A gamble, your opinion?

[Jean]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Perhaps when we wish to use the words "old", or "traditional" in respect of the Javanese keris, we might wish to consider exactly what we mean with these two concepts.

Hello Alan,
Yes, this is a difficult question and subject to endless discussion. Personally I classify as old a blade estimated to date from about 1860 to WWII (Javanese nem-neman period). For the ones estimated as older , I classify them as very old (1600-1860 i.e Mataram and early Yogyakarta & Surakarta periods), antique (1300-1600 or Majapahit, Pajajaran to Pajang periods), and early krisses (before Majapahit period). This may not be correct but in absence of a better definition from the experts (which I would welcome) it suits my requirements.
And regarding the traditional kinatah motifs, I agree with your definition (Hindu or Javanese origin and endorsed by the kratons).
Best regards
Jean

[David]

Originally Posted by Jean

Personally I classify as old a blade dating from about 1860 to WWII (Javanese nem-neman period). For the older ones (or supposed to be so), I classify them as very old (1600-1860 i.e Mataram and early Yogyakarta & Surakarta periods), antique (1300-1600 or Majapahit, Pajajaran to Pajang periods), and early krisses (before Majapahit period). This may not be correct but in absence of a better definition from the experts (which I would welcome) it suits my requirements.

I think we all have our own unique guidelines for this Jean, which is perhaps part of the problem. I don't really question yours in general, though you might want to re-consider your use of the word "antique" in this regard. I say this because "antique" does have a fairly commonly accepted definition of items which are over 100 years old. Since you use that term to describe only items that are 400-700 years old specifically you might find that when you use the term in this manner that confusion might ensue.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by David

I think we all have our own unique guidelines for this Jean, which is perhaps part of the problem. I don't really question yours in general, though you might want to re-consider your use of the word "antique" in this regard. I say this because "antique" does have a fairly commonly accepted definition of items which are over 100 years old. Since you use that term to describe only items that are 400-700 years old specifically you might find that when you use the term in this manner that confusion might ensue.

Hello David,
Thank you for your valid comment; I could not find a better term and the confusion comes from the French language in which one definition of antique is just very old/ very ancient without any specific age in mind. Any suggestion for a replacement term?
Regards

[David]

Originally Posted by Jean

Any suggestion for a replacement term?

hmmm....by your standard, perhaps "very, VERY old"?