I agree Gustav, the same.
You have done a much better job than I did of producing reasonably readable images.
I would very much prefer to leave Karsten Jensen's opinions out of any discussion on blade origin, I do accept that his system of classification has value where the objective is to form an opinion on the entire keris including the dress, but that system is in total variance to my own training & experience and is not in any way able to be aligned with Javanese standards.
In respect of the greneng under discussion, I feel that this general form of greneng would be found to occur principally in keris that would attract a Banten classification rather than any other, & Banten is not Jawa.
The Solonese system of classification, does not include Banten as a recognised classification, & this is true of all other classifications that are now recognised, the reason being that when the Solonese system was developed, only truly Javanese keris were recognised as being valid instruments for storage of wealth.
The newly recognised classifications have been developed by collectors for a very different set of reasons than were applied in development of the original classifications.
In respect of the greneng under discussion, & in consideration of the much improved images that you have presented, I am of the opinion that Amuk's greneng can be accepted as belonging to the school of Banten, which places it in Sunda.
However, although this greneng might be able to be given a Banten classification, it is not the only greneng form that can be found on keris that can be given a Banten classification. So if Amuk is looking for a keris of the type that might carry this greneng form, perhaps he needs to adopt a selection process that includes a number of classification indicators, not only the greneng.
|