Hello Alan,
Please excuse my ignorance (I have been trying to understand things Jawa a bit better but keep stumbling over your recent comment):
Quote:
|
Jean, it is obvious that the greneng is not attributable to Djeno, but it is not a greneng that is the "signature" of a maker, it is the ron dha. Throughout history makers have varied the greneng , but it is almost impossible for a maker to vary his ron dha, even if he wants to; he may try to cut it in a slightly different way, but if one is familiar with the work of that maker, it is possible to still have a very good idea who has cut the ron dha, even though it has been altered. It is the ron dha we need to focus on, not the greneng.
|
I know that the ron dha is seen as a signature of the maker, at least for keris blades of good quality. If a seasoned maker has ingrained a certain style of ron dha, I can see that this style may still shine through minor modifications. However, IF a maker were to decide to cut a really different kind of ron dha, what would make this still identifiable (except social hormat & adat constraints not to change anything like this on a whimp)?
BTW, is it really that tough to copy a single ron dha of about any prominent empu if you really want to? While it is difficult to fake many handwritten signatures or the way a world-class painter is known to do the strokes, etc., there are still some gifted talents who craft copies that fool expert eyes. Why would be a ron dha be that much different, even given its very subtle nuances (which could still be carefully approached by repeated file work)?
I'd guess that a full series of greneng will be much tougher to copy perfectly, especially getting proportions and the "flow" of the work correctly represented. Why the paramount reliance on the ron dha except for social norms and its unique status in keris lore?
Regards,
Kai