New Made keris, dhapur Mundarang

A. G. Maisey · 2nd July 2009, 08:01 AM

I thank you most sincerely for the trouble you have taken with this matter, Pak Ganja, and I would request that when you have the opportunity that you please pass my thanks to Pak Haryono Haryoguritno for his further clarification of his position.

However, as impressive as Pak Haryoguritno's resume may be, there is nothing that you have reported from him that impacts in even the slightest degree upon my argument.

Let just recap for a moment, and please, I beg of you, read what I have written with care. If you have any specific questions I shall be only too happy to try to answer to your satisfaction.

The keris under discussion has been presented as a current era keris, that bears some characteristics of a Surakarta keris, and it is similar to a keris of dhapur pasopati, as pasopati is defined in a Pakem prepared under the aegis of the Karaton Surakarta in 1920.

I have already stated at least twice that different pakems can apply at different times and in different places, and Pak Haryonoguritno has said the same.

However, if a keris is made in the Surakarta style in the modern era, there is only one Pakem that can apply, and that is the most recent statement of Pakem to originate from the Surakarta Karaton. To the best of my knowledge, that statement of Pakem is the one complied in 1920.

We may argue that the keris under discussion is not a true Surakarta keris, but only bears some of the features of a Surakarta keris, if we accept this argument, then we can also accept that the Surakarta Pakem does not apply to this keris, and if somebody wants to call it a pasopati keris, either with or without a Pakem to quote as the authority, then that person is totally at liberty to do so.

But, if we wish to classify it as a Surakarta keris, then as a current era keris it must follow the most recent Surakarta Pakem, and it does not.

A "Pakem" is a guide. You give the meaning as "ancer-ancer" or "approximation", and this could be regarded as a synonym, but the correct English translation is "guide", or "guide book".

The lexicon of Jawa, and now Indonesia, has borrowed this word from the world of wayang, and in this context of wayang it has the meaning of being the outline of the story to be told by the dalang, however, in the more general usage it has the meaning of being a guide book, and we can find all sorts of pakems for sale in bookstores.

It is true that in the 1920 pakem the text that accompanies the illustrations does not define the nature of each greneng form that is to apply to the dhapur, however, that greneng form is clearly defined in the illustrations, and for dhapur pasopati in this Pakem no ron dha nunut is shown.

So yes, I agree completely with what you report Pak Haryoguritno as saying:- a Pakem is not a strict rule, it is something that points one in a general direction. It does not dictate how something should be done, but where it indicates what constitutes a particular form, that is the form that should be followed. This can even be seen in its original wayang usage:- the essential elements of the story are immovable, but the way in which the story is told is entirely the dalang's interpretation. Exactly the same with a keris:- where no specific direction is given, the maker is at liberty to interpret; where specific direction is given, the maker must follow that direction, but he still has freedom in execution.

In the 1920 pakem, specific direction was given.

Most certainly what is set down in a Pakem is not a dead rule, I think that should be obvious from the fact that a different time and a different place can generate a different Pakem. However, only a karaton has the authority to alter the pakem of that karaton..

I repeat:- I am in complete agreement with your reporting of Pak Haryonoguritno's position in this regard.

However, in the 1920 pakem the guidance that has been provided is for the exclusion of a ron dha nunut. The maker is completely free to complete the indicated ricikan according to his own interpretation of Surakarta style --- there is no restriction on this --- but he is not free to vary the indicated ricikan.
If a maker were to include a ron dha nunut on a strict Surakarta keris, then clearly he is deviating from the guidance that has been provided. In other words, he has placed himself above the authority of the person who has approved the Pakem.

I am certain Pak Ganja , that you understand the importance of hierarchy within any Karaton. Let alone the Surakarta Karaton. Quite simply, if a higher ranking person indicates that you should jump, your only question is :- "how high?".
You do not throw in an unrequested heel click.

This, at least, was the opinion of my teacher. If the Karaton had shown what it expected, this is what should be delivered, perhaps what must be delivered.
If there was no specific indication of the standard, then in the absence of specific directions the maker was free to exercise his own judgement.

In respect of a karaton established Pakem, only the karaton itself has the authority to vary that Pakem, and that is exactly what happened in the Surakarta Karaton between the reign of Pakubuwana IX and Pakubuwana X.

I have in my possession a copy of the Pakem that was prepared by Ngabei Sawikromo for Pakubuwana IX, completed in 1792 (Jawa). PB IX reigned from 1831 to 1893.

This earlier Surakarta Pakem defines a dhapur pasopati as having a ron dha nunut.

But then , if we look at the Pakem reported by Groeneman which dates from earlier than 1850 we find that the dhapur pasopati shown there does not have a ron dha nunut.

I have available at least nine pakems, most dating from the early years of the 20th century. Most descriptions of ricikan for dhapur pasopati do simply specify "greneng"; a couple do not specify "greneng", but specify "pangkon", I am uncertain of the meaning of pangkon in this context. However, where an illustration is provided in addition to text, no ron dha nunut is ever shown.

I have said "at least nine pakems" because I do not have time to find all that I have. My copies of keris books, old keris literature, documents, hand written note books & etc fills two five foot tall filing cabinets, and three two meter tall bookcases.

The question that you have raised, Pak Ganja, as to which Pakem one should choose between the one reported in Groeneman's book, and the one compiled by Ranggawarsita would be self evident, I would have thought.

Pak Haryonoguritno has told you that Pakem varies from time to time, and place to place; I have said exactly the same thing more than once.

The Pakem one uses is the Pakem that applies to the time and place.

R. Ng.Ranggawarsita was a court poet from a family of court poets, I think his birth name was Bagus Burham. He was a bit of a rock star in his time, and there are persistant rumours that his rock star ways may have been responsible for his death. Anyway, he was born in 1802, and he died about 1870. Now, if the Pakem prepared by Ranggawarsita was prepared under the aegis of the Karaton --- and it most probably was --- then from the time of its acceptance until the endorsement of a new Pakem by the Surakarta Karaton, the Pakem that should have been given weight within the area of influence of the Karaton was that Ranggawarsita Pakem.

The Pakem reported by Groeneman was correct to use in the place and time where it applied.

Interestingly, Empu Djeno compiled a pakem, and although this does not have the endorsement of a karaton, this is the most recent authoritative pakem that I have. In Empu Djeno's Pakem dhapur pasopati is shown without a ron dha nunut. From this it would seem that Empu Djeno was also under the impression that dhapur pasopati did not have a ron dha nunut.

To sum up:-

Pak Haryono Haryoguritno's advice to you , Pak Ganja, is not at variance at all with my own position, nor with what I have written here.

In the matter of the keris under discussion:-

if we wish to have it as a Surakarta keris, current era, then it is clearly di luar Pakem

if we do not wish to have it as a Surakarta keris it may be classified as dhapur pasopati.

It's all that simple.

2nd July 2009, 08:01 AM	#21
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,892	I thank you most sincerely for the trouble you have taken with this matter, Pak Ganja, and I would request that when you have the opportunity that you please pass my thanks to Pak Haryono Haryoguritno for his further clarification of his position. However, as impressive as Pak Haryoguritno's resume may be, there is nothing that you have reported from him that impacts in even the slightest degree upon my argument. Let just recap for a moment, and please, I beg of you, read what I have written with care. If you have any specific questions I shall be only too happy to try to answer to your satisfaction. The keris under discussion has been presented as a current era keris, that bears some characteristics of a Surakarta keris, and it is similar to a keris of dhapur pasopati, as pasopati is defined in a Pakem prepared under the aegis of the Karaton Surakarta in 1920. I have already stated at least twice that different pakems can apply at different times and in different places, and Pak Haryonoguritno has said the same. However, if a keris is made in the Surakarta style in the modern era, there is only one Pakem that can apply, and that is the most recent statement of Pakem to originate from the Surakarta Karaton. To the best of my knowledge, that statement of Pakem is the one complied in 1920. We may argue that the keris under discussion is not a true Surakarta keris, but only bears some of the features of a Surakarta keris, if we accept this argument, then we can also accept that the Surakarta Pakem does not apply to this keris, and if somebody wants to call it a pasopati keris, either with or without a Pakem to quote as the authority, then that person is totally at liberty to do so. But, if we wish to classify it as a Surakarta keris, then as a current era keris it must follow the most recent Surakarta Pakem, and it does not. A "Pakem" is a guide. You give the meaning as "ancer-ancer" or "approximation", and this could be regarded as a synonym, but the correct English translation is "guide", or "guide book". The lexicon of Jawa, and now Indonesia, has borrowed this word from the world of wayang, and in this context of wayang it has the meaning of being the outline of the story to be told by the dalang, however, in the more general usage it has the meaning of being a guide book, and we can find all sorts of pakems for sale in bookstores. It is true that in the 1920 pakem the text that accompanies the illustrations does not define the nature of each greneng form that is to apply to the dhapur, however, that greneng form is clearly defined in the illustrations, and for dhapur pasopati in this Pakem no ron dha nunut is shown. So yes, I agree completely with what you report Pak Haryoguritno as saying:- a Pakem is not a strict rule, it is something that points one in a general direction. It does not dictate how something should be done, but where it indicates what constitutes a particular form, that is the form that should be followed. This can even be seen in its original wayang usage:- the essential elements of the story are immovable, but the way in which the story is told is entirely the dalang's interpretation. Exactly the same with a keris:- where no specific direction is given, the maker is at liberty to interpret; where specific direction is given, the maker must follow that direction, but he still has freedom in execution. In the 1920 pakem, specific direction was given. Most certainly what is set down in a Pakem is not a dead rule, I think that should be obvious from the fact that a different time and a different place can generate a different Pakem. However, only a karaton has the authority to alter the pakem of that karaton.. I repeat:- I am in complete agreement with your reporting of Pak Haryonoguritno's position in this regard. However, in the 1920 pakem the guidance that has been provided is for the exclusion of a ron dha nunut. The maker is completely free to complete the indicated ricikan according to his own interpretation of Surakarta style --- there is no restriction on this --- but he is not free to vary the indicated ricikan. If a maker were to include a ron dha nunut on a strict Surakarta keris, then clearly he is deviating from the guidance that has been provided. In other words, he has placed himself above the authority of the person who has approved the Pakem. I am certain Pak Ganja , that you understand the importance of hierarchy within any Karaton. Let alone the Surakarta Karaton. Quite simply, if a higher ranking person indicates that you should jump, your only question is :- "how high?". You do not throw in an unrequested heel click. This, at least, was the opinion of my teacher. If the Karaton had shown what it expected, this is what should be delivered, perhaps what must be delivered. If there was no specific indication of the standard, then in the absence of specific directions the maker was free to exercise his own judgement. In respect of a karaton established Pakem, only the karaton itself has the authority to vary that Pakem, and that is exactly what happened in the Surakarta Karaton between the reign of Pakubuwana IX and Pakubuwana X. I have in my possession a copy of the Pakem that was prepared by Ngabei Sawikromo for Pakubuwana IX, completed in 1792 (Jawa). PB IX reigned from 1831 to 1893. This earlier Surakarta Pakem defines a dhapur pasopati as having a ron dha nunut. But then , if we look at the Pakem reported by Groeneman which dates from earlier than 1850 we find that the dhapur pasopati shown there does not have a ron dha nunut. I have available at least nine pakems, most dating from the early years of the 20th century. Most descriptions of ricikan for dhapur pasopati do simply specify "greneng"; a couple do not specify "greneng", but specify "pangkon", I am uncertain of the meaning of pangkon in this context. However, where an illustration is provided in addition to text, no ron dha nunut is ever shown. I have said "at least nine pakems" because I do not have time to find all that I have. My copies of keris books, old keris literature, documents, hand written note books & etc fills two five foot tall filing cabinets, and three two meter tall bookcases. The question that you have raised, Pak Ganja, as to which Pakem one should choose between the one reported in Groeneman's book, and the one compiled by Ranggawarsita would be self evident, I would have thought. Pak Haryonoguritno has told you that Pakem varies from time to time, and place to place; I have said exactly the same thing more than once. The Pakem one uses is the Pakem that applies to the time and place. R. Ng.Ranggawarsita was a court poet from a family of court poets, I think his birth name was Bagus Burham. He was a bit of a rock star in his time, and there are persistant rumours that his rock star ways may have been responsible for his death. Anyway, he was born in 1802, and he died about 1870. Now, if the Pakem prepared by Ranggawarsita was prepared under the aegis of the Karaton --- and it most probably was --- then from the time of its acceptance until the endorsement of a new Pakem by the Surakarta Karaton, the Pakem that should have been given weight within the area of influence of the Karaton was that Ranggawarsita Pakem. The Pakem reported by Groeneman was correct to use in the place and time where it applied. Interestingly, Empu Djeno compiled a pakem, and although this does not have the endorsement of a karaton, this is the most recent authoritative pakem that I have. In Empu Djeno's Pakem dhapur pasopati is shown without a ron dha nunut. From this it would seem that Empu Djeno was also under the impression that dhapur pasopati did not have a ron dha nunut. To sum up:- Pak Haryono Haryoguritno's advice to you , Pak Ganja, is not at variance at all with my own position, nor with what I have written here. In the matter of the keris under discussion:- if we wish to have it as a Surakarta keris, current era, then it is clearly di luar Pakem if we do not wish to have it as a Surakarta keris it may be classified as dhapur pasopati. It's all that simple.