Help with Identification please

Sajen · 10th October 2010, 07:36 PM

I have to apologize for my imperfect research of first usage from term Gana. This may depend on that I don't take enough time for my research. I have had Solyom in my hands but don't see the pictured hilt at page 35.
What is very important to note: Huyser write on page 32 that Dr. Groneman in his studies about the keris observed that in the keraton of Jogya are keris hilts carried which are called Gana.

I quote: "Dr. Groneman vermeldt in zijn studie over de kris, dat in den Kraton van Djokja grepen worden getragen in mensch- of diergestalte, in den vorm van een djagoengkolf (d.i. mais). of van bloemen, die gana genoemd worden, of ook wel boomwortels zooals bij. op No. 25, die de menschelijke gestalte weergeven."

I am not very used to read netherlands but I try a free translation:
"Dr. Groneman described in his studies about the kris that in the Keraton of Jogya keris hilts are carried in human or animal design in the form of maize cob or flowers (here I am unsure if it is the correct way of tranlation) which are called Gana, carved from tree roots, look at Pic. No. 25, which are showing a human figure."

This translation may have some imprecision but I am sure that the esthesia will be correct.

So the first usage of the term "Gana" in matters of keris hilts in written dokuments seems to go back to Dr. Groneman i.e. the years between 1910-1913.

So it seems that the "so called keris-lovers" thoroughly able to do a good research!

Regards,

Detlef

Henk · 10th October 2010, 07:55 PM

Detlef,

A good translation. Well done. Of course, for the critical Dutch among us the translation could be refined, but the green line is a correct translation.

Sajen · 10th October 2010, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henk

Detlef,

A good translation. Well done. Of course, for the critical Dutch among us the translation could be refined, but the green line is a correct translation.

Hello Henk,

thank you!

A. G. Maisey · 10th October 2010, 10:59 PM

This discussion is developing into the type of thing that interests me. Thank you gentlemen for your input.

Detlef, you have given us a translation that Henk, who is apparently a native speaker of Dutch, has told us is a good translation:-

"Dr. Groneman described in his studies about the kris that in the Keraton of Jogya keris hilts are carried in human or animal design in the form of maize cob or flowers (here I am unsure if it is the correct way of tranlation) which are called Gana, carved from tree roots, look at Pic. No. 25, which are showing a human figure."

If I run the relevant words through an online translator I get:-

"Dr. Groneman mentions in his study of the keris that is in the Yogya Kraton handles carried in human or animal figure, in the form of a djagoengkolf (ie corn). or flowers, which are called Gana, also known as with tree roots. at No. 25, which show the human form. "

I think that the online translator comes fairly close in sense to your translation, so we can probably accept that you have translated the sense of the passage adequately.

However, in the recent publication of Groneman in English, the translation has significant variation:-

" In the Kraton of Jogjakata --- they carry ukiran in the shape of humans and animals, of djagung (corn-) cobs or flowers, called gana, as well as some made from tree roots resembling the human form."

What interests me is this:- your quote is a report of Groneman's original writing, note "--- Dr. Groneman mentions in his study---" , it is not the original words written by Groneman.

In your translation, and in the online translation of this passage, it can be taken that a particular form of hilt is identified that is known as the gana form, that is:-

"--- human or animal design in the form of maize cob or flowers --- which are called Gana, carved from tree roots---"

and

"--- human or animal figure, in the form of a djagoengkolf (ie corn). or flowers, which are called Gana, also known as with tree roots ---"

However, if we look at the translation done by Peter Richardus of Leiden, and Timothy Rogers of Oxford, we find that the passage is given quite a different meaning, in that the hilts in the form of humans, animals , flowers and cobs of corn are called "gana", and " --- as well as some made from tree roots resembling the human form." which are not given any name.

I believe that we can accept that the English edition of Groneman was sourced from Groneman's original writings, however, I will put that question to Tim today and ask him for a clarification of the source used, and the reliability of the translation.

This is a vital distinction, and indicates to me that perhaps everybody who has followed on from Groneman has sourced from the publication that you have used, and as a result people have been calling these naturally occurring root-form hilts by the name intended for a different form for a very long time.

I don't know about you people, but I really do find this sort of thing to be of intense interest.

A. G. Maisey · 10th October 2010, 11:33 PM

Thank you for your input to this discussion, Guwaya.

The word "gana" does occur in Modern Javanese , so it is not a term invented by bules, but the question is this:- is it correctly applied to this naturally occurring root-form hilt?

In light of the post I have just now made, I am currently in some doubt that it is correctly applied.

If we accept the Richardus/Rogers translation, obviously the current belief that it applies to the naturally occurring root-form hilt is just plain wrong.

At the moment it looks to me like Mr. Huyser made an error that has been repeated ever since.

The problem of information contained in varying languages is certainly a real one, and it is one of the functions of academia to co-relate these varying sources and make them intelligible to the world community. This is one of the reasons for a community of academics to exist, and it justifies the expenditure of the broader community on their upkeep.

What academics produce is then able to be examined by those of us who are not academics, and when this academically produced work is examined by people from the broader community, who come from a variety of disciplines, it is only natural that questions will be asked that may not have occurred to the original translator, or reporter.

Academics by nature are researchers, and where adequate funds are available, specialist academics who are specialist researchers , can be employed. Where specialist researchers cannot be employed, then the academic community as a whole becomes the researcher for the general community, as a whole. The results of research can then be subjected to analysis.

I am not an academic, and have never had the slightest desire to be, nor to become one. My own discipline is audit, and that involves the very close examination of data and the application of logical examination and analysis to that data. This process almost invariably results in the formation of questions.

This is what I do. I ask questions. It is not my job to construct the answers, I construct the questions, and then I put those questions to specialists in the various fields involved in the enquiry.

If the right question is asked, the right answer will be provided, if it currently exists.

When I apply myself to matters to do with the keris, I adopt the same approach. It is difficult for me to approach the matter in any other way, as this is simply the application of my professional skills to a different field.

Henk · 11th October 2010, 10:32 PM

Gentlemen,

A very interesting discussion developed after the translation made by Detlef. A rather good translation that matched very well with the translation Alan made with the online translator. But i understand the confusion and misunderstanding that appeared.

I'm Dutch and that makes me a native speaker. I will try to translate literally this part.

"Dr. Groneman vermeldt in zijn studie over de kris, dat in den Kraton van Djokja grepen worden gedragen in mensch- of diergestalte, in den vorm van een djagoengkolf (d.i. mais). of van bloemen, die gana genoemd worden, of ook wel boomwortels zooals bijv. op No. 25, die de menschelijke gestalte weergeven."

Dr. Groneman reports in his study about the keris, that in the Kraton of Djokja ukirans are carried in human- or animalshape, in the shape of a djagoengcob (this is maize). or flowers, wich are called gana, or also from treeroots like for instance on number 25, that reproduce the human shape.

As i read and interpret the Dutch part David made the right conclusion.
1 human- or animalshape
2 djagoengcob (this is maize). or flowers, gana
3 treeroots that reproduce the human shape

A. G. Maisey · 11th October 2010, 10:55 PM

Thank you Henk.

I have no problem with accepting three divisions, or two divisions, or in fact any number of divisions, I do have a problem with accepting universal inclusion.

The crux of the matter is whether the word "gana" can refer to the naturally occurring tree root hilts. From what I've seen so far, I don't think it can, but Kai has raised a valid possibility, and this has been endorsed by Guwaya.

I have referred the text back to one of the original translators, and he has undertaken to carry out further checking.

Hopefully we will be able to resolve this area of doubt.

kai · 12th October 2010, 08:30 AM

Hello Henk,

Quote:

"Dr. Groneman vermeldt in zijn studie over de kris, dat in den Kraton van Djokja grepen worden gedragen in mensch- of diergestalte, in den vorm van een djagoengkolf (d.i. mais). of van bloemen, die gana genoemd worden, of ook wel boomwortels zooals bijv. op No. 25, die de menschelijke gestalte weergeven."

Dr. Groneman reports in his study about the keris, that in the Kraton of Djokja ukirans are carried in human- or animalshape, in the shape of a djagoengcob (this is maize). or flowers, wich are called gana, or also from treeroots like for instance on number 25, that reproduce the human shape.

Thanks! However, since this is a secondary source (and a loose translation of Groneman's account), this won't help to decide on the original meaning.

Just to see a keris again with this thread: Could you possibly post a pic of Figure 25, please?

Regards,
Kai

Sajen · 10th October 2010, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

This discussion is developing into the type of thing that interests me. Thank you gentlemen for your input.

Jean, you have given us a translation that Henk, who is apparently a native speaker of Dutch, has told us is a good translation:-

Only for correctness, not Jean has translated the text, it have been my humble self who have done it.

Detlef

A. G. Maisey · 11th October 2010, 12:03 AM

Thank you Detlef, and my apologies.

This error has been corrected.

Sajen · 12th October 2010, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Thank you Detlef, and my apologies.

This error has been corrected.

Nothing to apologize!

BTW, I have read the original german text posted by guwaya again and again and think to be sure that Groneman write about three different hilt/ukiran forms:

1. ukiran in form of human or animal shape
2. ukiran in form of corn cobs or flowers (called gana)
3. ukiran from tree roots resemble the human shape

since he has done a enumeration following the german grammar in my humble opinion. So I am with Henk who read the netherlands text in the same manner.

Detlef

guwaya · 11th October 2010, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

This discussion is developing into the type of thing that interests me. Thank you gentlemen for your input.

However, in the recent publication of Groneman in English, the translation has significant variation:-

" In the Kraton of Jogjakata --- they carry ukiran in the shape of humans and animals, of djagung (corn-) cobs or flowers, called gana, as well as some made from tree roots resembling the human form."

What interests me is this:- your quote is a report of Groneman's original writing, note "--- Dr. Groneman mentions in his study---" , it is not the original words written by Groneman.

In your translation, and in the online translation of this passage, it can be taken that a particular form of hilt is identified that is known as the gana form, that is:-

"--- human or animal design in the form of maize cob or flowers --- which are called Gana, carved from tree roots---"

and

"--- human or animal figure, in the form of a djagoengkolf (ie corn). or flowers, which are called Gana, also known as with tree roots ---"

However, if we look at the translation done by Peter Richardus of Leiden, and Timothy Rogers of Oxford, we find that the passage is given quite a different meaning, in that the hilts in the form of humans, animals , flowers and cobs of corn are called "gana", and " --- as well as some made from tree roots resembling the human form." which are not given any name.

I believe that we can accept that the English edition of Groneman was sourced from Groneman's original writings, however, I will put that question to Tim today and ask him for a clarification of the source used, and the reliability of the translation.

This is a vital distinction, and indicates to me that perhaps everybody who has followed on from Groneman has sourced from the publication that you have used, and as a result people have been calling these naturally occurring root-form hilts by the name intended for a different form for a very long time.

I don't know about you people, but I really do find this sort of thing to be of intense interest.

A. G. Maisey:

If I understand it correct, you are interested into getting the original version of Groneman's statement - here it i.

It is taken from the original periodical: International Archiv für Ethnographie Bd. XIX, p. 180. Leiden 1910.

Here are the continuing essays about "Der Kris der Javanen" which were later published in book-form. The original text is in German language and here's the citate:

"Im kraton von Jogjakarta tragen die panakawan (dienende junge Edelleute, Pagen) wenn sie mit entblöstem Oberkörper und Federn versehenem Haarschmuck, ohne Kopftuch (semut gatet) erscheinen, ukiran in Form menschlicher und tierischer Gestalten, in Form von djagung (Mais-)Kolben oder Blumen. die gana genannt werden, wie auch einige dem menschlichen Bilde gleichende Baumwurzen."

This is the original citate from Gronemans statement - I will mail this first and then try to do an exact translation.

Regards

guwaya · 11th October 2010, 10:19 AM

[/QUOTE]
Here now the closest translation I am able to do:

In the keraton of Yogyakarta, the panakawan (serving peers, pages), if they appear with bare upper part of the body and feather performed hair-decoration without headscarf (semut gatut), are wearing ukiran of the form of human and animistic gestalt, in the design of jagung (maize-) Kolben or flowers which are called gana, as well as some tree-roots resembling the human figure.

The translation is a bit bumpy but I prefered to leave it as litterally as possible.

Regards

A. G. Maisey · 11th October 2010, 11:45 AM

Thank you very much Guwaya.

You have illustrated beautifully what I had begun to suspect, that is, that the source of the name "gana" being applied to these tree root natural forms has been the incorrect quotation in Huyser.

Your translation agrees in the crucial part with the Richardus/ Rogers translation, so I now believe that there can be no doubt that the application of the name "gana" to the natural tree root hilt form is incorrect. We do not know if there ever has been a specific name for this form.

Apart from clarifying an error that has been ongoing for a very long time, this little exercise has demonstrated that the use of sources other than an original to provide a quotation is fraught with danger. I can think of any number of such cases in books that deal with the keris, and I am certain that the same problem would occur in other fields.

We must always go to the original.

kai · 11th October 2010, 11:55 AM

Just to add a comment regarding the correct translation of Groneman's original:

Quote:

... ukiran in Form menschlicher und tierischer Gestalten, in Form von djagung (Mais-)Kolben oder Blumen, die gana genannt werden, wie auch einige dem menschlichen Bilde gleichende Baumwurzen.

In German, two different meanings seem to be possible and I have a really tough time to decide which may be the intended one.

Interpretation 1:
ukiran of human and animal form,
(ukiran) of jagung form (corn cobs or flowers called gana), and
also some tree roots resembling a human figure.

This may be the intended meaning but it would be only unequivocal if Groneman had completed the enumeration:
(ukiran) of human form (made from tree roots naturally resembling a human figure).
I feel Groneman avoided this more tedious writing for stylistic reasons but grammatically this is not correct (neither with nor without repeating the word ukiran).

Interpretation 2:
ukiran of the form of human and animal, and
ukiran of the form of jagung (corn) cobs or flowers which are called gana (as is also true for some tree-roots resembling a human figure).

For this interpretation there is the crucial "and" missing: In German, one would have expected a "sowie" for stylistic reasons. A word can go missing in print but in this case it doesn't appear to be a printer's error since there's no punctuation mark (i. e. comma) in front of an "und" or "sowie" in German. Still, it could be an enumeration of just 2 alternatives separated only with an ideosyncratic comma...

What are the Dutch grammar rules for enumerations since this was Groneman's language?

BTW, is the tree of life interpretation for the corn cob hilt type undisputed?

Regards,
Kai

A. G. Maisey · 11th October 2010, 01:05 PM

Thanks for that additional input Kai.

In the interpretations of both Guwaya and Richardus/Rogers there is a clear separation between two groups of hilt forms:-

group 1 is the human + animal + corn + flower motifs, and all these motifs are known as the "gana" form

group 2 is the form from tree roots resembling the human form.

You have raised a doubt in respect of both these translations by identifying a deficiency in grammar. However, I believe that Guwaya is also a native speaker of German, and he seemed not to note this possibility of an alternate interpretation.

Earlier today I emailed Tim Rogers with several questions in respect of this translation, the answers to which, I believe will put the cap on this matter. When I receive a response I will advise.

As for corn-cob = gunungan, that might be another good question for investigation. When and where did this association first get aired?

guwaya · 11th October 2010, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kai

Just to add a comment regarding the correct translation of Groneman's original:

In German, two different meanings seem to be possible and I have a really tough time to decide which may be the intended one.

Interpretation 1:
ukiran of human and animal form,
(ukiran) of jagung form (corn cobs or flowers called gana), and
also some tree roots resembling a human figure.

This may be the intended meaning but it would be only unequivocal if Groneman had completed the enumeration:
(ukiran) of human form (made from tree roots naturally resembling a human figure).
I feel Groneman avoided this more tedious writing for stylistic reasons but grammatically this is not correct (neither with nor without repeating the word ukiran).

Interpretation 2:
ukiran of the form of human and animal, and
ukiran of the form of jagung (corn) cobs or flowers which are called gana (as is also true for some tree-roots resembling a human figure).

For this interpretation there is the crucial "and" missing: In German, one would have expected a "sowie" for stylistic reasons. A word can go missing in print but in this case it doesn't appear to be a printer's error since there's no punctuation mark (i. e. comma) in front of an "und" or "sowie" in German. Still, it could be an enumeration of just 2 alternatives separated only with an ideosyncratic comma...

What are the Dutch grammar rules for enumerations since this was Groneman's language?

BTW, is the tree of life interpretation for the corn cob hilt type undisputed?

Regards,
Kai

Hello,

I think you are correct - even if reading just fluently in German there could be two interpretation:

There are ukiran in form of jagung or flowers which are called gana

1. and additional there are ukiran made from tree-roots resembling the human figure (seperately from gana).

2. as well as ukiran made from tree-roots resembling the human figure (also called gana)

Anyway, I think, just because Gronemans motherlanguage seemed to have been Dutch it makes no sense to study the dutch grammer for clearing the general question here. It will not be possible to come to a 100% verified conclusion and only an assumption based on the different languages could be made which possibly could have leed to a misunderstanding. I am myself a Groneman fan but nobody is perfect and grammer mistakes are easily done - if they were done - who knows?! And who wants to decide this - after which criteria?

It seems that the use of gana is only to read at Groneman (the others took it from Groneman) and that it is not confirmed by other researchers upon own researches. If this is the fact, the use of the term gana will always have to be used with a questionmark or with the hint to Groneman's reference.

Regards

10th October 2010, 07:36 PM	#1
Sajen Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Germany, Dortmund Posts: 9,269	I have to apologize for my imperfect research of first usage from term Gana. This may depend on that I don't take enough time for my research. I have had Solyom in my hands but don't see the pictured hilt at page 35. What is very important to note: Huyser write on page 32 that Dr. Groneman in his studies about the keris observed that in the keraton of Jogya are keris hilts carried which are called Gana. I quote: "Dr. Groneman vermeldt in zijn studie over de kris, dat in den Kraton van Djokja grepen worden getragen in mensch- of diergestalte, in den vorm van een djagoengkolf (d.i. mais). of van bloemen, die gana genoemd worden, of ook wel boomwortels zooals bij. op No. 25, die de menschelijke gestalte weergeven." I am not very used to read netherlands but I try a free translation: "Dr. Groneman described in his studies about the kris that in the Keraton of Jogya keris hilts are carried in human or animal design in the form of maize cob or flowers (here I am unsure if it is the correct way of tranlation) which are called Gana, carved from tree roots, look at Pic. No. 25, which are showing a human figure." This translation may have some imprecision but I am sure that the esthesia will be correct. So the first usage of the term "Gana" in matters of keris hilts in written dokuments seems to go back to Dr. Groneman i.e. the years between 1910-1913. So it seems that the "so called keris-lovers" thoroughly able to do a good research! Regards, Detlef Attached Images

10th October 2010, 10:59 PM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,047	This discussion is developing into the type of thing that interests me. Thank you gentlemen for your input. Detlef, you have given us a translation that Henk, who is apparently a native speaker of Dutch, has told us is a good translation:- "Dr. Groneman described in his studies about the kris that in the Keraton of Jogya keris hilts are carried in human or animal design in the form of maize cob or flowers (here I am unsure if it is the correct way of tranlation) which are called Gana, carved from tree roots, look at Pic. No. 25, which are showing a human figure." If I run the relevant words through an online translator I get:- "Dr. Groneman mentions in his study of the keris that is in the Yogya Kraton handles carried in human or animal figure, in the form of a djagoengkolf (ie corn). or flowers, which are called Gana, also known as with tree roots. at No. 25, which show the human form. " I think that the online translator comes fairly close in sense to your translation, so we can probably accept that you have translated the sense of the passage adequately. However, in the recent publication of Groneman in English, the translation has significant variation:- " In the Kraton of Jogjakata --- they carry ukiran in the shape of humans and animals, of djagung (corn-) cobs or flowers, called gana, as well as some made from tree roots resembling the human form." What interests me is this:- your quote is a report of Groneman's original writing, note "--- Dr. Groneman mentions in his study---" , it is not the original words written by Groneman. In your translation, and in the online translation of this passage, it can be taken that a particular form of hilt is identified that is known as the gana form, that is:- "--- human or animal design in the form of maize cob or flowers --- which are called Gana, carved from tree roots---" and "--- human or animal figure, in the form of a djagoengkolf (ie corn). or flowers, which are called Gana, also known as with tree roots ---" However, if we look at the translation done by Peter Richardus of Leiden, and Timothy Rogers of Oxford, we find that the passage is given quite a different meaning, in that the hilts in the form of humans, animals , flowers and cobs of corn are called "gana", and " --- as well as some made from tree roots resembling the human form." which are not given any name. I believe that we can accept that the English edition of Groneman was sourced from Groneman's original writings, however, I will put that question to Tim today and ask him for a clarification of the source used, and the reliability of the translation. This is a vital distinction, and indicates to me that perhaps everybody who has followed on from Groneman has sourced from the publication that you have used, and as a result people have been calling these naturally occurring root-form hilts by the name intended for a different form for a very long time. I don't know about you people, but I really do find this sort of thing to be of intense interest. Last edited by A. G. Maisey; 11th October 2010 at 12:02 AM. Reason: correction of error

10th October 2010, 07:55 PM	#2
Henk Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 1,209	Detlef, A good translation. Well done. Of course, for the critical Dutch among us the translation could be refined, but the green line is a correct translation.

10th October 2010, 11:33 PM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,047	Thank you for your input to this discussion, Guwaya. The word "gana" does occur in Modern Javanese , so it is not a term invented by bules, but the question is this:- is it correctly applied to this naturally occurring root-form hilt? In light of the post I have just now made, I am currently in some doubt that it is correctly applied. If we accept the Richardus/Rogers translation, obviously the current belief that it applies to the naturally occurring root-form hilt is just plain wrong. At the moment it looks to me like Mr. Huyser made an error that has been repeated ever since. The problem of information contained in varying languages is certainly a real one, and it is one of the functions of academia to co-relate these varying sources and make them intelligible to the world community. This is one of the reasons for a community of academics to exist, and it justifies the expenditure of the broader community on their upkeep. What academics produce is then able to be examined by those of us who are not academics, and when this academically produced work is examined by people from the broader community, who come from a variety of disciplines, it is only natural that questions will be asked that may not have occurred to the original translator, or reporter. Academics by nature are researchers, and where adequate funds are available, specialist academics who are specialist researchers , can be employed. Where specialist researchers cannot be employed, then the academic community as a whole becomes the researcher for the general community, as a whole. The results of research can then be subjected to analysis. I am not an academic, and have never had the slightest desire to be, nor to become one. My own discipline is audit, and that involves the very close examination of data and the application of logical examination and analysis to that data. This process almost invariably results in the formation of questions. This is what I do. I ask questions. It is not my job to construct the answers, I construct the questions, and then I put those questions to specialists in the various fields involved in the enquiry. If the right question is asked, the right answer will be provided, if it currently exists. When I apply myself to matters to do with the keris, I adopt the same approach. It is difficult for me to approach the matter in any other way, as this is simply the application of my professional skills to a different field.

11th October 2010, 10:32 PM	#6
Henk Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 1,209	Gentlemen, A very interesting discussion developed after the translation made by Detlef. A rather good translation that matched very well with the translation Alan made with the online translator. But i understand the confusion and misunderstanding that appeared. I'm Dutch and that makes me a native speaker. I will try to translate literally this part. "Dr. Groneman vermeldt in zijn studie over de kris, dat in den Kraton van Djokja grepen worden gedragen in mensch- of diergestalte, in den vorm van een djagoengkolf (d.i. mais). of van bloemen, die gana genoemd worden, of ook wel boomwortels zooals bijv. op No. 25, die de menschelijke gestalte weergeven." Dr. Groneman reports in his study about the keris, that in the Kraton of Djokja ukirans are carried in human- or animalshape, in the shape of a djagoengcob (this is maize). or flowers, wich are called gana, or also from treeroots like for instance on number 25, that reproduce the human shape. As i read and interpret the Dutch part David made the right conclusion. 1 human- or animalshape 2 djagoengcob (this is maize). or flowers, gana 3 treeroots that reproduce the human shape

11th October 2010, 10:55 PM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,047	Thank you Henk. I have no problem with accepting three divisions, or two divisions, or in fact any number of divisions, I do have a problem with accepting universal inclusion. The crux of the matter is whether the word "gana" can refer to the naturally occurring tree root hilts. From what I've seen so far, I don't think it can, but Kai has raised a valid possibility, and this has been endorsed by Guwaya. I have referred the text back to one of the original translators, and he has undertaken to carry out further checking. Hopefully we will be able to resolve this area of doubt.

11th October 2010, 12:03 AM	#10
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,047	Thank you Detlef, and my apologies. This error has been corrected.

11th October 2010, 10:19 AM	#13
guwaya Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 45	[/QUOTE] Here now the closest translation I am able to do: In the keraton of Yogyakarta, the panakawan (serving peers, pages), if they appear with bare upper part of the body and feather performed hair-decoration without headscarf (semut gatut), are wearing ukiran of the form of human and animistic gestalt, in the design of jagung (maize-) Kolben or flowers which are called gana, as well as some tree-roots resembling the human figure. The translation is a bit bumpy but I prefered to leave it as litterally as possible. Regards

11th October 2010, 11:45 AM	#14
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,047	Thank you very much Guwaya. You have illustrated beautifully what I had begun to suspect, that is, that the source of the name "gana" being applied to these tree root natural forms has been the incorrect quotation in Huyser. Your translation agrees in the crucial part with the Richardus/ Rogers translation, so I now believe that there can be no doubt that the application of the name "gana" to the natural tree root hilt form is incorrect. We do not know if there ever has been a specific name for this form. Apart from clarifying an error that has been ongoing for a very long time, this little exercise has demonstrated that the use of sources other than an original to provide a quotation is fraught with danger. I can think of any number of such cases in books that deal with the keris, and I am certain that the same problem would occur in other fields. We must always go to the original.

11th October 2010, 01:05 PM	#16
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,047	Thanks for that additional input Kai. In the interpretations of both Guwaya and Richardus/Rogers there is a clear separation between two groups of hilt forms:- group 1 is the human + animal + corn + flower motifs, and all these motifs are known as the "gana" form group 2 is the form from tree roots resembling the human form. You have raised a doubt in respect of both these translations by identifying a deficiency in grammar. However, I believe that Guwaya is also a native speaker of German, and he seemed not to note this possibility of an alternate interpretation. Earlier today I emailed Tim Rogers with several questions in respect of this translation, the answers to which, I believe will put the cap on this matter. When I receive a response I will advise. As for corn-cob = gunungan, that might be another good question for investigation. When and where did this association first get aired?