Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ferrylaki
am I denying that history? off course I am.
am I maintaining that this original keris is from Bali? this one I have to make my sefl clear. OK then It might not from bali. but I do have to agree it was made some time around majapahit period. let's just call it tangguh majapahit.
BUT for further information about the empu who made the keris. that's a little bit too far. I will not address that pasopati as a blambangan keris. not even close.
let's make this more fun then David, this discussion off course.
|
You are, of course, welcome to call this blade any tangguh you wish Ferry. That is your right to opinion that all individuals have. But's you should hold off on the "Let's". There is no "us" in your opinion. Personally i prefer not to make assumptions based upon a single overall photograph of a somewhat out of stain blade that does not possibly allow a close enough examination to come to such a conclusion. You are unable to determine the weight of the blade, the color of the iron when properly stained, the nature of the pamor material or the true depth of the sogokan or height of the ada-ada from this photograph.
As for who the mpu may have been, i too would be skeptical of his identity. I am not familiar with the history of Mpu Supo, when he was supposed to have worked, etc. But the identity of the Mpu has never been a real subject of discussion here, has it. This does seem to be a well chronicled keris however. It seems to be a keris with a name (Kanjeng Kyai Seneng Pareng) and a history. Past owners are known. But the accuracy of the account of this keris is also not important to the main contention of debate here. I think that it would be irresponsible to claim the knowledge of the tangguh of this keris based upon the photograph, but one thing that seems absolutely clear about it form this image is that it is
NOT a Bali keris. Other than that this debate has been rather circular. I have not seen any evidence that supports a Bali origin for this keris, period. Now you seem to be waffling on that assertion so i guess the debate is over and we agree.
