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.

[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

[David]

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.

[Dajak]

Hi David

lets talk about the real name at that time is java not jawa

I don t tell he is right about because that he is Dutch
No he did research on this subject in many books with other people

The fight in Bali has nothing to do with misunderstanding cultures
but with getting the control back .

Same what the American people did taking land from the Indians

Can you tell me an Indonesian book about keris that is 100 years old please

I only talk about facts not what I think

let me know

I only wanna tell that by that time the most indonesian people have no interest about the keris at that time I dont now any old book about Indonesian weapons from that time while european people make study s about the subject

Ben

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks for your response , Ben.

There can be no doubt that the Dutch people did acquire many keris, and other Javanese and Indonesian artifacts during the time they were in the Old East Indies, and there can be not doubt that a number of Dutch people have carried out serious study of these artifacts, including keris.However, this thread is focussed on a single object:- a specific trisula.

This trisula is claimed as being from Jawa, or if you prefer Java. Jawa is the spelling and pronunciation used by people who live there, Java is the spelling and pronunciation that is general in the English language. Original Javanese script, when romanised, gives the sound of Jawa, not Java, but I'm not interested in getting into a debate on the name of the place.

What I am interested in is defining as nearly as possible the concept of The Land of Jawa, from a Javanese point of view. I've discussed this over the years with a number of people, and it seems that to define in strict geographic terms is not possible, however, most traditional Javanese people do have a very good idea of what is "Jawa", and what is "outside Jawa".

Now, this is extremely important, when we come to look at any item of wesi aji.

Why is it important?

Because if we wish to claim that an item of wesi aji is of Javanese origin, we first need to classify that item of wesi aji in accordance with the indicators that are used in tangguh. We can use overall form, we can use the characteristics of the material, and with a tombak, we must use the form of the metuk.

Once we have arrived at a classification that is defensible in terms of the guidelines used in tangguh, then we can say that the item concerned originated from The Land of Jawa.

Now, with this trisula that is under discussion we have a problem.

The primary indicator used to establish a classification is so much at variance with any of the accepted forms that it simply does not fit into any classification within the system.This primary indicator is the metuk.

Further, it is out of stain. It is impossible to read the material, and of course, from a photograph we cannot feel the material, thus we know nothing about the material and cannot classify the material.

Ben, you have quoted Stone P. 629 as showing a similar trisula as Javanese.

I have an earlier edition of Stone than the edition that shows this trisula on P 629. The illustrations in my edition are much more clear than the illustrations in this later edition that you are using. Still, the trisula shown in Stone only shows an overall shape, it is impossible to see the form of the metuk, and of course we know nothing of the material.

Now it is entirely possible that the trisula shown in Stone is Javanese.

Equally, it is entirely possible that your Chairman is correct in his affirmation that this trisula is Javanese.

However, I believe that both your Chairman, and G.C.Stone were using a much more flexible definition of "Javanese" than we can accept in any serious study of wesi aji.

If one wishes to be a simply a collector of exotic artifacts , and always view those artifacts from a present day perspective that is settled quite firmly in the western world, then it probably is more than sufficient to define an origin of something, as "Java", that is Java in the form of the Island of Java.There is no harm in this; it is a valid, and a simple way in which to enjoy a passtime or hobby.

However, if one wishes to seek a deeper understanding of the way in which the people who identify themselves as Javanese people regard their own culture, then one must apply the same standards as those people apply.

If we take the standards that Javanese people use to determine whether an item of wesi aji is from The Land of Jawa, or from outside The Land of Jawa, and we apply those standards to this trisula, then there can be no doubt that the prime identifying indicator used in accordance with those standards places this trisula outside The Land of Jawa. Regretably the other vital indicator of material is simply not available to us.

Now, I am prepared to accept that your Chairman is absolutely certain that this trisula was made in the Island of Java.

However, if he is certain of this I would very much appreciate it if he could validate his opinion by referencing the material type of this tombak to a specific location or classification, and providing just one example of a metuk similar to this metuk , from another tombak of either known provenance, or from a classsification accepted by a cultural center within the island of Java.

When we consider the classification of items of wesi aji from a Javanese perspective, it not acceptable to use overall form in isolation from the other indicators , as an adequate indicator of classification. It is only one of many.


Regarding the material used for a tunjung.
I have not claimed that all tunjung are iron.
In an ornamental landean the tunjung/sopal will be a soft metal and will sometimes be ornamented with embossing or engraving, however, in a landean intended for actual use, the tunjung will be iron. I cannot say that it will always be iron, because I have not seen every landean ever made, but I can say that in every landean I have ever seen in Central Jawa, that has been made as a using landean, the tunjung has been iron.



Ben, you have requested advice of indigenous keris literature dating from more than 100 years ago.

Apart from Centini, which does not have a great deal of keris related content, there is Pangeran Wijil's "Silsilah Keturunan Empu Tanah Jawa". This work dates from the 18th century, and gives the line of descent of each of the Empus of the Land of Jawa, as well as outlining the characteristics of their work.I agree with you that most indigenous keris literature is of a fairly recent date, however you must recognise that within traditional Javanese culture the written word had a different place and purpose from its place within western cultures. You must also recognise that traditional knowledge and belief was subject to a verbal tradition rather than a written tradition, and this verbal knowledge and belief was not available to just anybody. In fact, if we examine closely information gathered from indigenous sources during colonial times, what we often find is that that the information being given to those western colonists was what the informants either wanted the enquirers to believe, or what the informants believed the enquirers wanted to hear.In Jawa knowledge of the keris has always been knowledge of a select nature, not available to everybody. It is very true that the majority of Javanese have not had very much interest in the keris for many, many years. Not only in times past, but also at the present day. But that does not mean that no knowledge or belief was passed on within the group of people who have preserved this knowledge and belief.

Some of the finest keris art ever produced was produced during the time of PBX. Hardly an indication that interest in the keris had lapsed.PBX passed away in 1939.

To return to our trisula:- I accept that your Chairman has absolute belief that this trisula was made in the Island of Java.

I would most humbly request that he provide an explanation of the factors that have led him to this belief, just as I have provided an explanation of the factors that prevent me from accepting that this trisula was made within The Land of Jawa.

[David]

Ben, forgive me if i have in any way misunderstood or misrepresented your position. I use the word Jawa because it has been my understanding that this is how the place is referred to by the inhabitants of the island of Java. I may be incorrect in this assumption. Regardless, if it is only an old world name that is no longer in use, we are certainly discussing old world Jawa and it's weapons here, so perhaps it is appropriate.
I have no doubt that the chairman of the keris club of which you speak has done his research. I likewise have no doubt that Mr. Maisey has done his research as well. So we have different opinions. I have questioned yours because you choose to validate it with this statement " 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" instead of hard facts. Mr. Maisey presented a logical agrument which in the end doesn't prove origin one way or another, but he details how and why he comes to believe that this trisula may not be from Jawa. Knowing nothing about Trisula i find myself more swayed by Mr. Maisey's argument. It is detailed and lists reasons for his conclusion.
I would tend to disagree with you that the fight in Bali had nothing to do with misunderstandings (although, from my readings the Balinese people were very good at fighting amongst themselves with no interference from the Dutch). And it had everything to do with taking the control away, not getting it back. As i have already pointed out, we Americans have done the same thing (again and again) so this is not meant as an indictment of the Dutch per se. I was just attempting to explain that Colonial powers rarely understand the cultures that they dominate. Americans were just as bad in our own country with the indians.
I realize that English is not your first language and i may have misunderstood your remarks. If so, please forgive me.

[A. G. Maisey]

David, I don't think I can classify the foundation of what I have written as "research".

To me, research implies a structured search after knowledge.

This is not the base that I am writing from.

I am repeating here what I have been taught over many years by many people, and what I have learnt over many years through day to day dealing in Javanese markets.

You could probably say that I am writing from 40 years of acquired experience, rather than from a defined search for knowledge.

It would be as pretentious for me to claim I had "researched" this matter as for a carpenter to claim he had "researched" the driving of a nail.This is what I do; I live it, I don't research it.

Regarding the name "Jawa".

Jawa is ngoko for Java, Javanese, or referring to Java; the krama equivalent is Jawi.

As it is often pronounced, to your ear it would sound as "Jowo".

On any map of Indonesia where the names are in Indonesian, you will find Java identified as "Jawa". In any Indonesian or Javanese dictionary you will find the word "Jawa" with the meaning given as "Java".

Go back in history, and you can find a dozen different names given for Jawa, some have a sound close to Jawa, some do not.

The only reason I use Jawa most of the time is that I live in a house where probably more than half the conversation is in Javanese or Indonesian. In normal daily conversation I use the pronunciation Jawa. It is simply easier for me to use Jawa than Java. If anybody objects to me using Jawa, I am quite happy to go back and edit any posts I write and change the spelling. I have no problem with this.

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

If anybody objects to me using Jawa, I am quite happy to go back and edit any posts I write and change the spelling. I have no problem with this.

I am sure this won't be necessary Alan.
Thanks for clarifying your information sources. What i meant to say really was that you were making sustainable points in your argument, no so much that you were actually "researching" the info as if writing a paper. Bad choice of words on my part.

[A. G. Maisey]

OK, thanks David. I thought I did need to clarify that idea of research, because some things I do need to research and go back to written sources, or do the rounds and ask questions---all that sort of stuff. Do the hard work, dig out the answers. But with the classification of wesi aji, its it part and parcel of buying in Jawa. If you cannot classify in accordance with the parameters of tangguh, you can lose out bigtime.

Why?

Simply because tangguh forms the basis for pricing. If you cannot, for instance, tell the difference between Mataram SA, Mataram Senopaten, Kajoran , and Koripan you can drop lots and lots and lots of money. Screwup on Majapahit and Tuban-Majapahit, and it can be even worse.

Understanding tangguh is essential for what I do.

[VVV]

I just recieved this new information from Pak Boedhi who unfortunately isn't very active on the Internet at the moment:

The metuk is "called 'methuk sungsun/susun' (double/stacked methuk)". It's a very rare metuk and he has only seen it on two tombak before, both of them Trisula, in Java.

When he writes Java I understand it as the island of Java. In an earlier mail he suspects that this Trisula is from outside what Alan describes as "The Land of Jawa". So I understand it as he also thinks, like Alan, that it doesn't follow the Javanese pakems but that it could be from an area on the same geographical island.

Michael

[David]

Thanks for the additional info Michael. Hopefully Boedhi will join us again soon as his posts have always been interesting and informative.
Regardless of origin you do, in my humbly uninformed opinion, have a rather nice trisula there. It would be very nice to bring the stain back up if you have the means.

[VVV]

Thanks David,

I like it too but I understand from those with more knowledge that it's a rather plain Trisula.
I have also been told that the spearpoint material isn't the best to stain.
But I still find it exciting and interesting to study and learn more about.

Michael

[David]

Yes, like you Michael, i know little about these, but i'm sure i would not throw that one in the trash if it arrived on my doorstep.
I have seen much more decorated pieces, many with beatiful gold work, so i guess yours is a bit on the plain side. As for staining, it does look like it once was stained. If you have the option, i would try to stain it to see what it will look like.

[Dajak]

I realize that English is not your first language and i may have misunderstood your remarks. If so, please forgive me. [/QUOTE]



Hi David no problem about that but sometimes it is hard to explain for me it in English and write it the good way so it might looks some time arrogant but that is not my intension .
I have to apologize for that not you.


Ben

[Dajak]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Thanks for your response , Ben.


Some of the finest keris art ever produced was produced during the time of PBX. Hardly an indication that interest in the keris had lapsed.PBX passed away in 1939.

I don t think you can say this I see some from 14 cent that have pamor like no other

I would most humbly request that he provide an explanation of the factors that have led him to this belief, just as I have provided an explanation of the factors that prevent me from accepting that this trisula was made within The Land of Jawa.

as soon as i have made contact with him I let you know

Ben

[David]

Hi Ben. Thanks for your understanding. No apology necessary.
Perhaps you could convince your keris club friend to join our discussion. I am sure we would all find his research interesting.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks for that Ben, I will be most interested to see his justification, if he is willing to give it.---alan.

[Dajak]

Hi I might meet him the 17 off december so I ask him



Ben

[Gustav]

https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/...0-e00a18064a99

The New York Public Library, Digital Collections

Java: Antiquities. Origin unknown. Hindu and Buddhist subjects: Bronze trident. Owned by the old Bupati of Modjokerto. Origin unknown

Picture made by Lembaga Purbakala dan Peninggalan Nasional,
collected by Claire Holt,
created: 1950 - 1960 (Approximate)

[kai]

Hello Gustav,

Owned by the old Bupati of Modjokerto. Origin unknown

Thanks a lot, great find! One more example of this type, finally.

As indicated, this may not really help in placing this style since pieces in the collection of a bupati might be gifts from other rulers.

Regards,
Kai