Figural horn (possibly rhino) hilt

[Gustav]

Alan, thank you very much for your response.

I will try to answer your questions, but I will need some time to go through some books.

Please be gentle afterwards.

[Gustav]

Perhaps we (because it should be a discussion between many people in the ideal case) should start with the typical ornaments found on Bungkul of 16th/17th cent. hilts depicting naked figures of what is commonly called demonic character. These are my observations, I will try to be as exact as possible:

There are four upright triangular elements, dominating in size. The forward and the rear are mostly nearly identical to each other, as are the right and left ones.

The forward and rear consist of an elongated oval mirror, which sometimes is further partitioned, like on the initial hilt of this thread. There are tendrils on both sides of this mirror and above. So these two triangular elements are symmetrical in themselves.

The right and the left consist mostly of an bigger scroll (which in its size dominates the triangular element like the mirror the other pair). The second one, curving to the opposite direction is placed beside, sometimes the place for it is to small and it stays underdeveloped. From the top of the bigger scroll another smaller one in opposite direction is spouting/growing. So these "side triangles" are perhaps symmetrical in thought, yet not in the execution.

Above/between the upright triangles smaller downright ones are placed, and these consist mostly of tendrils with one more prominent scroll often more clearly distinguishable.

In the deep cuts between the upright and downright triangular elements sometimes more clearly the four edges of a cubic structure are visible.

This is the standard situation, which may slightly vary from hilt to hilt.

Now to the possible symbolic content of these features, at first the forward and rear triangles. This is the part, where I can only speculate and list the possibilities I am aware of.

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.

Now to the right and left upright triangles. There are two possibilities:

1) the main element could be the bigger scrolll/tendril (which in size corresponds to the oval mirror)

2) we have the same three branches composition, which is distorted by the legs of the naked figure and becomes asymmetrical.

My thoughts to the first possibility: upright or downright scrolls are often prominent in gateways (Naga Temple in Blitar, 14th cent. or even more appropriate, gateway of mosque in Sendang Duwur, 16th cent.), and the source of this feature most probably is Makara. Together with the oval mirror in the middle of them, interpreted as Bintulu, it could be understand as a repercussion of Kala-Bintulu arch found at gateways of temples (and even schematically depicted on earliest Sunggingans as framing of water sources).

The second possibility - there is a depiction of the divine tree in van der Hoop, plate CXXXI. This is an asymmetrical Cirebon interpretation, and is quite close in general style to the triangles in question.

Well, time to sleep. It will be continued.

[Gustav]

Purely illustrative attachment to my previous post, the last picture is a base of a pillar from mosque in Demak, 15th/16th cent., as an example for a feature similar to one found on a base of hilts:

[Gustav]

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?