Gustav, I don't really want to repeat everything that I have written in "Interpretation", I began this thread not to parade my own ideas, but rather to hear the ideas and opinions of others. May I gently suggest that you re-read my rationale in respect of luk as related to hierarchical status? Incidentally, this was not something that came to me as revelation out of a clear blue sky, it was given to me by a Balinese Brahman around 30-odd years ago, however, I must admit I did not understand sufficient at the time to fully comprehend what was told to me, it took a while for my informant's words to become clear to me.
Yes, a keris hilt can also indicate status, as can any number of other dress indicators, body language indicators, or language indicators, but there is nothing like the constant presence of one's personal shrine to remind a man who he is and what his position is. The necessity was to control the man who wore the keris, not to indicate that man's status to others. By inclusion of religious iconography the keris became a personal shrine.
No Gustav, I have no comment at all to make at this time on the further development of the keris that followed the initial introduction of religious icons into its character.
|