Trisula of unknown origin

[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.

[VVV]

Thanks all for your comments.

It would be interesting to also read the comments from the chairman of the Dutch Keris Association.
Ben, maybe you could ask him to do a "guest appearance"?

Quote from above by Alan:
"The fact that there is no tunjung I find an anomaly."

Could you please develop this?
I must have misunderstood something here?
Does it have to be metal, or?

On the shape of the Trisula spearhead I found this old reference picture on the Internet.
To me it seems as if the upper Trisula has some resemblance to mine of the spear head design and proportions?
It doesn't have any further description than it's Java.
But the Keris on the same picture is of course from Madura?

Michael

[A. G. Maisey]

I'm afraid I cannot see a real lot from that picture, Michael.

Yes, either of the top two tombaks could be considered to have a degree of similarity to yours, in one way or another, but personally I would not be prepared to make any comment as to relevance , based upon that picture.

What I have been taught, and what I have observed, is that the two overwhelming indicators for classification of a tombak are material, and the metuk.

In the case of your trisula, the material is almost impossible to read, and the metuk is so far divorced from any type I am familiar with that I simply cannot even offer a wild guess.Looking at what I can see in that trisula, I would not be prepared to say more than "South East Asia".

Regarding the tunjung.
I have yet to see a Javanese tombak landean that does not have a tunjung. Even simple village quality ones have some sort of tunjung. What I can see on your landean is an area of ornamental carving where there should be a tunjung. The tip of this length of carving is scuffed, which would seem to indicate that there has been no tunjung there for a very long time, and possibly there never was one.In fact, since the end section of the landean swells between its tip, and the area of bulbous and foliate carving, it would be difficult if not impossible to fit a tunjung, so I think we must assume that there never was one.If there never was a tunjung, one must ask why. Is there some area of SE Asia where tunjungs are not fitted? I don't know the answer to this question, but I do know that I would expect to see a tunjung on any Javanese landean.

The material of a tunjung in an ornamental landean will normally match the sopal, but in an old weapon quality landean, it will most often be iron, and the sopal will be replaced by iron bands and cord binding.

[VVV]

Alan,

Thanks for your explanations.
As I understand it; when you say something is or isn't Javanese then you mean the cultural center of Java, not the geographical island of Java?
This means that you exclude f.i. East Java as well as West Java when you describe something as following the Javanese traditional form?
So by stating that it's not Javanese you mean that it isn't from the Solo or Yogya influenced regions?
F.i. a spear from Cirebon is according to your standards not Javanese (=culturally Javanese)?

I bring this up because for me, not as used to Javanese culture as you are, it was a bit confusing at the beginning of our discussions and I am not sure that the rest of the forum members got that part?

I hope I have understood how to read your comments correctly?

Michael

[A. G. Maisey]

When I say that something is Javanese, or is not Javanese, I am attempting to apply the definition of Java/Jawa, as the concept of "The Land of Jawa".This is not my standard.This is the concept of Jawa as held by all traditional Javanese people I have ever known, and it comes through in the babads.

The Land of Jawa is not the same as the Island of Java. I cannot be too specific in fixation of precise limits on The Land of Jawa, because I think that to understand what is and is not The Land of Jawa we would need to have a very firm idea of what Sultan Agung regarded as the limits of his core realm.

To the west, we can certainly exclude Sunda, but what were the precise limits of Sunda in Sultan Agung's time? The limit of where Sundanese was spoken? Possibly, but I doubt that it is possible today to fix that exactly.

To the east we can include the area of the old Majapahit seat of power, and perhaps we can extend the idea as far as the old kingdom of Kediri, but if we do that, we over-rule the definition on the basis of language.Just how far east we can extend the concept of The Land of Jawa, I am uncertain.

As an approximate guide we might be able to use the boundaries of present day Jawa Tengah, but I do emphasise "approximate". It could be an interesting research project to go back to the old records and try to define as closely as possible what The Land of Jawa was in Javanese thought from, say, early 1600's through to perhaps the establishment of Surakarta.

As non-Javanese, possibly we could come close to understanding the concept if we thought of The Land of Jawa as the cultural heart of Jawa:- the area where Central Javanese dialects are spoken. If we used this measure, we would have to acknowledge that the boundaries of The Land of Jawa cannot be fixed precisely across time, but will vary throughout history.

Since Modern Javanese (language) did not begin to develop until the time of the establishment of the second kingdom of Mataram, and prior to that, Old Javanese was in general use, then a definition of boundaries based on language useage would be difficult to support on a historic basis, no matter how convenient it might be to apply now.

We cannot be so restrictive as to say The Land of Jawa is only those areas under the influence of the two branches of the House of Mataram. This would limit the boundaries to only the Central Javanese Plain, and possibly not all of that.Additionally, it would fix the concept historically to commencement in the 17th century. Since the early rulers of Mataram traced their lineage to Majapahit, and Majapahit linked to Kediri, I think we must accept that Sultan Agung would have regarded at least some of the old Majapahit kingdom as his right.

I'm sorry I cannot be more precise than this, but "The Land of Jawa" is an idea, or perhaps an ideal, more than a precise geographic definition. However, this idea is central to the classification of wesi aji, because the dominant Surakarta system really only considers as legitimate those items of wesi aji that can be classified as being produced by the Empus of the Land of Jawa.

Thus, when I look at a tombak, I look for the designated indicators that will allow me to classify that tombak as "Javanese", that is, an item of wesi aji made by a maker from The Land of Jawa.

[VVV]

Thanks Alan for your explanation.
For me, at least, this has been an eye opener in my understanding of Javanese culture and Keris/Tombak classification methods.
That was the reason I brought it up for the rest of the forum.

Michael

[Dajak]

Hi The chairman did make a study about this subject and publish this on 8 nov
2005

the metuk has seen in java in silver gold suasa with or without krowit (flower)not al tunjung are in iron

Batang landeyan can be found in palmhout rozen hout enz

He says defenitly this is Java (I don t like to insult any one but the most knowledge about the keris and Indonesian weapons from the past can be found in the Netherlands In some private collections and museums we have more than than can be found in Indonesia the knowledge about these things
that we took from the early time that we been there was al written down
by the Dutch Germans English the Indonesian people by that time 1600 had not much interest in how the keris was made or develop that has also to do with the fear they had for it only a few High stand Indonesian people did have some knowledge the rich ones . who looses a lot off their stuf by gambling or mismanegemant so we get a lot in the Dutch hands .
In the early years In the Stone you can read the Dutch pandhouses have an formula to see if it is an bad or good keris.
The most study about pamor can be found by the european books.
An famous Tammens did make a big study about the kris .
He did have some krisses that are famous and one that had bring unluck to a few people not an story but al proven I see this keris and did not want to touch it becuase they cal this one the car damage keris
the story about this can be read In the book from H.W.M.J. Rijnders geloven in bijgeloof an very nice book that goes about goena goena black and withe magic demons etc.)

In the Stone page 629 is the same it says java I think we have to look what was in the past and not look how we call the parts now to avoid mistakes these weapons are from the past not from 25 years ago


Ben