Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jean
I think that Gardner considered these pieces as forgeries because they were recently made contrary to the old original pieces (see one specimen of each type). I regret that he did not elaborate on the area of origin of his krisses picit.
|
Well, Gardner calls keris sajen as keris majapahit. It seems, from his further commentary about keris sajen made with picit after the 1500s that he may not have considered these keris legitimate if they were not made during the Mojopahit empire. It does seem that now most collectors recognize that legitimate keris sajen were made well after the Mojopahit kingdom was in power.
Still, all this is a little off track since the keris in question is not a keris sajen. It seem that the only keris picit that Gardner talks about in this section are ones that are also keris sajen. This is true of the ones he claims were from Terengganu as well. But we do know that there is a tradition of talismanic keris with picit that are not in any way keris sajen. We must also keep in mind that Gardner did not spend any of his time in SEA Malaysia, except for a brief stint in Borneo. So the information he was receiving about Javanese keris and other keris outside Malaysia in all probability was not coming from natives to those specific areas. That he speaks of the keris sajen as being used as a weapon with a poisoned blade certainly makes all his subsequent information on the subject suspect.
