Kulino, Dongson culture was centered in Northern Vietnam, with the bronze technology connected to Southern China. It was mainland SE Asia and yes, it was Bronze Age. However, in Maritime SE Asia the Bronze Age and the Iron Age both arrived and proceeded in parallel, they were not distinct eras in Maritime SE Asia, but existed during the same era.
So we do see bronze and iron artefacts produced alongside one another during the same span of years. We also see bronze artefacts that are identifiable as Dongson, or maybe Southern China, spread right across Maritime SE Asia, even as far as New Guinea. There also seems to be some evidence that the famous Dongson drums were copied in the Archipelago, at least in Bali.
However, the Dongson : keris connection is just a bit too imaginative, I think. By the time the proto keris appeared in Jawa, Dongson was out of the picture for a very long time, like minimum 800 years. That is simply too long for any cultural transfer.
When we take into account that the keris sajen form is an echo of the Modern Keris, rather than the proto-keris, that 800 year time gap stretches out to around 1200 years.
Then there is the vast stylistic difference between the Dongson knives and the keris sajen form. There is not any identifiable relationship. The only thing in common between Keris Sajen and Dongson knives is that they both have an integral figural hilt. So we can possibly find a common thread that runs all through SE Asia, and beyond, for the inclusion of ancestor figures and protective figures incorporated into weapons and talismans, but we cannot support a direct connection between Dongson knives and keris sajen.
In my opinion there is not the slightest doubt that the keris sajen did not come into being until after the end of the 15th century.
I think there is a place in a collection such as you have shown, for recent examples , and the one in Dongson style is a good comparative example, but I am quite certain that it was not produced as a true KS.
Away and apart from keris discussion, here is something else to throw into the mix. For many years there has been a small, but active cottage industry in the production of absolutely correct early Javanese bronze artefacts. The bronze material used to produce these superb forgeries is obtained from genuine old bronzes that are badly damaged, and from damaged old gamelan instruments. Unlike a lot of things that are produced as copies of antique and archaic artefacts, these bronzes are forgeries right from the very beginning, and they are impossible to differentiate from the genuine article, except perhaps by laboratory examination.
|