View Single Post
Old 30th November 2006, 10:42 PM   #15
A. G. Maisey
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,675
Default

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.
A. G. Maisey is offline   Reply With Quote