Pak Manshur,
Yes, it is true that here we communicate in different levels of English, and this can lead to some confusion.
Because of this I will make this post as simple as I am able.
Cultural differences can cause people from different cultures to identify discussion at different levels as a "dispute". Speaking for myself, I cannot find any evidence of any dispute in any recent posts to this discussion group. All I can identify is civil discussion.
Pak Manshur, you have posed this question:-
" Did this thread had demostrated the Tosan Aji from Pengging era which has luk like a snake (sarpa lumampah), the Daleman Sumenep keris which also has luk like a Pengging keris, and keris Segaluh which has good pamor and iron work... ? "
Objective evaluation will show that neither of these things have been demonstrated.
What has been demonstrated is this:-
Pengging
In the opinion of some people, the form of luk found in tosan aji which could perhaps be classified as tangguh Pengging , does have the form shown in the photos that were posted.
This is a qualified statement.
Because of the high level of disagreement as to the exact form of a Pengging keris it is not possible to make a definitive statement in respect of the luk form.
Segaluh
Photos of a keris identified by the owner as tangguh Segaluh have been shown. Based upon what can be seen in these photos, it is probable that the pamor execution is competent, as is the execution of the iron work.
This is a qualified statement.
We cannot be positive that the keris is tangguh Segaluh, and we cannot be positive as to the quality of the material and the way in which it has been worked, because we can only see a picture of the keris. To be positive about these things we need to handle the keris.
Even if we handle the keris, and we agree that it is tangguh Segaluh, and we do determine that quality of both pamor and iron work is superior, we can only affix that opinion to the keris being examined, we cannot extend that opinion to any other keris of tangguh Segaluh.
However, in respect of the keris shown as a possible Daleman Sumenep you made the following statement:-
And regaring my keris which has luk rengkol, this can be a Daleman Sumenep keris which estimated about 18th century.
This is a qualified statement.
By use of the the word "can", an element of doubt has been introduced. It "can" be Daleman Sumenep; it can also be something else.
This demonstrates exactly the point I have been trying to make:-
in discussion of tangguh carried out in writing, and using photographs, we cannot be definite in our opinions; our opinions must be qualified, in other words, the opinion when it is based on words or pictures must leave room for doubt.
When the keris is in one's possession, it would be permissable to state the tangguh, and anything else about the keris as one's opinion:- the statement is qualified by identifying the statement as opinion.
Opinion must not be presented as a statement of fact.
Pak Manshur, please do not regard what I have written as being in the nature of a dispute. The idea of "dispute" carries an element of heat, and an element of contention.There is no heat in my writing, and I am not in contention with you. I am discussing calmly and in a relaxed fashion a matter that must be clarified prior to any sensible discussion of tangguh being able to take place.
|