Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Alam Shah · 19th May 2006, 02:44 AM

Hi doecon,

Thank you for responding. What I meant was (and still is), for the 1st piece was it owned by a palace guard? And for the 2nd piece, was it a keraton commissioned piece, or ever used at the keraton?

My response to your comments:
a) Material-wise, I guess it's specified adequately...

b) So, it's more of assumption, is it?

c) "Therefore it became Yogja." you mean attribution can be changed from Solo to Yogya? For the Solo hilt, for common keris use, perhaps. But for palace guard or keraton piece, why would a Solo hilt be used?

d) Are you implying that pieces which have the keraton word or insignia, are keraton pieces?

If the provenance is not true or based solely on assumptions, then it should be stated otherwise. When an absolute term is used when it's only an assumption, wouldn't it be misleading?

19th May 2006, 02:44 AM	#5
Alam Shah Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,248	Hi doecon, Thank you for responding. What I meant was (and still is), for the 1st piece was it owned by a palace guard? And for the 2nd piece, was it a keraton commissioned piece, or ever used at the keraton? My response to your comments: a) Material-wise, I guess it's specified adequately... b) So, it's more of assumption, is it? c) "Therefore it became Yogja." you mean attribution can be changed from Solo to Yogya? For the Solo hilt, for common keris use, perhaps. But for palace guard or keraton piece, why would a Solo hilt be used? d) Are you implying that pieces which have the keraton word or insignia, are keraton pieces? If the provenance is not true or based solely on assumptions, then it should be stated otherwise. When an absolute term is used when it's only an assumption, wouldn't it be misleading?