An early figural hilt

[Jean]

Originally Posted by Gustav

Why a triangular symbol instead of Lotus/Yoni/Bintulu for a small group of very similar hilts? I think there is a message in it.

May be because the yoni depiction was no longer acceptable in the Muslim-influenced society at that time? It reminds me of the "modesty plates" worn by the young Bugis girls for hiding their genitals.
I wonder whether these triangular motifs on the hilts are original or added later (not clear from the pics).

[A. G. Maisey]

Gustav, the process of Islamisation in Jawa was overall, a gentle one.

Certainly we can identify wars that took place between the old order of Hindu-Buddhist, and the new order of Islam, that were far less than gentle, but these wars were primarily political in nature, rather than religious. Islam inserted itself gently into Javanese society, and it did this the way that has often been employed by other religions and other philosophies across the world. Islam took practices and styles associated with Javanese society and it used these practices and styles as tools to draw people to the new philosophy of Islam:- nothing had changed, only slight variations in expression and of course that big variation that all men, even rulers, were as one before the One God.

During the early years of Islamisation there was a gradual insertion and intensification of Islamic philosophies into the architectural and artistic style that was associated with Old Jawa, even going far back before Majapahit, and in fact being able to be seen in eras as early as those associated with the Candi Songo Complex. So, when we see the intertwined foliage motifs that are broadly referred to now as "lung-lungan" (lung = tendril, sprout, lung-lungan is the name of the motif that uses vines, tendrils, sprouts to create forms and infill), what we are seeing is a very old style of Javanese art that has been adapted to express Islamic ideals.

Later when the influence of Chinese artistic expression penetrated the North Coast settlements, we can see the interpolation of the lung-lungan motif into the Chinese inspired cloud motifs that are associated with the North Coast. It seems to be a universal human characteristic that we see pictures in cloud formations. We see trees, and dragons, and galloping horses --- and Joni Mitchell saw "Rows and flows of angel hair, And ice cream castles in the air, And feather canyons everywhere". In any case, the human imagination at play seems to find unrelated forms in other forms, the Javanese people are human beings, and more than 1000 years ago they were expressing these perceptions of forms within their artistic styles.

It did not start with Majapahit, it began a long time before that, but it intensified under Islamic influence and became a tool to assist in Islamisation.

We cannot look at keris hilts in isolation from everything else that was happening in Jawa at any particular period. Yes, beyond doubt the representation of human and humanoid forms as forms concealed by non-human characteristics did intensify under Islam, but it did not start with Islam, it is a recognised Javanese style of expression that began very much earlier.

In respect of the Mantingan Mesjid what we have here is a wonderful example of the Jepara style, a style that is later shown in the Jepara wood carving style, and (to me at least) seems to appear in the Batuan style of 20th century Bali. Bearing in mind the influences on 20th century Balinese artistic expression, it seems possible that this perceived influence can trace its roots back to Jepara.

That East Jawa bas-relief is a bit of problem, as I have never been able to find any information on exactly where it came from, all that ever appears is a reference to Tulung Agung. For the last 100 years or so "Tulung Agung" has been the name applied to a kabupaten on the south coast of East Jawa, about 100miles south of Surabaya. However, originally it was only applied to a very small area that was the place of a major spring, or at least water source, I'm guessing it was a spring. The area around Tulung Agung was known as Ngrowo. Now Bernet Kempers wrote in the 20th century, so I'm assuming that when he tells us that this bas-relief comes from Tulung Agung, he is referring to the kabupaten of Tulung Agung that was previously known as Ngrowo.

In the Kabuptaen of Tulung Agung there are the remains of Candi Boyolangu, also known as Candi Gayatri. Candi Gayatri dates from about 1360-something, and is one of four(?) candis that were prepared to receive the remains (either actual or spiritual) of Gayatri Rajapatni, a wife of Raden Wijaya, mother of Wijayatunggadewi and grandmother of Hayam Wuruk. She was the educative & guiding power behind Gajah Mada. If there had been no Gayatri, there might never have been a Kingdom of Majapahit that came to be regarded as Jawa's Golden Age.

So, my personal belief is that this bas-relief probably came from the ruins of Candi Gayatri. If we examine the figures shown in this bas-relief, the naga is obvious and is not divergent from the Javanese style that I have just mentioned, but it is clearly a later development. Probably this Naga is Naga Basuki, but Anantaboga is also a possibility. Naga Basuki and Naga Anantaboga represent the needs of mankind.

Bernet Kempers refers to the "demonic" figure on the left as a "bhuta". I believe we can go further than this, I think this figure is actually a representation of Bhoma. Bhoma is the son of Wisnu and Dewi Pertiwi, Wisnu is the deity who controls rain, Pertiwi is the Earth Mother, their son Bhoma is the result of Wisnu's rape of Pertiwi, and his name has the meaning "of the earth" Bhoma is the spirit of the forest, of vegetation, of growth, growth occurs because of the union of rain and earth, and Bhoma is both the personification of this growth and its guardian. Bhoma is born of the Earth and is often shown with tendrils coming from parts of his body, or where only the head of Bhoma appears above a gateway, tendrils coming from his mouth.

Now, why do I think this bas-relief might come from Candi Gayatri, well, there is a reference to Gayatri Rajapatni in the bas-relief. At Bhoma's feet is a Hamsa, a goose. In Hindu belief the goose is the vahana of several deities, one of those deities is Gayatri, the personification of the Vedic Gayatri Mantra, and the consort of Siwa, or according to another sect, the consort of Brahma. The Vedic Gayatri is of course the source of Gayatri Rajapatni's name.

This leaves the figure in the middle unidentified. I am inclined to think that this figure is representative of Humanity making an offering to Bhoma whilst observed the Naga Basuki. It would help if we knew exactly where this bas-relief came from, but wherever it came from, it cannot be simply written off as a "comic scene" which is what Bernet Kempers referred to it as. I sometimes wonder at some of our recognised "Greats". Art in this context was never art for amusement or for art's sake, it was an offering to those of the Niskala.

Now if we read this entire bas relief in terms of its iconographic content, what we might have is Naga Basuki who is representative of the needs of Mankind observing Mankind making an offering to Bhoma who is the guardian of the means of fulfilling those needs, and all in the presence of Gayatri, whose presence is implied by the presence of the Hamsa.

As for Stutterheim's "magically loaded East Javanese reliefs", well, yeah, welcome to the human race. At points in the development of Humanity all art is certainly symbolically loaded, symbolism is only ever meant to be understood by those who are chosen to understand it, and that which is not understood is, of course, one of the definitions of "magic".

Now, in respect of this yoni : lotus : karang bintulu : tumpal conundrum.

From my perspective, I am not yet sure that I can accept the assumptions upon which the riddle has been posed. The question may well be a valid one, but if it is, it is one that I have not yet devoted more than passing attention to. I most certainly have never looked closely at the factors involved.
We know how to read the presence of a tumpal, the presence of a karang bintulu seems to imply a reference to Kala, and/or possibly to Bhoma, the presence of a lotus can be interpreted in a number of ways and is situational, the feature that is sometimes interpreted as a yoni, well, that becomes exceedingly difficult, because it could perhaps be a matter of misreading. In Balinese carving, the karang bintulu is used as one of the fill motifs and in accordance with laid down process.

There are a lot of questions attached to this riddle, and I do not think that I currently have sufficient understanding of the motifs involved and their respective frames of reference to even begin to think about a possible analysis.

[Gustav]

Originally Posted by Jean

May be because the yoni depiction was no longer acceptable in the Muslim-influenced society at that time? It reminds me of the "modesty plates" worn by the young Bugis girls for hiding their genitals.
I wonder whether these triangular motifs on the hilts are original or added later (not clear from the pics).

The lotus/Yoni thing appears on the back Tumpal, as always is the case with the hilts on which it appears at all.
It is quite clear that the triangles are original, and we have them only on these (at the moment) three hilts which share a complete iconographic program and carving style.

Perhaps you could name a feature, which is Muslim-influenced on this hilt?

Modesty plates were absolutely common in Majapahit. There are very fine golden examples.

[Gustav]

Alan, thank you very much for your interesting post.

[Jean]

Gustav, Thank you and sorry for the confusion, but I can't trace any Muslim indicator on this hilt.

[Gustav]

Alan, just one remark about the bas-relief. The description and possible provenance provided by you is rather convincing.

As I understand, Bernet Kempers saw it not just as "comic scene", but possibly as an (indeed) comic scene from Tantri Kamandaka. I don't have Tantri Kamandaka and have never read it, only overall description of main storyline, so I can't prove if there is such scene or not. But the central figure with some certainty is a Panakawan, - this means a dose of humor contained, so typical for Javanese art.

About the carvings on Bungkul part of early figural hilts and their possible development - I certainly have devoted more then passing attention to them - we could discuss them someday perhaps.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Gustav, Bernet Kempers does identify the central figure as a punakawan, and frankly, I have a bit of a problem with that too. In my reference ("Ancient Indonesian Art", A.J. Bernet Kempers, Harvard University Press, 1959) the Tantri Kamandaka is not mentioned. If Bernet Kempers was able to link this bas-relief to one of the Tantri stories, this would seem to indicate that this bas-relief came from a site which had more, or all of the Tantri stories, the Tantri stories do not stand alone, but as a series of animal tales containing advice on statecraft & morals suitable for a ruler. They are drawn from the original Pancatantra, which is a sort of Indian 1001 nights, Pancatantra is written in Sanskrit.

The Tantri stories appear on several candis in East Jawa and in Central Jawa. They can be found on Candi Mendut and Candi Sojiwan in Central Jawa, these are Early Classical, so pre-date the Kamandaka, but in East Jawa there are 14(?) Tantri stotries on Candi Jago, and 11 (?) or these can be related to the Kamandaka. Candi Jago is mid-14th century.

In Jawa the Pancatantra was used to produce five different versions, the oldest version is the Tantri Kamandaka which was produced around 1000AD to 1050AD, which places it around the period of transition from Central Jawa to East Jawa cultural period.

Now, in Old Javanese the word punakawan (panakawan) comes from "kawan", kawan means "friend", "panakawan" a member of a group that forms followers or retinue. In Modern Javanese "panakawan" means a servant or a follower, but has the further specific meaning in association with the wayang of being a clown-servant of the hero. In wayang there are four panakawan:- Semar, Petruk, Gareng, Bagong. Non-native speakers of Javanese tend to think of a panakawan in association with its wayang usage where the idea of servant + humour is present, but in reality the primary meaning of the word "panakawan/punakawan" is simply a member of a group of followers or retinue.

So, we have the question of whether Bernet Kempers intended his identification of the central figure as a panakawan to be wayang related, or whether the word should be understood in its general, rather than specific sense. Since he uses the word "comic" we can be reasonably confident that he is using panakawan in the sense of a wayang character. This is where the problem arises, because it seems probable that the comic nature of the wayang panakawans did not arise until wayang golek was replaced by wayang purwa in the 15th century in Demak, the replacement occurred because of Raden Patah's prohibition that applied to the wayang golek puppets.

So, if wayang punakawans became comic in the 15th century, how could a bas relief attributed to an earlier period represent a comic punakawan? Bear in mind, in Majapahit Old Javanese was in use, and a wayang punakawan was not automatically a comic figure. Moreover, the comic punakawan is associated with the Ramayana, and the Tantri stories do not involve the Ramayana.

I apologise for all this digression into off-topic matters, but the problem is this:- we cannot sensibly discuss the implications and intended meanings or purposes of Javanese/Balinese artistic representations in the absence of very diverse understanding of related fields, nor can we adopt a mental frame of reference that draws only upon our own life experience in the present era. In simple terms we need to try to adopt a frame of reference that applies to the time at which the matter being examined was generated.

We do not learn to understand the keris by studying the keris, we need to diversify our attentions and look at other elements.

[Gustav]

Alan, if you address me in the last two paragraphs, - I have diversified my attention for some time already, and posted a "Majapahit era carving where human figure is represented with some parts of it's body rendered in the lung-lungan style", something, at which you didn't look consciously until now and doubted its existence in Majapahit period.

Regarding Panakawan -

from what I did read about Panakawan until now I understand, that they are purely Javanese invention, as they doesn't exist in Indian sources, and that comic element surely was a part of character of Panakawan earlier then Raden Patah's politics. For the first time I also hear that comic Panakawan are associated only with Ramayana. Here my experience totally differs.

If we take a look to reliefs of Candi Surowono, c. 1400, the behavior of Panakawan serves as commentary to the actions of protagonist Arjuna.
Sometimes they do just the opposite of their master, for example, during Arjunas temptation they busily make love with the female servants of the nymphs. Sometimes they mimic actions of Arjuna, as in the battle scene, where they make threatening gestures at Siva.

So I am quite sceptic about your sentence "... because it seems probable that the comic nature of the wayang panakawans did not arise until wayang golek was replaced by wayang purwa in the 15th century in Demak, the replacement occurred because of Raden Patah's prohibition that applied to the wayang golek puppets.", also because of another reason.

If you really mean that, Wayang Golek is a Wayang figure style, which quite certainly even didn't exist in 15th cent., and developed in Cirebon area most probably in 17th cent.

Wayang Purwa is the classic Wayang repertoire, which consists of Jawa-Dewa, Arjuna-Sasrabau, Ramayana and Mahabrata. Other sources list Para-Dewa, Lokapala, Ramayana and Mahabarata-Baratayuda.

So Wayang Golek and Wayang Purwa belong to completely different categories, like grapes and bottles.

Regarding Tantri stories and the relief I posted - there is a story called Angling Dharma, of which the Tantri story "Language of Animals" is an introduction. Here a jewel-crowned snake princess, her father snake king appears, later a priest, father of Ambarawati, which is turned into Rakshasa. Ambarawati, arguing with her Rakshasa-father, travels in company of Panakawan.
And there is another Tantri story "Goose and Tortoise", where a goose carries two tortoises with help of a stick. The tortoises are distracted, let the stick go and fall to the ground.
Often such scenes with Panakawan are meant as comic, burlesque comments on storyline, not as part of the story itself, or even seemingly totally isolated. Perhaps Bernet Kempers saw it as a gathering of protagonists from two stories, possibly depicted on the same building.