Collection of Sajen

[A. G. Maisey]

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]

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.

[David]

Originally Posted by Kulino

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.

Sorry Kulino, but i missed that reference in your post and you did not post a link to that discussion on bronze keris. I did after some searching find that thread where you originally posted that blade, but it seems it came right at the end of the thread and there was never any discussion on it AFAIK.
You wrote:
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).
Are you suggesting that you believe this odd bronze blade was created in the gap between the bronze and iron ages because i really don't think this object is nearly that old? There is indeed a history of bronze keris, but these were made well into the iron age for (as i understand it) specific talismanic purposes and i cannot see how the existence of such weapons bears any relation or connection to Dongson era daggers.

[A. G. Maisey]

Van Heekeren H.R., "The Bronze-Iron Age of Indonesia", Martinus Nijhoff, 1958.


https://archive.org/stream/BronzeIro...nesia_djvu.txt


This is an old work, but it did set the foundation for further investigation. Within the archaeological community it did create some dispute, and even amongst those who supported Van Heekeren there was far from universal agreement with everything he wrote. However, for our very limited purposes the proposition that iron and bronze technology progressed together, during the same period of time, in Maritime SE Asia, holds true.

[Kulino]

Originally Posted by David

Sorry Kulino, but i missed that reference in your post and you did not post a link to that discussion on bronze keris. I did after some searching find that thread where you originally posted that blade, but it seems it came right at the end of the thread and there was never any discussion on it AFAIK.
You wrote:
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).
Are you suggesting that you believe this odd bronze blade was created in the gap between the bronze and iron ages because i really don't think this object is nearly that old? There is indeed a history of bronze keris, but these were made well into the iron age for (as i understand it) specific talismanic purposes and i cannot see how the existence of such weapons bears any relation or connection to Dongson era daggers.

Hi David, I'm not suggesting the depicted bronze is that old, merely stating that there probably was an overlap between Iron and Bronze Age. This bronze could date back as far as Majapahit. The shape resembles the heads of sceptres which date back to that period. First I thought this was a fragment with a missing ganja. Got also confused by the strange patina. Alan pointed me at this possibility by sending me pictures from a catalogue. While searching in my librabry I found the same pictures but again, there’s no way to be certain.

[TikusLaut]

Hello, this would be my first post in the forum, and I must admit I am hesitant, not being confident in my limited knowledge of rather a confusing subject. However, I am interested in the differences between the examples Sajen has shared, and the early excavated examples I am familiar with, (I apologise for the low quality of the figure included) in which the figures are standing rather than seated, more similar to the (admittedly limited number) of dongson hilts I have seen. I wonder what could account for this, and if one group could be identified as older, or of a different region.

Also, I might add, whatever relevance it might have: Bapah Kadir has suggested that the examples found in the area of east Java are characterized by a slight inclination of the head to the right, versus those from west Java are more uniformly upright.

Finally, although somewhat unrelated: I recently read that princess Darawati, (Dwarawati, or Anarawati) who married Kertawijaya (Brawijaya V, or Angka Vijaya?) in the 15th century may not have been from Champa at all, but rather from south Sumatra... I do not know if it's ok to link the blog which asserts this. I would be curious if anyone else has an opinion on the matter.

Ok, I hope my first post remained faux pas free!
-Alex

[David]

Originally Posted by TikusLaut

Hello, this would be my first post in the forum, and I must admit I am hesitant, not being confident in my limited knowledge of rather a confusing subject. However, I am interested in the differences between the examples Sajen has shared, and the early excavated examples I am familiar with, (I apologise for the low quality of the figure included) in which the figures are standing rather than seated, more similar to the (admittedly limited number) of dongson hilts I have seen. I wonder what could account for this, and if one group could be identified as older, or of a different region.

Also, I might add, whatever relevance it might have: Bapah Kadir has suggested that the examples found in the area of east Java are characterized by a slight inclination of the head to the right, versus those from west Java are more uniformly upright.

Finally, although somewhat unrelated: I recently read that princess Darawati, (Dwarawati, or Anarawati) who married Kertawijaya (Brawijaya V, or Angka Vijaya?) in the 15th century may not have been from Champa at all, but rather from south Sumatra... I do not know if it's ok to link the blog which asserts this. I would be curious if anyone else has an opinion on the matter.

Ok, I hope my first post remained faux pas free!
-Alex

Hi Alex. Welcome to the forum. Don't worry, i think we all find this subject a wee bit confusing. The information you have added is interesting if it can be verified. Though i must admit my ignorance of who Bapah Kadir is and what evidence be presents to affirm this claim.
As for your last bit, it is certainly alright to link to blogs and other none commercial sites within a discussion, however i don't quite see how the marriage of princess Darawati and Kertawijaya is pertinent to this particular conversation.

[TikusLaut]

Thanks for your response! Bapah Kadir is just someone with a collection of old Sajen who knew the archaeological source of each piece, and suggested that differentiation. I thought it worth mentioning for anyone who has some Sajen and knows where they came from, so that they could look for this inclination of the "head" and possibly verify or refute the notion.

As for princess Darawati, I thought that maybe if she was from Champa, we could then begin to see if certain motifs or items originating from Champa were introduced to Majapahit art at that time. Then we could look at the age of those forms, or otherwise to see if any of those forms survived within the region that Dongson daggers have been found between the time that they were produced and the 15th c. If we saw that there was an influence from Champa at that time, it might be a piece of the puzzle at least to discovering where the idea for the "sajen" began. Of course all of that might only be worth looking into if there were first some indication of interaction between the empires, e.g. intermarriage, and might be a bit of a waste of time if it turned out that what we thought was a royal connection was in fact just between south Sumatra and Majapahit. So for your consideration: https://nusantarahistory.wordpress.com/tag/darawati/
https://nusantarahistory.wordpress.com/tag/darawati/