Keris Mojopahit (sajen) has been a point of confusion for some time know, but i don't think anyone here thinks they were the only keris to be made during the Mojopahit period (and indeed most of the keris sajen now on the market were made in later periods, many right up to the present day
)
I am fairly sure Tammens didn't believe the keris sajen were the only keris from the Mojopahit era because he shows many keris in his first volume which he IDs as being Mojopahit. Though i don't own the Gardner book i suspect he was conciously relating folk tale, not fact, when he wrote about unusual methods of tempering blades.
Hill's statement that "keris majapahit is earliest form of keris; hilt and blade in one piece" does not mean he was unaware of more developed blades in the Mojopahit period. It was just his belief, perhaps flawed, that the keris sajen is the "earliest" form. The same can be said of Woolley.
AFAIK keris mojopahit (sajen) and keris pichit do not refer to the same thing. I thought keris pichit referred to those talismanic blades that had the impressions of the makers fingertips along the blade.
Certainly these writers got many other points wrong, but i think they were all aware keris sajen were not the only keris to be made in the Mojopahit period.
