Quote:
|
Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey
Jean, the keris of which you show images are not pure keris budho, but rather of a type intermediate between keris budho and the early modern keris.
As to why they are given the classification designation of "Singosari", well, that's something that nobody can answer at this remove. But don't let it worry you, its only a classification, and might just as well be given any designation.
When we start to involve ourselves with tangguh, which you are doing with these questions, there are two major ways you can go:- accept everything as an item of faith, or reject everything as so much invention.
To be fair, there is a third way:- accept as more or less historically accurate those classifications that can be logically supported, and regard those classifications which cannot be logically supported as indicative of possibilities only.
|
Dear Alan,
Thank you very much for your reply which perfectly meets my expectations and reinforces my doubts. In a few lines you said it all!
My 2 pieces are typical specimens of this type of intermediate krisses, and I agree that they cannot be accurately dated, and that these pieces are probably from different periods as some of them have pamor for instance. Have you any picture of an original keris Budho to show us?
Regarding the judgement about the tangguh matter I fully agree with your cautious statement, personally I follow the intermediate (third) way and will use it in my new book.
Thank you very much again and best regards
Jean