Trisula of unknown origin

David · 30th November 2006, 03:29 PM

Hi Ben. I trust that you will not take offense as well, but while it is undoubtly true that the Dutch have amassed a great deal of information on the keris and related weapons, having been colonial rulers in the region for centuries, i don't necessarily believe this means that they are the owners of the greatest amount of "knowledge" on the subject and therefore automatically trump all other opinions on the subject. Certainly the largest collections for study do exist in the Netherlands. To be realistic, while some of these weapons my have come into Dutch hands through mismanagement and gambling, hundreds more keris were also, no doubt, taking off the still warm corpses of their Balinese owners after the 1906 and 1908 pupatans. From my readings on the history of colonial Bali i have gotten the general impression that the Dutch never really fully understood Balinese culture. The same can probably be said for any colonizing nation. We Americans never understood the American Indians very well either.

I admitedly know very little about their dealings in Jawa or othe parts of Indonesia. But it is my general understanding that it was not a completely friendly occupation.
Tammens work is invaluable, but probably not without it's flaws. The same can be said for just about all Western writers on the keris and probably quite a few native Indonesian ones. There are indeed many studies on pamor in European books and many of them disagree with each other. I guess my point is that i am not willing to simply accept that your Dutch keris chairman is correct just because he is Dutch and he says so. I must say that the supporting illustrations that you posted don't seem to my eye to be positive matches for the trisula Michael has posted. For instance, which of the metuks shown in the drawings do you think resembles Michael's? And the center blade in the drawings is not the same angular shape as Michael's. I also must say that while it is not impossible, i am finding it hard to see this as 17thC work. I don't know enough about these to form a viable opinion on origin, but i would say it is hardly a closed matter.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

30th November 2006, 03:29 PM	#13
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,211	Hi Ben. I trust that you will not take offense as well, but while it is undoubtly true that the Dutch have amassed a great deal of information on the keris and related weapons, having been colonial rulers in the region for centuries, i don't necessarily believe this means that they are the owners of the greatest amount of "knowledge" on the subject and therefore automatically trump all other opinions on the subject. Certainly the largest collections for study do exist in the Netherlands. To be realistic, while some of these weapons my have come into Dutch hands through mismanagement and gambling, hundreds more keris were also, no doubt, taking off the still warm corpses of their Balinese owners after the 1906 and 1908 pupatans. From my readings on the history of colonial Bali i have gotten the general impression that the Dutch never really fully understood Balinese culture. The same can probably be said for any colonizing nation. We Americans never understood the American Indians very well either. I admitedly know very little about their dealings in Jawa or othe parts of Indonesia. But it is my general understanding that it was not a completely friendly occupation. Tammens work is invaluable, but probably not without it's flaws. The same can be said for just about all Western writers on the keris and probably quite a few native Indonesian ones. There are indeed many studies on pamor in European books and many of them disagree with each other. I guess my point is that i am not willing to simply accept that your Dutch keris chairman is correct just because he is Dutch and he says so. I must say that the supporting illustrations that you posted don't seem to my eye to be positive matches for the trisula Michael has posted. For instance, which of the metuks shown in the drawings do you think resembles Michael's? And the center blade in the drawings is not the same angular shape as Michael's. I also must say that while it is not impossible, i am finding it hard to see this as 17thC work. I don't know enough about these to form a viable opinion on origin, but i would say it is hardly a closed matter.