Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David
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. |
Yes, David, I agree with you...
What's hanging in my mind everytime I open all pages of "The Keris and Other Malay Weapons" (1998) is, how come? The very small keris -- that the writers called as "keris majapahit" -- took quite a lot of proportions, compared to the whole content of the book. Almost mentioned in every article, and as if it is the center point of comparison with other bigger kerises in that book...
Please regard the GC Woolley article, under title "Origin of the Malay Keris". In the second alinea, it said: ..."The surviving specimens of the oldest Majapahit keris -- the Keris Pichit and Keris Majapahit -- seem of all the many patterns of keris the most unlikely to have been evolved from spear blades and the most likely to have been made as talismans rather than for actual use..."
Did Mr Woolley was aware, that there were many-many-many more real "keris majapahit" in the Java Courts? And what about Singasari keris, in the period before Majapahit? And did he know, the relief in Borobudur temple (around 9th century) showed (budha) keris in the hips of a human carving?
And what about ancient inscriptions (epigraphies, prasasti) such as prasasti Humanding (797 Saka or 875 CE), Jurungan (798 Saka or 876 CE), Haliwangbang (798 Saka or 876 CE), Taji (823 Saka or 901 CE), Poh (827 Saka or 905 CE), Rukam (829 Saka or 907 CE), Sangsang (829 Saka or 907 CE), Wakajana (829 Saka or 907 CE), and Sanggaran (850 Saka or 928 CE) that mentioned about keris? And not mentioned, many kakawin (old poems) like Kidung Harsa Wijaya or old important books on Singasari and Majapahit in 13th century like Pararaton, and Babad Tanah Jawi?
And Mr Gardner wrote especially on "keris pichit and keris majapahit" under title "Notes on Two Uncommon Varieties of the Malay Keris" which referring to Gardner's experience (only heard many stories) and only seen eight keris majapahit and three Pichit altogether....
Mr Abu Bakar bin Pawanchee, also wrote a special article under title of "An Unusual Keris Majapahit". The ultra big proportion of writing such small "keris for offering" for "stamping the predicate Majapahit" for such big era or keris making in Java -- that was really astonishing...
And what is the result? The image of "keris majapahit" is only "keris sajen". Yes, the connotation of "majapahit" is only "small sajen", "small offering". As if there were no other kerises during that golden era of keris making...
That is just my peanut opinion, on what I have read...
Ganjawulung