Alan,
regarding the Greneng variation I presented, I don't think it is as simple as "They are clearly, obviously and logically demonstrable corruptions. They do not appear in the Bali keris, and that tells us exactly what they are". This Greneng appears on a very small number of Keris, and they all are older then first half of 17th cent. After that this variation disappears. Speaking of myself, I haven't seen many Keris from Bali, which could be somewhat supportably datable as older then perhaps 18th cent. We have much less reasoned to say on subject older Keris in Bali then we have regarding older Keris in Java - and that isn't much.
This variation of Greneng clearly don't fit in your hypothesis, but I am not sure, if it is a reason enough to deem it as a corruption from Islamic period.
It consists of two identical elements with a Ron Dha in the middle. That element is repeated on Jenggot. Stylistically I don't see any confusion there.
That variation we also see on a Keris from Munich Inv. Nr. Gr. 598, which is much less known, because Jensen probably wasn't aware of its existence. The age of blade is, as always debatable, but I have difficulties to see the hilt of it in an Islamic Kontext.
Regarding my use of word "automatically" regarding the parallel use of Greneng and Jenggot, I am aware, it also doesn't fit in your hypothesis. I for myself wanted to express with it my oppinion, which is adeqately supported by Keris from early collections as material evidence, that there is no KK without Jenggot on old, well preserved Keris, except perhaps Sempana in some cases. If we speak about a corruption during the period following the rule of Sultan Agung you mention in #21, KK without Jenggot is one indeed.
|