Errors in Keris Literature

[ganjawulung]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

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? .

Not exactly only the approach of grouping the types of keris. My main objection is the opinion of the writers in the book, that "Keris Majapahit and keris pichit is the surviving specimens of the oldest Majapahit keris" (GC Woolley article, "The Origin of Malay Keris"). This statement is clear, that "keris sajen" according to Mr Woolley is "the surviving specimens of the oldest Majapahit keris".

I am neither scientist, nor archeolog. But I dare to say -- but don't ask me to prove it -- that this statement or opinion is inaccurate. The surviving, and the oldest? Based on what? And what about the old pusakas in kraton Yogya and Surakarta that are even older than Majapahit era? Are they false?

I like very much the special appearance of Keris Sundang in complete dress, for instance. I think it is not worth to compare, with small kerises that mentioned for other purpose, like "keris sajen"... Not comparable.

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

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".

Thanks Alan, for your generosity. But let people know by themselves, what the truth is... I agree with you. The appellation of "keris majapahit" for "keris sajen", or "keris pichit" for "keris pejetan", it won't diminish one of the greatest era of keris making in the past.. Let the river flow...

Ganjawulung