Ganja, nothing I have written has been intended as targetted criticism: it has been intended as an attempt to try to bring discussion of tangguh to a level and format that can operate from photographs and written communication, and assist, rather than hinder, the increase of knowledge for people who know almost nothing about tangguh.
Irresponsible and destructive actions can probably only be considered to be this when they are carried out with irresponsible and destructive intent.
Where the intent is absent, although the end result may be destruction, irresponsibility cannot be claimed.
Since in this matter there can be no charge of irresponsibility levelled, there is clearly no call for any apologies to be made.
Now that we all seem to travelling in the same direction, I feel that the way is open to continue to discuss tangguh, but using the approach of qualifying our opinions, rather than phasing them in absolute terms.
Regarding Mr. Tammens and his determinations in respect of tangguh. Some years ago I had a long and informative discussion with a highly respected Dutch keris authority and author about Mr. Tammens and tangguh. I was told that if questioned as to the reasons why a particular keris was this tangguh, or that tangguh, Mr. Tammens would not give an explanation of the indicators that permitted him to classify the keris, but simply say it was this tangguh because it had the characteristics of this tangguh. It would appear that Mr. Tammens' principal teacher was an ex-patriot Javanese gentleman, so perhaps this overaching approach is the way in which Mr. Tammens was taught, rather than the analytical approach, which is the way I was taught. In any case, when I explained and demonstrated to the Dutch author the way in which we can break the characteristics of a blade down into components, and even sub-components, and measure these components against a pre-determined standard it became very clear to him exactly how an ahli keris will determine the tangguh of a blade. I must admit, many of the people I have known who will give an opinion on tangguh do not consciously apply this same analytical approach, but when questioned, they will give answers that can be analytically aligned with the predetermined standards that I was taught.
After Mr. Tammens published his first volume, I heard an amusing story in Solo. It seems that one particular keris orientated Solonese gentleman was so incensed at what he considered to be the inaccurate information in Mr. Tammens' book, that he took it upon himself to visit Mr. Tammens in an attempt to set the record straight. I cannot vouch for this story:- it is Solo gossip, and we know what that can be like.
Ganja, when you say this is not an academic forum, I for one would very much like to believe that you are correct. We have seen the academic approach to this type of subject, and since academia does have a very prominent element of self advancement and reputation building, it can be quite destructive to goodwill and a free exchange of information and ideas. Personally, I would prefer to see us all stay friendly and stupid, rather than enlightened, if enlightenment should come at the cost of goodwill.Yeah, we're all just sitting around in the warung, pretty relaxed, nursing our cups of coffee, and swapping info back and forth. Nothing to get uptight about.But let's try to qualify those opinions about which we cannot be too certain.
|