The idea of linking the Dongson dagger to the keris sajen has been around for a very long time. However, I tend to believe that there is no direct link between the two, most certainly no link that can be supported by either evidence or by logical argument. Indeed, Theo Alkema himself does not present the Dongson/Sajen link as a theory, but rather as a hypothesis or a suggestion.
The Dongson culture existed in Northern Vietnam between about 1000BCE and about 40CE. During the last couple of hundred years of its existence it came under increasing Chinese domination by the Han and eventually was absorbed into the territories under Han control.
The people of Dongson seem to have been sea farers who traded throughout SE Asia. Artifacts which could be of Dongson origin have been found in a number of places in the Indonesian Archipelago, notable are the bronze kettle drums. I am not aware of any Dongson daggers that have been found in the Indonesian Archipelago, let alone in Jawa itself.
There is a demonstrable link between the Keris Buda and the Modern Keris. This link relies not only upon physical similarities, but most importantly upon social function.
The lapse of time between the period in Dongson influence in SE Asia, and the first appearance in Javanese monumental works of keris-like objects is more or less 1000 years. Clearly far too long a period of time for there to be any link between the Dongson dagger and the keris of Majapahit, around 1500 years later.
There is no similarity in form between a Dongson dagger and the keris sajen. Quite clearly, the Dongson dagger is in no way keris-like. True, it has a figure as a hilt, as do many other weapons, but this does not make it a keris.
The above is a brief summary of some of the arguments that can be made against the Dongson Dagger as an ancestor of the Modern Keris, rather, sociological indications are that the Keris Sajen followed the Modern Keris.
Theo Alkema and I do agree on one thing:- whether the Dongson Dagger is, or is not an ancestor of the Modern Keris can only be presented as a hypothesis, in other words nothing is presented that can be proven, whatever stance one takes in this matter, it can only be disproven.
My opinion is that "Keris Majapahit" as a name for "Keris Sajen" is a misnomer. The keris sajen possibly may have existed during the Majapahit era, but it most certainly was not a prominent keris form of that time.
My opinion is that the so-called "Keris Majapahit" was not the keris form that preceded the Modern Keris.
I would hope that we may also place the "Keris Majapahit" on the shelf alongside the tangguh belief system as tools that we can use to help identify the physical form of the Keris of Majapahit.
|