M a j a p a h i t R e v i s i t e d

A. G. Maisey · 29th June 2007, 11:07 PM

Pak Ganja, I think we may be a little confused here.

The booklet :- "Pakem Doewoeng Angka I, Wesi Adji", and was printed by Stroomdrukkerij "De Bliksem".It is not in Javanese script, but is in romanised script.It is not a history of keris, nor a history of the writings on keris, it is a guidebook (pakem) on the various types of iron.It is exactly the booklet which forms the first part of your three books bound as one, at least, this is so, judging from the first page which you were kind enough to publish for us.

The manuscript noted as the property of PB IX is in Javanese script, and that is also not a historiography of keris, but is in very much the form that your romanised version takes-----"King So&So of Far Far Away also had keris made, not only copies of previous dapurs, but also the new dapurs such&such, and such&such, which were made by Empu Whatshisname in the Saka year whatever".Then, under this script are drawings of the dapurs. It then has a part which lists the ricikan for each dapur, after this is mention of the bringing of the Prambanan meteorite to Surakarta,then it gives the philosophical meanings of the various ricikan and prabot.

I apologise for being less than clear in my previous post.

Yes, the stories attached to the old empus can be very interesting reading, but we should remember that they form a part of folk myth, and cannot be taken as history. Just as the content of the babads may have had a factual foundation, but this content was distorted for political and other reasons, so the folk myths also most likely had a factual foundation, but were distorted by popular belief, confusion, and the universal desire to believe in the interesting and incredible.A little bit like Arthur and the sword in the stone.

However, be that as it may, nobody can argue that the name of Kinom is not the most famous of all the empus. I think if he had personally made, or even been involved in the making of all the keris that I have seen that were attributed to him, he would have had to live to the age of 501, not merely 105.

Pak Ganja,regarding the "200 karya", I suspect that the source you are drawing on may have translated this incorrectly. At that time in Jawa--- and in fact, up until quite recently--- awards of land were given as a number of households (cacah), so Pangeran Sendang was given an area of land that contained 200 cacah, or workers, counting only the head of the house.The original text may possibly have been rendered as "cacah molo" (house count), or "cacah wuwung" (roof count). The purpose of giving the land was to provide the recipient with a living, so the actual gift was not so much the land, but rather the productivity of the land, which was gauged by the number of households it could support.

ganjawulung · 30th June 2007, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

The booklet :- "Pakem Doewoeng Angka I, Wesi Adji", and was printed by Stroomdrukkerij "De Bliksem".It is not in Javanese script, but is in romanised script.It is not a history of keris, nor a history of the writings on keris, it is a guidebook (pakem) on the various types of iron.It is exactly the booklet which forms the first part of your three books bound as one, at least, this is so, judging from the first page which you were kind enough to publish for us.

The manuscript noted as the property of PB IX is in Javanese script, and that is also not a historiography of keris, but is in very much the form that your romanised version takes-----"King So&So of Far Far Away also had keris made, not only copies of previous dapurs, but also the new dapurs such&such, and such&such, which were made by Empu Whatshisname in the Saka year whatever".Then, under this script are drawings of the dapurs. It then has a part which lists the ricikan for each dapur, after this is mention of the bringing of the Prambanan meteorite to Surakarta,then it gives the philosophical meanings of the various ricikan and prabot.

Yes, the stories attached to the old empus can be very interesting reading, but we should remember that they form a part of folk myth, and cannot be taken as history. Just as the content of the babads may have had a factual foundation, but this content was distorted for political and other reasons, so the folk myths also most likely had a factual foundation, but were distorted by popular belief, confusion, and the universal desire to believe in the interesting and incredible.A little bit like Arthur and the sword in the stone.

Pak Ganja,regarding the "200 karya", I suspect that the source you are drawing on may have translated this incorrectly. At that time in Jawa--- and in fact, up until quite recently--- awards of land were given as a number of households (cacah), so Pangeran Sendang was given an area of land that contained 200 cacah, or workers, counting only the head of the house.The original text may possibly have been rendered as "cacah molo" (house count), or "cacah wuwung" (roof count). The purpose of giving the land was to provide the recipient with a living, so the actual gift was not so much the land, but rather the productivity of the land, which was gauged by the number of households it could support.

Dear Alan,
I just wrote in this post, what was written. Of course, that's not the truth. But at least, the writings were like that. Still, these are useful for our interpretation on that old time.

These are more fotos of the Javanese script of the same book...

Ganjawulung

A. G. Maisey · 30th June 2007, 04:19 AM

Yes, no argument Pak Ganja, and of course I realise that you are only passing on what is in front of you.

While it is true that the word "cacah" is the one most frequently encountered in the gifting of land, the word "karya" could have been used; my notes tell me that a "karya" as a unit of measurement equals 4 bau, and a bau equals 7000 square meters, so if "karya" was the word used, it means that the gift of land to Pangeran Sendang was something like 560 hectares, or nearly 1400 acres. Not a bad slab of land.

I agree that the myths, beliefs, legends, babads and all literary sources are of use in assisting an understanding of previous times, however, we strike a problem with the popular myths , because we do not necessarily know exactly when the myth that we hear, or read, took the form that it is in when we encounter it. It may be a story that refers to the 14th century, but the form that we hear it in could well be no older than a few generations, and it may have originated a long time after the actual events that it relates .Everything changes with time, and stories are no exception. Still, even a vastly corrupted story can be of value as a reflection of attitudes and mores.

The new photos of book pages that you show are from "Kerata Keris", for the title page, and the page with the single keris at upper left.

The other page, with the keris laying down, is from "Dapur Curigo", same publisher, Solo, 1928.

Along with "Wesi Aji", it looks like these three little booklets followed one another in publication:- Kerata Keris in 1928, Wesi Aji in 1929, and Dapur Curigo in 1929.

The romanised "Wesi Aji" appeared in 1934..

I do have these three booklets in Jawa script, along with Indonesian translations, I've got Wesi Aji in roman script, and of course I prefer to use that, I'm not sure if I've got Kerata Keris and Dapur Curigo in roman script, or not.Might have, but I've spent enough time looking through files.

I think this has been a very valuable discussion, as it puts the concept of "old book" into context for those people who do not have direct access to these "old" books. I have yet to encounter anything written on tangguh, dapur, philosophical interpretations---etc, etc , etc---in other words, the things that make up "krisologie" at the present time, that goes back before The Silsilah. Virtually all of the popular works that are referred to as "old books" date from the 1920's and 1930's. The manuscript that I referred to in an earlier post is only 19th century---PB IX.
In the context of keris discussion, these sources cannot be considered "old".
Yes, admitted, the authors of these "old books" often quote incredibly ancient sources for what they write. I find it strange that none of these ancient sources seem to have come to light. Still---interesting reading, and all these "old books" do allow us to form an opinion of the mindset and value system of the writers and the people for whom the books were originally written.

ganjawulung · 30th June 2007, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

While it is true that the word "cacah" is the one most frequently encountered in the gifting of land, the word "karya" could have been used; my notes tell me that a "karya" as a unit of measurement equals 4 bau, and a bau equals 7000 square meters, so if "karya" was the word used, it means that the gift of land to Pangeran Sendang was something like 560 hectares, or nearly 1400 acres. Not a bad slab of land.

Dear Alan,

Actually, the word "cacah" is still used in Java until now. The literal translation of it, is "counts". We still use it, as "cacah jiwo" for instance, that means "sensus". Jiwo means soul or spirit. One person regarded he has only one soul or spirit. So, the habitude of Javanese in counting the number of person is not "body", but "soul". Three persons, we call it in Javanese "three souls" or "three spirit'. So "cacah jiwo" literaly means "counting the souls"...

Cacah is not the word of unity of width or length. This is often mistakenly understood-- even by the Dutch in the past. I think it is good to if I quote another source of "counting". This is from the late Kanjeng Pangeran Haryo (KPH) Mandoyokusumo from Karaton Ngayogyakarta Hadiningrat, under title of "Cacahing Siti Satanah Jawi" (The counting of lands all over Java Island).

The biggest unity of width -- according to this note (which based the source on "Serat Babad Sangkala Hageng" or Letters of Babad Great Times) -- is "garumbul". It is difficult to explain this. But, you may take it lightly as you regard from afar, groups of bushes or trees that is "garumbul".

And than, the lesser unity is a "bahu" or "bau" (yes, around 700m square). Every "two bahus" that is "one kikil". And every "two kikils" then you may counts as "cacah sajung" or "it counts one jung".

This counts then changed in the different era. But, according to this Yogyakarta notes, in the year of Javanese year 1030 (1108 CE) King of Purwacarita Kingdom, named as King Widdayaka, gave the responsibility to his people on the kingdom's lands. Every "cacah sabahu" (every one bahu) was the responsibility of one villager. "One kikil" of lands or the same amount of "two bahus" for the responsibility of 2 villagers. One jung, for 4 villagers.. and so on.

On the year of Javanese 1064 (1142 CE), according to this Yogyakarta's note, another king of Purwacarita, during the reign of Prabu Sri Maha Punggung change a bit this measurements of lands. Or modified a bit. One jung (two kikils, or four bahus) called as 4 karywa or karya. One kikil, then changed as two karya, and one bahu changed as one karya... and so on. This new measurements came from the "king of tani" (peasants king) Prabu Sri Manuhun from Bagelen....

Prabu Sri Maha Punggung then made more change in measurements, such unity as: "sabelah", "sagedeng", "sahamet", and "sawuwa". But too long to explain them here...

Ganjawulung

ganjawulung · 30th June 2007, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ganjawulung

And than, the lesser unity is a "bahu" or "bau" (yes, around 700m square)....

Sorry for the mistake, I mean a "bahu" is around 7.000 m square...

A. G. Maisey · 30th June 2007, 08:15 AM

Pak Ganja, I thank you profusely for your further explanation.

Yes, I know that cacah is modern Javanese, I also know that it means a number or an amount.It has the alternate meaning of a census, and it can be combined with a number of other words in more or less standard usage, such as "cacah eri", "cacah sirah", and so on.Used as "cacah wuwung" it is the counting unit for households.

I do understand very clearly that it is not anything at all to do with a measurement of width, length, or breadth, or area and I offer my most humble apologies for the inadequacy of my writing in my previous post which has caused you such confusion.

That post read, in part:-

At that time in Jawa--- and in fact, up until quite recently--- awards of land were given as a number of households (cacah), so Pangeran Sendang was given an area of land that contained 200 cacah, or workers, counting only the head of the house.The original text may possibly have been rendered as "cacah molo" (house count), or "cacah wuwung" (roof count). The purpose of giving the land was to provide the recipient with a living, so the actual gift was not so much the land, but rather the productivity of the land, which was gauged by the number of households it could support.

The number of households was not only used as a measure of potential income, but was also used in calculation of available men,in the raising of levies.

This focus on households to measure value of an area, rather than on measured physical size is culturally and historically understandable when we consider the situation in old Jawa, where it would seem that the ruler or lord relied for his power on the number of households over which he held control, rather than the area of land. His power base was people, rather than area, and this power base was maintained by the giving of gifts, political manipulation, and coercion, rather than by force.(Pigeaud)

Thus, when gifts of land were made, it was most often not the land that was given, but rather, the right to income from the people who lived on that land. Where actual land was given, it was usually an undeveloped area of forest. It does not seem logical that undeveloped land would be given to a man of very advanced years.

Pak Ganja, I thank you most sincerely for the additional information in respect of these old Javanese standards of measurement. I assure you, I have never encountered the word "garumbul". Most enlightening.I find it fascinating that the standards of land measurement seemed to constantly change, however, when we consider the root of "bau" it becomes understandable, because with "bau" we are talking about a unit of manpower, thus, the ruler was adjusting the area of land in accordance with the nature of the land and thus the capacity of a single man to work a defined area. If these old records were subjected to careful analysis it could well be that under a single ruler , we may find that the physical area of a bau varied from region to region.Again, a culturally logical way in which to measure:- since power and authority was based on people, why not use people as the foundation for measurement of area? Perhaps a slightly different way of thinking to what we are now accustomed to, but a perfectly logical one.Most especially if one wishes to maximise the return from any area of land.

ganjawulung · 1st July 2007, 06:15 AM

Dear Alan,

These are more pictures of two other book on keris. The first one is from Karaton Surakarta -- the big size book, consist of "kertas minyak" paper (oily paper?). And, the second and third fotocopy are from a book in Radya Pustaka Museum, Surakarta. I am still trying to translate the later book, from my Javanese philologist friend. The first one was published (but in roman script)for public in a very limited circulation or edition.

Ganjawulung

1st July 2007, 06:15 AM	#7
ganjawulung Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: J a k a r t a Posts: 991	On Dhapur Keris Dear Alan, These are more pictures of two other book on keris. The first one is from Karaton Surakarta -- the big size book, consist of "kertas minyak" paper (oily paper?). And, the second and third fotocopy are from a book in Radya Pustaka Museum, Surakarta. I am still trying to translate the later book, from my Javanese philologist friend. The first one was published (but in roman script)for public in a very limited circulation or edition. Ganjawulung Attached Images

29th June 2007, 11:07 PM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,043	Pak Ganja, I think we may be a little confused here. The booklet :- "Pakem Doewoeng Angka I, Wesi Adji", and was printed by Stroomdrukkerij "De Bliksem".It is not in Javanese script, but is in romanised script.It is not a history of keris, nor a history of the writings on keris, it is a guidebook (pakem) on the various types of iron.It is exactly the booklet which forms the first part of your three books bound as one, at least, this is so, judging from the first page which you were kind enough to publish for us. The manuscript noted as the property of PB IX is in Javanese script, and that is also not a historiography of keris, but is in very much the form that your romanised version takes-----"King So&So of Far Far Away also had keris made, not only copies of previous dapurs, but also the new dapurs such&such, and such&such, which were made by Empu Whatshisname in the Saka year whatever".Then, under this script are drawings of the dapurs. It then has a part which lists the ricikan for each dapur, after this is mention of the bringing of the Prambanan meteorite to Surakarta,then it gives the philosophical meanings of the various ricikan and prabot. I apologise for being less than clear in my previous post. Yes, the stories attached to the old empus can be very interesting reading, but we should remember that they form a part of folk myth, and cannot be taken as history. Just as the content of the babads may have had a factual foundation, but this content was distorted for political and other reasons, so the folk myths also most likely had a factual foundation, but were distorted by popular belief, confusion, and the universal desire to believe in the interesting and incredible.A little bit like Arthur and the sword in the stone. However, be that as it may, nobody can argue that the name of Kinom is not the most famous of all the empus. I think if he had personally made, or even been involved in the making of all the keris that I have seen that were attributed to him, he would have had to live to the age of 501, not merely 105. Pak Ganja,regarding the "200 karya", I suspect that the source you are drawing on may have translated this incorrectly. At that time in Jawa--- and in fact, up until quite recently--- awards of land were given as a number of households (cacah), so Pangeran Sendang was given an area of land that contained 200 cacah, or workers, counting only the head of the house.The original text may possibly have been rendered as "cacah molo" (house count), or "cacah wuwung" (roof count). The purpose of giving the land was to provide the recipient with a living, so the actual gift was not so much the land, but rather the productivity of the land, which was gauged by the number of households it could support.

30th June 2007, 04:19 AM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,043	Yes, no argument Pak Ganja, and of course I realise that you are only passing on what is in front of you. While it is true that the word "cacah" is the one most frequently encountered in the gifting of land, the word "karya" could have been used; my notes tell me that a "karya" as a unit of measurement equals 4 bau, and a bau equals 7000 square meters, so if "karya" was the word used, it means that the gift of land to Pangeran Sendang was something like 560 hectares, or nearly 1400 acres. Not a bad slab of land. I agree that the myths, beliefs, legends, babads and all literary sources are of use in assisting an understanding of previous times, however, we strike a problem with the popular myths , because we do not necessarily know exactly when the myth that we hear, or read, took the form that it is in when we encounter it. It may be a story that refers to the 14th century, but the form that we hear it in could well be no older than a few generations, and it may have originated a long time after the actual events that it relates .Everything changes with time, and stories are no exception. Still, even a vastly corrupted story can be of value as a reflection of attitudes and mores. The new photos of book pages that you show are from "Kerata Keris", for the title page, and the page with the single keris at upper left. The other page, with the keris laying down, is from "Dapur Curigo", same publisher, Solo, 1928. Along with "Wesi Aji", it looks like these three little booklets followed one another in publication:- Kerata Keris in 1928, Wesi Aji in 1929, and Dapur Curigo in 1929. The romanised "Wesi Aji" appeared in 1934.. I do have these three booklets in Jawa script, along with Indonesian translations, I've got Wesi Aji in roman script, and of course I prefer to use that, I'm not sure if I've got Kerata Keris and Dapur Curigo in roman script, or not.Might have, but I've spent enough time looking through files. I think this has been a very valuable discussion, as it puts the concept of "old book" into context for those people who do not have direct access to these "old" books. I have yet to encounter anything written on tangguh, dapur, philosophical interpretations---etc, etc , etc---in other words, the things that make up "krisologie" at the present time, that goes back before The Silsilah. Virtually all of the popular works that are referred to as "old books" date from the 1920's and 1930's. The manuscript that I referred to in an earlier post is only 19th century---PB IX. In the context of keris discussion, these sources cannot be considered "old". Yes, admitted, the authors of these "old books" often quote incredibly ancient sources for what they write. I find it strange that none of these ancient sources seem to have come to light. Still---interesting reading, and all these "old books" do allow us to form an opinion of the mindset and value system of the writers and the people for whom the books were originally written.

30th June 2007, 08:15 AM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,043	Pak Ganja, I thank you profusely for your further explanation. Yes, I know that cacah is modern Javanese, I also know that it means a number or an amount.It has the alternate meaning of a census, and it can be combined with a number of other words in more or less standard usage, such as "cacah eri", "cacah sirah", and so on.Used as "cacah wuwung" it is the counting unit for households. I do understand very clearly that it is not anything at all to do with a measurement of width, length, or breadth, or area and I offer my most humble apologies for the inadequacy of my writing in my previous post which has caused you such confusion. That post read, in part:- At that time in Jawa--- and in fact, up until quite recently--- awards of land were given as a number of households (cacah), so Pangeran Sendang was given an area of land that contained 200 cacah, or workers, counting only the head of the house.The original text may possibly have been rendered as "cacah molo" (house count), or "cacah wuwung" (roof count). The purpose of giving the land was to provide the recipient with a living, so the actual gift was not so much the land, but rather the productivity of the land, which was gauged by the number of households it could support. The number of households was not only used as a measure of potential income, but was also used in calculation of available men,in the raising of levies. This focus on households to measure value of an area, rather than on measured physical size is culturally and historically understandable when we consider the situation in old Jawa, where it would seem that the ruler or lord relied for his power on the number of households over which he held control, rather than the area of land. His power base was people, rather than area, and this power base was maintained by the giving of gifts, political manipulation, and coercion, rather than by force.(Pigeaud) Thus, when gifts of land were made, it was most often not the land that was given, but rather, the right to income from the people who lived on that land. Where actual land was given, it was usually an undeveloped area of forest. It does not seem logical that undeveloped land would be given to a man of very advanced years. Pak Ganja, I thank you most sincerely for the additional information in respect of these old Javanese standards of measurement. I assure you, I have never encountered the word "garumbul". Most enlightening.I find it fascinating that the standards of land measurement seemed to constantly change, however, when we consider the root of "bau" it becomes understandable, because with "bau" we are talking about a unit of manpower, thus, the ruler was adjusting the area of land in accordance with the nature of the land and thus the capacity of a single man to work a defined area. If these old records were subjected to careful analysis it could well be that under a single ruler , we may find that the physical area of a bau varied from region to region.Again, a culturally logical way in which to measure:- since power and authority was based on people, why not use people as the foundation for measurement of area? Perhaps a slightly different way of thinking to what we are now accustomed to, but a perfectly logical one.Most especially if one wishes to maximise the return from any area of land.