“Old Javanese Gold: The Hunter Thompson Collection,” Yale University Art Gallery

[Gustav]

Current exposition; an interesting hilt for viewing pleasure. Description says 1000-1400 (John Miksic is involved in this exhibition), which seems rather vague.

Some thoughts about the integrity of this objekt? How is it with the length of fingernails on Nyamba? At least the thumb of left hand (from Nyambas position ) seems to be long on old examples (?).

[Sajen]

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

[Gustav]

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!).

[Sajen]

Hello Gustav,

here a older thread where are shown two Nyamba hilts: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ghlight=nyamba

Regards,

Detlef

[Jean]

I agree with Detlef, may be the estimated date of manufacturing is after Mohammed and not A.D, haha!

[Jean]

Originally Posted by Sajen

I don't think that this is a Nyamba hilt in classic form.

Regards,

Detlef

I also agree with Detlef. There is a conical base on this hilt which was probably inserted in a selut like the Balinese hilts. In his book Keris - Griffe, pages 47 to 50, Martin Kerner attributes this type of hilt to the Majapahit period (hence the estimated date range 1000 - 1400). It is very doubtful that this hilt is actually as old but its origin may be East Java.

[Gustav]

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.

[A. G. Maisey]

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.

[Gustav]

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.

[Gustav]

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."

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

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.

(...)

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.

Also David shares this opinion.

[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:

Originally Posted by David

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."

to which I replied:


[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.

[rasdan]

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

[Gustav]

Rasdan, thank you very much!

http://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/123754

So now this hilt is attributed to the late 15th cent. So even somebody like John Miksic (?) changes his opinions.

See also the

"Note: This electronic record was created from historic documentation that does not necessarily reflect the Yale University Art Gallery’s complete or current knowledge about the object. Review and updating of such records is ongoing."

There, among other fascinating objects, is also a part of a Gowa/Makassar type Mendak/Selut, which still has the "initial" attribution "1000-1400".

http://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/123749

Maybe the time is close to update also that one?

Nevertheless, I would be very interested in indicators, which make possible the attribution of this very interesting hilt to Majapahit periode.

[Jean]

Hi Gustav,
Thanks for the pics of this masterpiece hilt, I have no clue to attribute it to the Majapahit period but see some similarities with the one made from horn which you showed recently.
Regards

[rasdan]

You're welcome Gustav,

Speaking of pendongkok, to digress a bit, earlier this month I came to know that a person here in Malaysia found a gold pendongkok with ruby 4 feet in the ground using a metal detector. The weight is about 60 grams with 8 large rubies each encircled with another 8 smaller rubies. 2 of the rubies are missing. I should really purchase a metal detector to start a new hobby. Here are the images from this person's Facebook. His name is Raja Kamaruzaman.

[A. G. Maisey]

Gustav, "late 15th century" places this hilt squarely in the Majapahit era.

The 15th century began in 1400 and ended in 1499.

The most generally accepted date for the end of the Majapahit era is 1525.

Yes, I do consider this hilt to be stylistically Majapahit, however, please pay careful attention to what I have written: "stylistically Majapahit" neither means nor implies that the hilt was made in the Majapahit era, what it does mean is that the style in which the figure is modelled is a style that can be considered consistent with Majapahit style.

Frankly, I have no idea when this hilt might have been made in terms of actual dates. In the ethic of Javanese keris world, which is the ethic I was primarily educated in, actual dates and time, as understood in the Western World are not particularly important, what is important is the way in which keris, and other objects are classified in terms of style and belief systems.

This is a completely different world view to the world view of Western World connoisseurs and museum curators.

I do understand that the Javanese approach is way out of synch with most people in the Western World, but the Javanese people do own their own culture, and as such, they have the right to make their own rules in respect of that culture.

It is only when cultural artifacts move outside the culture that owns them that they are subjected to attempts at understanding that use a totally foreign world view, and generate an understanding that is at variance with the people who own the culture. This is of course very relevant to the outsiders, but is in most cases of no interest at all to the owners of the culture.

[Gustav]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Gustav, "late 15th century" places this hilt squarely in the Majapahit era.

The 15th century began in 1400 and ended in 1499.

Alan, despite my poor education I am very well aware of the fact, that 15th cent. began in 1400 and ended in 1499.

I also am aware of the fact, Majapahit existed in late 15th cent.

Let's recapitulate.

As you perhaps noticed, the first dating for the hilt in question in an online presentation of the book at the time this thread was started, was 1000-1400. This actually isn't so good fit for Majapahit era, yet you wrote, you wouldn't question Miksic's (?) attribution.

In the book there apparently was no dating, on website the dating is now changed to late 15th cent.

I would like to repeat and perhaps expand my question: could you please name the indicators, which allow stylistic attribution of this hilt to Majapahit era?

I am interested in these, because I for myself see some stylistic indicators, which would allow to say late 1600ties.

[Gustav]

Originally Posted by rasdan

Speaking of pendongkok, to digress a bit, earlier this month I came to know that a person here in Malaysia found a gold pendongkok with ruby 4 feet in the ground using a metal detector. The weight is about 60 grams with 8 large rubies each encircled with another 8 smaller rubies. 2 of the rubies are missing. I should really purchase a metal detector to start a new hobby. Here are the images from this person's Facebook. His name is Raja Kamaruzaman.

Thank you for posting these, Rasdan! It actually should be a topic for a new thread. The early Gowa/Makassar hilts with specific Selut could indeed be a type, which started in Majapahit time and are spread to countries which stood in tributary contacts with Majapahit. Later there are locally made copies of these in Central Sumatra, Sulawesi and Sumbawa.

The treatment of motifs at the base of some of these hilts could indeed serve as an example of an early stage of development of these motifs, perhaps the earliest still graspable.

[rasdan]

No problem Gustav. I put it here because I don't have many info about it. Just the pictures. Anyhow, I'll update you guys if any more info on this pendongkok surfaced.

[David]

Gustav, thanks for posting these larger photos of this hilt. They are much easier to read than the small ones in the book.

[A. G. Maisey]

Gustav, just to set the record straight, what I wrote in post # 8 was this:-

"--- Stylistically this hilt seems to be Majapahit.
Personally, I would not question it---"

I have restricted my comments to stylistic attributions.

I have made no attempt to affix a date to this hilt, and I will not do so.

Why?

Because in my opinion this is close to absolutely impossible.

Stylistically it may be attributed to Majapahit, but the year of manufacture could be any time from the early 1300's through to the modern era.

In my initial post of several years ago I was very cautious in my reluctance to commit to any actual dates, and my attitudes on trying to affix dates in the Western sense to some Javanese artefacts have only become more inflexible since I wrote my first post.

I'm not going to get involved in the game of providing indicators in order to support my opinion that this hilt is stylistically Majapahit. This is not at all the way in which I form an opinion on what I believe to be the applicable style for any Javanese art or architecture. I have my own area of speciality, and that speciality does not include in depth training in Javanese art history, thus, when I wish to form an opinion in respect of the particular style of any Javanese artefact, with the exception of the keris, I use the works of people who are recognised authorities in this field. John Miksic is one such authority.

I have no intention at all of getting involved in any defence of Miksic's ideas, however, I will mention in passing that his stylistic attributions do not seem to be at variance with most of the other recognised authorities in this field.

If you believe that you have found a way to demonstrate that his stylistic attribution of this hilt to Majapahit is incorrect, why not write to him? Over the years I have written to a number of recognised authorities in a number of fields, in fact I have even phoned them, and in general I have found these very well known people to be quite receptive to new ideas. I believe that one of the indicators of a believable and reliable authority is that he or she has the ability to change his or her mind as new evidence becomes available.

If you have new evidence, present it to Miksic and suggest that he consider it.

Edit --- Just an after-thought Gustav:- rather than approaching John Miksic, you might find Pauline Lunsingh Scheurleer a better bet.
I believe her level of expertise in Old Javanese stylistic differentiation is probably about as good as it gets.

[David]

Originally Posted by Gustav

Thank you for posting these, Rasdan! It actually should be a topic for a new thread.

I have to agree with Gustav here. Post this on a separate thread so that it gets the attention it deserves.
Gonna have to get myself one of them damnfangled metal detectors...