Maurice, my previous post was not an attempt to argue with you, I am not equipped to argue about mandaus, and my disclaimer at the beginning of my post says it all.
However, I can read, and what I have written is information that I have garnered from a number of anthropological works that I have read over a long period of time. I have only repeated what professionals in the field have written.
Yes, I agree that within the later Dyak community there were and are skilled carvers who worked and work for others, just as there were, and are, skilled weavers who sell the product of their labour, however, in the traditional framework of Dyak society the ability to carve was the male balance to the female equivalent of weaving, and as such it played an important role in the selection of a mate, and the continuation of the viability of the group.
It may seem strange that although I have not the slightest interest in mandaus, I should remember information relating to the sociological relationships of the mandau. The reason for this is that what we see in Dyak society is very probably the foundation pattern for most, if not all MSE Asian societies, and the position of the hilt and its personal manufacture in the traditional framework of the Dyak society does much to explain a number of things that have puzzled students of the keris for a very long time.
As for the age of the specific piece under discussion, I made no comment directed at that piece, and I make none now.
|