Collection of Sajen

David · 27th August 2017, 07:41 PM

I must concur with my fellows here. For me these are always great to see even if it is difficult to come up with any solid information about them.
This is obviously an old form that i would image probably predates the Mojopahit era that they were once named for. It does seem that they continued to create these little talismanic blades over many centuries without much change so it is indeed difficult to place them into any particular time period with much accuracy. Certainly i believe the in post #32 with the separate gonjo and greneng is a fairly recent example and may or may not have been created solely as an "art" piece. However, if i am not mistaken, even keris sajen that are more recent (created within the last 200 years) may well have been made for genuine talismanic purposes so i don't necessarily discount these newer examples as reproductions or copies, just a continuance of an old tradition. Certainly 18th and 19th century examples of keris sajen were not being made for collector consumption.
On dating these beyond aspects of wear and condition it seems likely that the simpler examples are more likely older. I think the earliest examples tend to be pamor-less, small and very basic. Later examples began to add pamor and sometimes more extensive ricikan. This is an awesome collection of the variance of the form over a number of centuries. Thanks so much for continuing to show them.

Kulino · 27th August 2017, 08:41 PM

Dear all,

Thank you for your kind words. I know that by showing this collection I did something Cees never would have done. Still, it felt the right thing to do for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
If someone has suggestions to make the ideas of Jean happen, I'm willing to talk.

David · 27th August 2017, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kulino

If someone has suggestions to make the ideas of Jean happen, I'm willing to talk.

I would be very interested in a published catalog of these little beauties, though it would probably be more a labor of love that you would be luck to break even on at best. If that is the idea of Jean's that you are considering the first thing you need to do is to create some much better, professional quality images of these blades of the level seen in Iron Ancestors. As a professional photographer i would be more than happy to undertake such a task, however, living so far away that would be just a bit difficult...unless, of course, members here would subsidize my expenses...LOL!

As for an exhibition, you probably live in a better part of the world than most to find a museum that might be interested in presenting such a showing. I'm not sure if an exhibition dedicated solely to this type of keris and related talismanic blades has ever been mounted before, which might be an advantage. Anyway, i'm sure you know who the right curators might be in your country to find if there is any interest in such a show.

A. G. Maisey · 28th August 2017, 01:30 AM

Thank you Kulino for making images of these keris sajen available to us.

I regret I have been unable to make any constructive comments on the images you have posted, but I will add a couple of comments now.

In respect of determination of age, there is a belief amongst some people who have looked closely at the keris sajen, that the head of the hilt figure may give an indication of age. Many hilt figures show some sort of head apparel, a hat, cap or something, the belief is that identification of the head-gear might point towards the period.

The image of a figure with a European style hat tells its own story, and something very unusual about this figure is that the orientation of the blade is reversed.

In the past some people have attempted to paint the keris sajen as a direct continuation of a Dongson knife that had a figural hilt, but to me this seems extremely unlikely as direct cultural links cannot be shown, and the gap between the Dongson era and the Javanese early Classical era is simply too great.

The keris sajen reflects the form of the Modern keris, which means that the keris sajen did not develop as a cultural artifact until after the Modern Keris appeared, which the evidence seems to indicate as circa 14th century, and after the keris penetrated Javanese society as a whole and became endowed with talismanic qualities in its general form, and this seems not to have occurred until after the Islamization of Jawa.

The complete argument against the extreme age of the keris sajen is very lengthy, and here is not the place for it.

The image I have placed into this post that is from Kulino's earlier posting deserves special attention, because the hilt form is an echo of the Dongson form. Although this gives an appearance of age in the image posted, I do have very strong and very well grounded doubts about the true age of this example

Kulino · 28th August 2017, 01:08 PM

Hi Alan,
I whole heartily agree with your comment. I handled Dongson blades and this one is very probable a recent copy. The figure is poorly detailed, the patina is wrong, the weight is wrong. Cees and I agreed on that.
I showed it because it is part of the collection where it served as a reference to compare for instance with pic 15/16 of the collection. We believed that to be a nice old example which echoes something of the Dongson.
We also underlined the point your making too on the probable time gap between Dongson and this keris.) The issue of different time frames (bronze age and iron age) stays, although there are plenty of examples of blades that seem to break that rule.) This blade shown was posted before (string about bronze keris)

About the issue of making better pictures of the blades, I will try to ask around. A friend of mine is also a professional photographer. Normally he would not charge me anything but this could turn out to be an extensive project. I'll keep you posted.

As for an exhibition, maybe Theo Alkema has the right connection. I pretty sure David van Duuren and Theo know each other. But even with that contact it never has come to something like a dedicated exhibition. Who would take the trip anyway, apart from a few specialists?

David · 28th August 2017, 02:12 PM

Hi Kulino. I am afraid i don't see anything in your last post that explains the appearance of your photos of this rather unusual and atypical blade you are showing here. Did you mean to write more or did you mistakenly edit out a paragraph?

A. G. Maisey · 28th August 2017, 02:38 PM

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.

Kulino · 28th August 2017, 05:48 PM

Hi David,
I posted this blade as an example to illustrate that the gap between Bronze Age (Dongson) and Iron Age was not as absolute as one might think. The bronze blade I posted is there an example of. I refered here also to the earlier link that was about bronze keris.

27th August 2017, 08:41 PM	#2
Kulino Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 84	Thank you Dear all, Thank you for your kind words. I know that by showing this collection I did something Cees never would have done. Still, it felt the right thing to do for the reasons I mentioned earlier. If someone has suggestions to make the ideas of Jean happen, I'm willing to talk.

28th August 2017, 01:30 AM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,047	Thank you Kulino for making images of these keris sajen available to us. I regret I have been unable to make any constructive comments on the images you have posted, but I will add a couple of comments now. In respect of determination of age, there is a belief amongst some people who have looked closely at the keris sajen, that the head of the hilt figure may give an indication of age. Many hilt figures show some sort of head apparel, a hat, cap or something, the belief is that identification of the head-gear might point towards the period. The image of a figure with a European style hat tells its own story, and something very unusual about this figure is that the orientation of the blade is reversed. In the past some people have attempted to paint the keris sajen as a direct continuation of a Dongson knife that had a figural hilt, but to me this seems extremely unlikely as direct cultural links cannot be shown, and the gap between the Dongson era and the Javanese early Classical era is simply too great. The keris sajen reflects the form of the Modern keris, which means that the keris sajen did not develop as a cultural artifact until after the Modern Keris appeared, which the evidence seems to indicate as circa 14th century, and after the keris penetrated Javanese society as a whole and became endowed with talismanic qualities in its general form, and this seems not to have occurred until after the Islamization of Jawa. The complete argument against the extreme age of the keris sajen is very lengthy, and here is not the place for it. The image I have placed into this post that is from Kulino's earlier posting deserves special attention, because the hilt form is an echo of the Dongson form. Although this gives an appearance of age in the image posted, I do have very strong and very well grounded doubts about the true age of this example Attached Images

28th August 2017, 01:08 PM	#5
Kulino Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 84	True age Hi Alan, I whole heartily agree with your comment. I handled Dongson blades and this one is very probable a recent copy. The figure is poorly detailed, the patina is wrong, the weight is wrong. Cees and I agreed on that. I showed it because it is part of the collection where it served as a reference to compare for instance with pic 15/16 of the collection. We believed that to be a nice old example which echoes something of the Dongson. We also underlined the point your making too on the probable time gap between Dongson and this keris.) The issue of different time frames (bronze age and iron age) stays, although there are plenty of examples of blades that seem to break that rule.) This blade shown was posted before (string about bronze keris) About the issue of making better pictures of the blades, I will try to ask around. A friend of mine is also a professional photographer. Normally he would not charge me anything but this could turn out to be an extensive project. I'll keep you posted. As for an exhibition, maybe Theo Alkema has the right connection. I pretty sure David van Duuren and Theo know each other. But even with that contact it never has come to something like a dedicated exhibition. Who would take the trip anyway, apart from a few specialists? Attached Images

28th August 2017, 05:48 PM	#8
Kulino Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 84	Explanation Hi David, I posted this blade as an example to illustrate that the gap between Bronze Age (Dongson) and Iron Age was not as absolute as one might think. The bronze blade I posted is there an example of. I refered here also to the earlier link that was about bronze keris.

27th August 2017, 07:41 PM	#1
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,228	I must concur with my fellows here. For me these are always great to see even if it is difficult to come up with any solid information about them. This is obviously an old form that i would image probably predates the Mojopahit era that they were once named for. It does seem that they continued to create these little talismanic blades over many centuries without much change so it is indeed difficult to place them into any particular time period with much accuracy. Certainly i believe the in post #32 with the separate gonjo and greneng is a fairly recent example and may or may not have been created solely as an "art" piece. However, if i am not mistaken, even keris sajen that are more recent (created within the last 200 years) may well have been made for genuine talismanic purposes so i don't necessarily discount these newer examples as reproductions or copies, just a continuance of an old tradition. Certainly 18th and 19th century examples of keris sajen were not being made for collector consumption. On dating these beyond aspects of wear and condition it seems likely that the simpler examples are more likely older. I think the earliest examples tend to be pamor-less, small and very basic. Later examples began to add pamor and sometimes more extensive ricikan. This is an awesome collection of the variance of the form over a number of centuries. Thanks so much for continuing to show them.

28th August 2017, 02:12 PM	#6
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,228	Hi Kulino. I am afraid i don't see anything in your last post that explains the appearance of your photos of this rather unusual and atypical blade you are showing here. Did you mean to write more or did you mistakenly edit out a paragraph?

28th August 2017, 02:38 PM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,047	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.