Help with Identification please

[Sajen]

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]

Thank you Detlef, and my apologies.

This error has been corrected.

[guwaya]

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]

[/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]

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]

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

... 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]

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]

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

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you Guwaya.

It seems we can have an alternate interpretation.

Let's see what sort of answer I get back to my questions.

And here is the online translation:-

"In the Kraton of Jogjakarta who have panakawan (serving young noblemen, pages) if they Bared chest and feathered hair ornaments, without a headscarf appear (Gatete semut) ukiran in the form of human and animal figures, in the form of djagung (corn) ear or flowers. the gana be called, as well as some of the human image resembling tree Wurzen."

which seems to come down on the side of Richardus/Rogers, and Guwaya's original tranalation.

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

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.

Actually Alan, from the translations i am reading here i would say that there a are three distinct groups being discussed. There is a comma to seperate each group, at least in everyones translations. First after the human/animal hits, then the corn or flower hilts also called gana, as well as some tree-roots resembling the human figure.
That seems like three groups to me and the natural root hilts seem to have been mistakenly lumped in with the corn/flower hilts known as gana.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes David, I agree with you, it could be read the way you are reading it.

Apparently in the original, it can also be read as Kai and Guwaya have suggested, in another way, which includes the root form hilts as gana.

I have not the smallest understanding of German, I can only look at the translations, so possibly this has now become a job for a professional translator.

The reason I say this is because on the two occasions in the past where I was involved in a legal matters which hinged on translations I discovered that a professional translator does not look at a single passage out of the context of an entire work written by the same person. In judging the intended meaning of a passage, or even a word, the professional will not necessarily stick strictly with a grammatically correct reading, but will take account of the manner in which the writer expresses himself.

I have had a response from Tim, who has advised me that Peter Richardus did the translation from the original German text, and that he (Tim) checked Peter's English and any passages about which he had doubts, back to the original German. It would seem that this translation has full integrity and perhaps may be able to accepted as correct. However, Tim has undertaken to do further checking, and he will get back to me when the matter is beyond doubt.

[Henk]

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]

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]

Hello Alan,

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

This is definitely wrong (based on German grammar):
The human and animal forms cannot be associated with the name gana.

BTW, corn cob or flower are alternative descriptions for something perceived by Groneman as a single hilt type (he utilized "or" rather than "and"). I assume flowers refer to the more florally carved examples of this "corn cob" hilt type.

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

Ok, well after the 15th century, for sure.

I'll let someone else start a seperate thread on this topic though...

Regards,
Kai

[kai]

Hello Guwaya,

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

Just to add a bit of confusion for all of us: It is possible that gana only refers to flowers. As stated above, Groneman treats them together with corn cobs as a single hilt type though.

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

Yes, there definitely is some ambiguity in the cited text and we won't be able to resolve the intended meaning with certainty. By analyzing Groneman's publications for writing style, etc. as well as taking contemporary Dutch and German grammar into account, we may be able to define probabilities for the intended meaning but IMHO we won't be able to resolve the question for sure.

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.

Yes, I agree: Unless we find an additional early field report, it seems best to just stop utilizing the word gana since it's meaning at the early 20th c. Yogya keraton is ambiguous and hasn't been independently verified, anyway.

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?

There is something at odds here, grammatically. Just for fun, I'll check back with linguists to verify.

Regards,
Kai

[Sajen]

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

[A. G. Maisey]

Kai, as I have already said, I know nothing of German, thus I can only understand what is written in English.

If you tell us that in German what has been written is difficult to be be certain of, if Guwaya recognises that it can be read in a couple of different ways, if Detlef needs to read the same text several times to come to a clear understanding, and if David can find an alternative understanding in the English translation, with which I agree, I really do think that our attempts to clarify this matter have gone well beyond our abilities. I consider that this has become a job for a certified translator, not a linguist, that is to my understanding a separate field again, but a translator, preferably one who specialises in legal translations.

Hopefully when I get complete feedback from Tim Rogers and through him from Peter Richardus, we may have something that we can accept without confusion.

Hopefully.

Edit

It has occurred to me that my "--- not a linguist---" above could be misunderstood as a rejection.

Its not.

I feel that at this point any expert opinion must carry more weight than our opinions, however in accordance with my understanding, and my understanding could be in error, a linguist is one who studies one or more languages and can specialise in a particular aspect of language, whereas a translator is one who reproduces in a language other than the original, the intent of the writer in the original language.

This is why I keep harping on the "certified translator" theme.

Kai, if you have access to relevant linguists, I am certain that we would welcome their opinions.

[kai]

And here is the online translation:-

"In the Kraton of Jogjakarta who have panakawan (serving young noblemen, pages) if they Bared chest and feathered hair ornaments, without a headscarf appear (Gatete semut) ukiran in the form of human and animal figures, in the form of djagung (corn) ear or flowers. the gana be called, as well as some of the human image resembling tree Wurzen."

which seems to come down on the side of Richardus/Rogers, and Guwaya's original tranalation.

Nah, garbled and missing words, etc.

I guess we can agree that automatic translations will only help to muddle waters in cases where native speakers are struggling to dissect a complicated text.

Not wanting to be too pedantic - just to avoid misconceptions.

Regards,
Kai

[kai]

Hello David,

from the translations i am reading here i would say that there a are three distinct groups being discussed. There is a comma to seperate each group, at least in everyones translations.

The use of a comma is different in German and English and in this case just doesn't help to solve the issue (it's necessary to seperate this part of the sentence: "die gana genannt werden").

Regards,
Kai

[kai]

Hello Alan,

on the two occasions in the past where I was involved in a legal matters which hinged on translations I discovered that a professional translator does not look at a single passage out of the context of an entire work written by the same person. In judging the intended meaning of a passage, or even a word, the professional will not necessarily stick strictly with a grammatically correct reading, but will take account of the manner in which the writer expresses himself.

Yes, but unless Groneman can be shown to always utilize the same stylistic "trick" this will only help to establish probabilities of what he meant to write rather than a clear case for any of the possibilities.

BTW, in this case, the sentences preceeding and following the one under discussion don't seem to bear any relevance to clear up his passing remark on the word gana, does it?

Regards,
Kai

[kai]

Hello Henk,

"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

[A. G. Maisey]

Kai, I'm not prepared to discuss, nor to debate the professional skills of accredited or sworn translators.

This is not my area of expertise. My skills are concerned with identifying a deficiency and seeking the right advice from the right person to correct that deficiency. In this case there would appear to be a deficiency in the original text produced by Gronemann. This text was probably produced in the late 19th century, or early 20th century, so what we need is a translator, or perhaps as you suggest, a linguist who is skilled in understanding the idiosyncrasies of the German language during that period of time. We need a professional who can swear that his translation does reflect the intent of the writer.

Now, I have no idea at all how a translator is able to do this, but I have seen them get up in a court of law and so swear, and I have seen that sworn evidence accepted by all concerned.

In this matter there is only one thing to be clarified, I believe, and that is this:-

did Groneman intend the word "gana" to be applied to root-form hilts ?

Yes?

No?

or

Maybe?

That's all we need to know to put this matter to sleep.

I have already made enquiries that I hope will give us a definite result, but I am sure that we would welcome any contribution to the resolution of this question that you may be able to bring to the table.

[guwaya]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Kai, I'm not prepared to discuss, nor to debate the professional skills of accredited or sworn translators.

This is not my area of expertise. My skills are concerned with identifying a deficiency and seeking the right advice from the right person to correct that deficiency. In this case there would appear to be a deficiency in the original text produced by Gronemann. This text was probably produced in the late 19th century, or early 20th century, so what we need is a translator, or perhaps as you suggest, a linguist who is skilled in understanding the idiosyncrasies of the German language during that period of time. We need a professional who can swear that his translation does reflect the intent of the writer.

Now, I have no idea at all how a translator is able to do this, but I have seen them get up in a court of law and so swear, and I have seen that sworn evidence accepted by all concerned.

In this matter there is only one thing to be clarified, I believe, and that is this:-

did Groneman intend the word "gana" to be applied to root-form hilts ?

Yes?

No?

or

Maybe?

That's all we need to know to put this matter to sleep.

I have already made enquiries that I hope will give us a definite result, but I am sure that we would welcome any contribution to the resolution of this question that you may be able to bring to the table.

I support A. G. Maisey's proposal to put the matter to sleep, otherwise this theme will be "discussed" in best German (and Dutch?) tradition for the next weeks without a result and with loosing the red wire. A "Maybe" should be enough for the moment and I like to stop here with a hint to my formerly made statement:

"It seems that the use of gana is only to read at Groneman (the others took it from Groneman) and" - independently from the exact translation of Gronemn's statement - the use of gana "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."

Thanks

[A. G. Maisey]

I agree Guwaya, that currently we have a "maybe" situation, but all avenues of enquiry have not yet been exhausted. I have contacted one of the original translators for the English edition of Groneman, and he has undertaken to pursue this matter. Kai has suggested that he may be able to obtain an opinion from one or more linguists. Then there are the other avenues of enquiry that have not yet been mentioned. I feel that eventually we will obtain a definite answer to this question.

But for the time being, yes, its a "maybe".

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by kai

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

Hello Kai,
go to # 146, there you'll find the picture!

Regards,

Detlef

[Henk]

I read the German part wich is the original statement of dr. Groneman.
The German part is identical to the translated part in Dutch. I speak, write and understand the German language very well.

In my opinion we have not a maybe but a definitive no. Dr. Groneman did not intend the word "gana" to be applied to root-form hilts in this part of his statement.

But....... the citate of J.G. Huyse is refering to something that has the look of leloehoer-statues called gana-gana where gana is refering to the representing of the human shape. But the citate doesn't mention a hilt from treeroot.

[A. G. Maisey]

I previously advised that I had requested assistance in the gaining of clarification of Groneman's text, from one of the original translators into English.

This translator is Timothy Rogers of Oxford. He has conducted a thorough investigation of this troublesome passage, in both the German and Dutch versions, including consultation with a professional translator in German and Dutch, and he has provided me with the following findings:-

1)--- the original German is grammatically flawed and is ambiguous

2)--- it is possible for the word "gana" to refer to all the hilt types mentioned, or to only one hilt type, possibly only to the type mentioned as flowers.

3)--- an interpretation is often a matter of taking a decision in respect of the most likely probability.

4)--- the most likely probability in this case is that the word "gana" in this passage refers to both corn cobs and flowers, and does not refer to humans, animals, nor hilts made from tree roots resembling humans.

5)--- both the Huyser version of this text, and the English version of the text favour the interpretation that "gana" refers only to the corn cob/flower type of hilt.

6)--- it is likely that because of the grammatically flawed German this passage has previously been misunderstood and the name "gana" has been erroneously applied to the hilts made from tree roots resembling the human form.


I believe the findings as reported by Tim Rogers endorse the opinions of Kai and Guwaya, in respect of the ambiguity of the original German text, but they have provided the perspective of a professional point of view in respect of intended meaning.

Based upon this, I am of the opinion that the name "gana" has been used in error for a very long time. Dr. Groneman's misunderstood text has seen this name applied to hilts of various materials that have been formed by nature, rather than by man. In fact, Dr. Groneman's initial reference was only to hilts coming from tree roots, and which resembled the human form. He did not intend the name "gana" to be applied to this type of hilt.

Dr. Groneman's text can no longer be employed as legitimisation for the erroneous use of this term"gana".