strange pamor

A. G. Maisey · 8th March 2011, 10:35 PM

Yes, its possible that the form was more widespread than just Cirebon, or just Madura. The way people see things now is not the way they were 300, 200, 100 years ago.

Also possible that miniscule differences existed between various interpretations of the form, these tiny differences could have indicated a different ruler in the same area, a different ruler in a different area, or diiferent interpretation by a different maker. At this remove, who can tell?

To be honest, I have a heap of books on keris, I have made a general rule of buying every keris book published that I have been able to obtain. The ones I've missed have mostly been Indonesian low run ones, and a few in languages I cannot read.

However, I usually read these books once, find (mostly) a lot of stuff that does not agree with what I've been taught, or is just plain idiotic or wrong, put the book away and don't open it again.

The exceptions to this are Solyom, because there is nothing between its covers that I can consider wrong, a few things I don't agree with, but that doesn't mean they're wrong, only that we went to slightly different schools; Haryono Haryoguritno, and Harsinuksmo. I use the last two named as references for names that are generally acceptable to the bulk of present day collectors, even if I myself do not agree with these names. Most other books I would not open from one year to the next, except if somebody asks me a question about something in one of those unopened books.

On this whole subject of specific names and attributions for anything , I am very relaxed. I really do not care what anybody calls anything, nor how they attribute it. To me this something of very little importance. The big questions with keris are not tied into this attribution/classification thing.

I just never think about classifications nor attributions. What time I spend thinking about keris is pointed in an entirely different direction.

So, if Jensen wants to call something a name that I don't agree with, I don't care.

If anybody wants to build a case that this wrongko under discussion is from Cirebon, that's fine with me.

Its just not important to me.

I might get a whisker more interested if anybody disputed blade origin, but even then it is something of no great moment. Just a difference in opinion.

The name game is one of the most futile wasters of time in any field of study.

8th March 2011, 10:35 PM	#8
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	Yes, its possible that the form was more widespread than just Cirebon, or just Madura. The way people see things now is not the way they were 300, 200, 100 years ago. Also possible that miniscule differences existed between various interpretations of the form, these tiny differences could have indicated a different ruler in the same area, a different ruler in a different area, or diiferent interpretation by a different maker. At this remove, who can tell? To be honest, I have a heap of books on keris, I have made a general rule of buying every keris book published that I have been able to obtain. The ones I've missed have mostly been Indonesian low run ones, and a few in languages I cannot read. However, I usually read these books once, find (mostly) a lot of stuff that does not agree with what I've been taught, or is just plain idiotic or wrong, put the book away and don't open it again. The exceptions to this are Solyom, because there is nothing between its covers that I can consider wrong, a few things I don't agree with, but that doesn't mean they're wrong, only that we went to slightly different schools; Haryono Haryoguritno, and Harsinuksmo. I use the last two named as references for names that are generally acceptable to the bulk of present day collectors, even if I myself do not agree with these names. Most other books I would not open from one year to the next, except if somebody asks me a question about something in one of those unopened books. On this whole subject of specific names and attributions for anything , I am very relaxed. I really do not care what anybody calls anything, nor how they attribute it. To me this something of very little importance. The big questions with keris are not tied into this attribution/classification thing. I just never think about classifications nor attributions. What time I spend thinking about keris is pointed in an entirely different direction. So, if Jensen wants to call something a name that I don't agree with, I don't care. If anybody wants to build a case that this wrongko under discussion is from Cirebon, that's fine with me. Its just not important to me. I might get a whisker more interested if anybody disputed blade origin, but even then it is something of no great moment. Just a difference in opinion. The name game is one of the most futile wasters of time in any field of study. Last edited by A. G. Maisey; 9th March 2011 at 03:45 AM.