[A. G. Maisey]

Gustav, as soon as I noted your response to my supposedly offensive comments, I attempted to rectify the misunderstanding of intent, however, the further comments that you yourself have indulged yourself in, I myself find to be unworthy of you. After reflection, I have come to the conclusion that there is a degree in confusion, or perhaps misunderstanding floating around here, so in an attempt to bring things back onto a congenial footing I offer the following:-

Please accept my apologies if my comments have offended you Gustav.
I had no intention of causing offence, I did have the intention of writing in a light hearted manner, because I personally do not regard much of this present discussion as having a lot of depth, however, I do realise that not everybody may feel the same way as I do, so I have tried as best I can to keep the ball rolling --- so to speak.

In fact, the words to which you seem to have taken offence are pretty much exactly what I would say in a situation where I was face to face with you, and in my country, between friends, those words would be understood as gentle bantering.

I acknowledge that I made an error in my choice of words, and I again aplogise for any and all offence I may have given. The spoken word does not always have the same effect when written, as it does when spoken, especially so when the exchange is across cultures.

The misunderstood words have been removed and less poetic ones have been substituted.

~~~~~

Gustav, your claim that I don't need any answers is totally incorrect, just as is your perception that I use this Forum as a parade ground.

In fact, when I ask a question, I need as many answers as I can get, most especially so when I believe that the person whom I have asked can provide knowledge that I do not have, or a way of understanding something, that is different to my own. This is often the case with somebody who has an interest in a subject and who has gained his understanding or knowledge from sources at variance with my own sources.

In the matter of the additional information that I requested, and that you refused to provide, I will make this further comment:-

I know you to be a very intelligent and diligent observer. I know that you sometimes see things that I do not, and that you sometimes remember things that I do not. I also know that you sometimes interpret things in a way that is at variance with my own understandings. Because of your personal attributes, and of your completely different educational sources I often find your observations and opinions to be useful.

In respect of the interpretation of Javanese iconography, it is true that I try to understand Javanese symbols in ways that could be acceptable a Javanese mind of the relevant time. The greater part of my life has been given over to attempting to gain a limited ability to do this, as a consequence I do not try to interpret Javanese iconography in accordance with Chinese, Indian, Persian, or European understandings.

For example, I ask you to consider the Javanese representation of the well known Singo Barong. Just exactly where does this symbol originate, and how is it understood in its society of origin, in comparison with the way it is understood in Jawa and Bali?

The exchanges over time between Jawa and many other societies are well known, and well documented, as is the inescapable fact that when Jawa accepts anything at all from outside Javanese culture, it takes that element, whatever it may be, gives it a good shake, mixes it with a few local spices, and turns it into something that would not be recognised in the place where it originated.

Now, Tantrism in Jawa.
Gustav, what some people regard as Tantrism is still present at a grass roots level in Jawa right now, and nobody can deny that it was definitely present at the time of the Kingdom of Singasari.

But is it Tantrism, or is it a way of understanding that is indigenous to Jawa?

Sooner or later Tantrism seems to make its appearance in some keris related discussions, which is to a degree perfectly understandable. However, when we consider the question of Tantric symbolism in post 14th century Jawa I believe that we need to try to understand that symbolism in the context of the time of production, not in the context of the time of origin of the symbol.

Time alters perception.

That which was so yesterday is not necessarily so today.

To look at a symbol, identify it as Tantric --- or for that matter anything else --- and immediately attach all the interpretations attributed to it at the time of its birth as a symbol, is a very simplistic and very often incorrect approach.

All symbols must be interpreted within the context of the time and place where the symbol was used, not in the context of the time and place where it was first created.

Gustav, I find your accusation that I indulge myself in troll-like behaviour to be on the one hand quite offensive, but on the other hand rather laughable, so in the final analysis I'm inclined to simply dismiss these comments. I understand that your misinterpretation of my initial comment in post #26 was not to your liking, so I'll take your unworthy comment as payback. Game over.

However, in respect of direct questions, a direct question is in my experience the only way to get a direct answer, and both the direct question, and its corresponding answer will usually give a clear understanding of the level of knowledge of both the questioner and the person who provides the response.

This is the reason that the traditional way in which keris knowledge is taught in Jawa is by the student asking the teacher a question, and teacher providing a response that is at a level with the present understanding of his pupil, as demonstrated by the question.

An answer will always be given, but just as a professor of nuclear science will tailor his answer to suit a questioner in kindergarten, as opposed to a PhD. candidate, so the teacher of keris knowledge will tailor his answer in accordance with the level of knowledge of his questioner.

In other words it is unwise to to try to teach children who do not yet know their ABC, the intricacies of Elizabethan literature.

When I ask questions in respect of the keris it is probably true to say that I do it for either one of two reasons:-

1) because I want to know something I do not know
2) to try to make others think

Yes, I do know several people who carve keris hilts, but the people I know are all based in Solo, and they work only in Solonese styles, they do not work in the figural styles found in East Jawa, North Coast Jawa, Bali, or Sumatera.

In fact, in my experience the traditional artisans of Jawa are totally uninterested in the opinions of people outside their own personal circle of acquaintances, and even then what opinions even their own acquaintances may voice, they find to be irrelevant:- "my family has always done it this way, I'll continue to do it this way."

Actually, all the people I know who carve hilts do not own computers, do not understand how to use the internet, and in most cases are only marginally literate. Their language is Javanese, when they use Bahasa Indonesia they are very limited and tend to use it mixed with the local dialect, they most certainly have no understanding of English at all.

There is a cottage industry, in Sumenep mostly, that produces modern copies of old styles, but Blind Freddy can see the difference between these productions and genuinely old hilts.

Intentional fakery at a production level is very, very rare in the World of the Keris, and when it does occur it is almost invariably directed at the local Indonesian market, and for much bigger money than any buyer outside Indonesia would ever be willing to pay.

Material?
To me, of no interest and not really worthy of discussion. This rhino horn thing has been discussed to death, long before this thread began.

To me, the true value of this present discussion has been in the other matters that we have discussed.