlef |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,273
|
![]()
I must say, I was incorrect regarding the fingernails.
Ornamentics within Tumpal are correct, compare to figural hilts from old european collections (most of them are in Krisdisk/chapter Banten). Problem is, in these collections we don't see this exact type of hilt, so no comparison for the upper parts. Hilts associated with Cirebon seem to have more abstract scrollwork ornamentic within tumpal (there also are the longer fingers/nails occuring). On this hilt they are deep, naturalistically shaped, with a nice Bintulu at the front. If this would be a later work (after 17.cent.), we should select regions, where such ornamentics could be done, and here I don't have the necessary knowledge. I have seen very few pictures of Nyamba hilts (East Java?), they are by far more superficially worked, yet tend to have similar adornments with stones on the brest. Ornamentics on Balinese Tumpal are sometimes quite similar, yet different in style. Please excuse me for this strange monologue, I simply find this a very interesting object for discussion, and hope, more knowledgable members then I would offer their thoughts here (thank you, Detlef!). |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Germany, Dortmund
Posts: 9,144
|
![]()
Hello Gustav,
here a older thread where are shown two Nyamba hilts: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ghlight=nyamba Regards, Detlef |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,740
|
![]()
I agree with Detlef, may be the estimated date of manufacturing is after Mohammed and not A.D, haha!
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,740
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,273
|
![]()
Thank you for your responses
![]() It seems to be one of the prestige objects of this collection, which claims to be one of the most important ones of Javanese gold. Maybe somebody of members has the catalogue: http://www.yalebooks.co.uk/display.asp?K=9780300169102? I hope the description would say something more about it. About the date: I don't understand, how it is possible to put this object in such a fictional time span (which actually has not so much to do with the time span of existing of Mojopahit). One must conclude, there were no developments and changes in art in this time, which were absolutely incorrect. For an object with such construction the state of preservation seems to be near to pristine. Is it possible, even if this object would come from 1500-1600? Taking a look at the adornments with stones, I cannot believe, there would not be some kind of restoration or additions made, if this object would have such age indeed. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,978
|
![]()
I can understand your doubts, gentlemen, however, John Miksic is one of the notable authorities in this field. He has spent considerable time in Indonesia.
People with a reputation tend to guard it and to be cautious, rather than not. I suggest you google Miksic and ask yourself if he would be likely to endanger his own reputation. As for the object itself. I have seen gold objects from the Wonoboyo hoard. They look as if they came off the workbench the day before yesterday. I have seen archaic gold objects from other places in the world. It has been absolutely impossible for me to judge their age. My wife owns some items of Majapahit gold. If I did not know these things were more than 500 years old, I would say they were less than 50 years old. Stylistically this hilt seems to be Majapahit. Personally, I would not question it --- most especially would I not question it on the basis of information from a photograph. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,273
|
![]()
Thank you, Alan. I am well aware of status of John Miksic, and were very interested in his description of this object; perhaps in a month I will be able to obtain this book myself.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | ||
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,273
|
![]()
Perhaps there is a possibility to continue the discussion from http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...7&page=1&pp=30 here.
My interest is the stylistic analysis of this hilt. Alan writes " Stylistically this hilt seems to be Majapahit." Quote:
[QUOTE=David] 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). [/QUOTE David also provided the description of this hilt in the actual book: Quote:
[QUOTE=Gustav] 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 mythical 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"? QUOTE] So I am very interested in a description of indicators, which would lead to dating of this hilt as coming from Majapahit period. Especially, if in the published book there indeed would be no mentioning of a time period, to which this hilt could be attributed. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Kuala Lumpur
Posts: 368
|
![]()
Hi everybody,
Just in case you guys didn't notice, this page below shows much of the images from the book. Scroll down and the page will refresh with more images. ![]() http://artgallery.yale.edu/exhibitions/objects/665820 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|