Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David
Well, i never said "proven", i said "accepted". Frankly i don't need the scholarly writings of Europeans nearly a century ago to tell me what i can see and determine for myself through simple observation. Do you believe that the Moro Kris developed in a vacuum, yet for some reason carries the same form and iconography as it's cousin, the Indonesian keris, which developed centuries before it? Or perhaps you have seen examples of Moro kris which can be reasonably dated anywhere near the oldest know examples of Indonesian keris. If you have, i'd like to see them. Or maybe you have some photographs from a stele at an ancient Moro temple that can be dated to the 15th century (as can with the Candi Sukuh in Central Jawa showing Javanese keris) that shows depictions Moro style kris in use at the time, thereby dating their existence to somewhere near the same time when the Indonesian keris as we know to was developing.
Seriously? You posted the Winstedt article. I assume you've read it He clearly references Woolley, Wilkenson, van Ronkel, Banks, and others.
Language is a living entity. It does not only live for academic purposes. I am regularly in communication with a large group of keris enthusiasts from various parts of Indonesia and Malaysia. This is THEIR culture, not mine. It is not for me to critical their cultural "appropriation". If i want to communicate with them, which is, after all, the actual purpose of language, it is best for me to use terms they best understand. When i say "Malay Sundang" they immediately know exactly what i mean. It is not for me to "correct" them and i would only be risking alienating that community if i tried. Your mileage may vary.
No evidence seems to exist for either theory. Where in your scholarly works have you come across anyone saying that Malay Sundang blades that are not Moro were made by Indonesians living and working in Moroland that were then traded to Indonesians? Why is your "imagination" any more legitimate than mine. We are all just speculating here and to claim that you have the answers based upon solid and indisputable evidence provided to you through scholarly research is disingenuous at best.
Please don't misunderstand. I do not dismiss scholarship. I have read Winstedt, Woolley, Frey, Cato, Groneman, Tammens, van Duuren, Van Zonneveld, Gardner, etc., etc. However, as i am sure you know, great holes exist in these researches that may never be filled and i cannot think of any recognized author who has fully tackled and explained the origins of the Moro Kris or, for that matter, how the Malay Sundang developed. I am not attempting to prove a point here as give the current state of evidence i do not believe there is enough evidence to prove any points. We are left with logic, speculation and conjecture.
|
"Seriously? You posted the Winstedt article. I assume you've read it He clearly references Woolley, Wilkenson, van Ronkel, Banks, and others."
When you stated he was "re-hashing" other Europeans, I was of the impression you were referring to other writings that you have encountered aside from the authors he was not only "clearly" but obviously citing. He wasn't re-hashing, he was citing his sources.
"Please don't misunderstand. I do not dismiss scholarship."
I understand clearly. Please read your second sentence: "Frankly i don't need the scholarly writings of Europeans nearly a century ago to tell me what i can see and determine for myself through simple observation." You just did.
"I am not attempting to prove a point here as give the current state of evidence i do not believe there is enough evidence to prove any points. We are left with logic, speculation and conjecture"
Well, such will not prove anything. They will only raise questions.