Is gold or suasa 'better'?

[Maurice]

Originally Posted by David

Well, for me the question isn't so much as to whether or not talismanic properties were attributed to suasa in 17th or 18th century Jawa. As Alan points out, talismanic properties are attributed to just about everything, especially things considered precious such as valuable metals. What i am questioning here is the claim that suasa was preferred over gold. If it was one has to wonder why then there are so many more existing examples of the use of gold on keris than there are suasa, especially when one considers that suasa has a lower monetary value than gold. I could literally fill pages upon pages here with photographs of examples of the use of gold in this context, however the existing examples of suasa used on keris seem substantially lower. Why would this be the case if indeed suasa was a preferred metal?

Yes I am fully aware of that. Everything that looks nice, different etc. must be talismanic at those times (and still) in Indonesia.

I thought I answered your questions before. Gold was something everybody wanted to have, even Rumphius is explaining that allready in his very early work! Therefor you can fill pages upon pages with photographs of examples with gold in this context, as anybody wanted to have it. It was luxury property, and probably also talismanic!
But next to the small chapter of gold, he has a larger chapter of suassa, which had to be much more interesting as the gold that anybody owned!
And he stated there that suassa was preferred over gold because of the talismanic properties, not that suassa is on the same level with gold on luxury property.

Maybe it could be, that suassa was so powerfull that not everybody was able or dared to wear suassa?

PS can you show me an old source that gold was preferred to suassa from a similar age?