[Gustav]

Alan, I will not pounder about how exactly the first line in your previous post was meant.

I never ever did speculate about European "knowledge", I actually don't understand what it means. David wrote: "I don't see any particular indicators in the style of this buta hilt that would definitively place it in the 17th century", and all I did was trying to show, why this hilt most probably is a 17th cent. hilt. For my part, there is no "knowledge", just comparative analysis. For such, of course, you should have proper sources.

When there is no interest in old blades from European museums, why blades inspired by these did surface, possibly hilts, and even at least one copy of a 17th cent. Sunggingan I am aware of?

You wrote: "The concept that craftsmen can produce convincing keris, or convincing hilts, or convincing anything else from photos is another flight of fancy. They simply cannot, but the people who are at the top of the keris industry have no problem at all of obtaining the necessary examples of works that they want copied (...)"

I see here no big contradiction with my post: " Now the Indonesian carvers have reached very high level in reproducing Tajong hilt. The source of this improvement is the book "Spirit of Wood", with its detailed drawings, and surely genuine examples held in hand, because some things you understand only having the object in the hand."

I have absolutely no wish to become involved in Indonesian Keris world, yet I simply notice its offshoots in European and American auction houses, dealer catalogues, collections and publications.