Trisula of unknown origin

[VVV]

It's not a Keris but I think it's Keris related so that's why I choose to post it here instead of the other part of the forum.

I have tried really hard to find the origin of this Trisula spear.
I have discussed it with several people experienced in Tombak but so far I have only got indications, but no definitive opinion, of its origin.

Hopefully someone here recognise something on the parts of this spear to give me a clue on where to search further?
Maybe some of the motifs or other small details that you have seen on other weapons from a specific area?

For earlier opinions and more pictures:

http://www.kampungnet.com.sg/modules...view_album.php

Michael

[Dajak]

Hi Michael what a very nice trisula this one is from java 17 centh


Ben

[Rick]

Hi Ben,

What elements of this trisula suggest Jawa 17thC to you ?

[A. G. Maisey]

This is an interesting opinion Dajak.

Will you please tell me what the specific characteristics of this tombak are that allow you to be definite on a 17th century Javanese attribution?

I would most especially be interested in your interpretation and specific classification in terms of tangguh of the metuk.

[Dajak]

The wood is old style java with the little carving in it and trisula point is 100% from java late 1600 early 1700

This is what the Dutch Chairman off the kris club from the Netherlands told me
when it was in my collection and I showed the trisula to him he told me it was an outstanding piece.
He is more professionel on this stuf then me
I will ask him what this trisula make s it from java.


Ben

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for your response Ben.

I'm not so interested in the landean , or sopal, although I must admit, to me these look Sumatran, but that is only a gut feeling I cannot substantiate. The fact that there is no tunjung I find an anomaly.

What does interest me in the extreme is firstly the metuk. I have never encountered an attribution to Jawa for a metuk such as this. It is similar to a metuk that was on a tombak in the Sydney Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences. This tombak was attributed to "Malay", and that museum was replaced by another many years ago. I place no reliance at all on the "Malay" attribution of this Museum.

Secondly the material is out of stain, and displays very little weathering or erosion.In fact, file marks can still be seen on the surface of this tombak The grain of the metal I find difficult to relate to any Javanese classification, and the fact that it is out of stain makes the reading of the material, most especially from a photograph, extraordinarily difficult.

Looking at the individual sections of each component part of the three blades we have a square or rectangular cross section in the base of the central blade, we have a diamond cross section in the front part of the central blade, we have the side blades formed from round bars with the forging out to an edge only on the inside edge, not the external edge; the overall proportion is elongated and rather narrow, not at all pleasing to the eye if looked at with a Javanese standard of evaluation. There is some unusual file work and ornamentation in the base of the central blade and at the point where the side blades spread. I cannot relate this to any Javanese trisula I have seen.

Comparison of the overall form of the blade with a Surakarta Pakem book has revealed nothing even remotely similar.

Comparison of the overall form of the blade with tombak and trisula of known Javanese origin has revealed that similar characteristics to the ones that exist in this trisula cannot be identified.

Because I cannot positively identify this trisula I am not prepared to say that it is definitely not Javanese, but I am prepared to say that in more than 50 years of collecting I have never seen a trisula similar to this that has been given a positive Javanese attribution. Nor have I ever seen or handled a tombak or trisula with similar characteristics to this this one, that could be given a positive Javanese classification.Added to this I can find no reference in print that would allow even the hint of a possible Javanese attribution.

If anybody were to state positively that this is Javanese, such a statement should be backed by justification in terms of classification of material, metuk, and overall form. Other than this, eye witness verification of the actual manufacture would remove all argument.

I just reread what I've written above. The "eye witness" thing sounds as if I am being sarcastic. It is not intended that way. What I had in mind was that it is entirely possible that manufacture of this trisula could have been witnessed. If, say, it was commissioned by some Dutch colonial, in Holland it could have a family history that grand uncle so and so ordered it when he was stationed in Semarang.Some documented history such as this would put the lid on any debates based on tangguh.