Join Date: May 2006
Pak Ganja, as to whether you call these little keris "sajen" or "majapahit", or "seking" or anything else, I really don't care. I understand what you mean, and that's really all that matters. I myself call them "sajen", most of the time, but if I'm talking with somebody who wants to call them "majapahit", I don't have any problem with that.
The purpose of language is to transfer a thought, or an idea, from one person's mind to another person's mind. Language is just a tool. If that transfer can be achieved, it really doesn't matter what words are used to achieve it.
If I am correct, your objections are based in the approach of grouping together all types of keris. You do not want to group keris sajen, with other types of keris. Is this correct?
You do not want to compare keris sajen with other types of keris, but rather to hive them off into a separate category. Is this correct?
I can see no objection to this as a methodology, but I can also see no objection to grouping all types of keris together.One methodology is no better and no worse than any other, from my perspective. Why not group all different types of keris separately? Classify according to point of origin , and then according to percieved era, a la tangguh?We could have our Javanese keris all split up according to tangguh and then classify our sajens, and our budas, and our long keris, and our Moro type keris; we could classify everything else according to whether Bali, Madura, Sumatera, or whatever.
We could classify endlessly if we so wished.We could classify according to weapon functionability, artistic worth, tuah, isi, and on and on. Actually, one of my inlaws in Solo classifies according to whether the keris was previously owned by a Kyai, or by a Pangeran; it must be have been owned by either one or the other, or he will not have it in his collection. How does he know who previously owned it? He dreams it.
Yes, I know, Majapahit was the Golden Age.
But much of the belief surrounding the Majapahit era in Jawa is pretty much like a lot of the belief surrounding England's Golden Age of chivalry, King Arthur & etc.
Why did some inconsiderate barbarian decide to call these little keris sajen "Keris Majapahit", and thus taint the glorious Golden Memory of Magnificent Majapahit?
I don't know, but he did, and it stuck.
If you don't like it, you could begin a campaign to change the terminology of the western collecting world. I'll even help you by doing my best to only use the term "keris sajen".
In fact, however you want to group, consider, treat, or talk about keris sajen is just fine with me:- I agree in advance with whatever approach you want to take.
Now, can we move on from the deadly keris sajen:keris majapahit duel, and get on to what this thread is supposedly about:- the identification of specific statements by specific writers, with which we no longer agree.