|
18th June 2007, 11:10 AM
|
#1 |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: J a k a r t a
Posts: 991
|
M a j a p a h i t R e v i s i t e d
Dear All and TC,
Sorry for the inconvenience of moving this topic from other thread. Forgive me TC, I move this from your thread "First Keris"... And the caption, "Majapahit Revisited" was quoted from PenangsangII post. Ganjawulung K a i ________________________________________ Hello Ganjawulung, Quote: Thanks Shahrial, Penangsang, Kai, Your advice is very useful to determine my next choice. The common mistakes of people like me is: treating other kerises as if Javanese kerises. I'll keep in mind your advice... You're welcome! We have to keep in mind that there a quite a few local keris traditions which may differ pretty much in certain respects while others may be shared. OTOH, there has also been extensive cross-pollination (the Jawa-Palembang connection comes to mind as well as the spread of Bugis-influenced styles). I like this diversity! However, I always wondered wether different blade types may have been treated differently in some of the more diverse locations - for example in the Palembang sultanate. Any historic sources/hints that I missed? Regards, Kai G a n j a w u l u n g ________________________________________ Quote: Originally Posted by kai We have to keep in mind that there a quite a few local keris traditions which may differ pretty much in certain respects while others may be shared. OTOH, there has also been extensive cross-pollination (the Jawa-Palembang connection comes to mind as well as the spread of Bugis-influenced styles). I like this diversity! Yes Kai, I like the diversity of this keris world too... Sometimes, I look back too far.. It was part of our history. The cross-pollination (I quote your word) at least had happened back in the 13th century. And Sang Adityawarman (Tuanku Janaka, Abhiseka Mantrolot) the founder of Pagarruyung (Minangkabau) kingdom (1339) was a Malay-blood who had been grown up in Majapahit... Read the interesting books from Prof Dr Slamet Muljana (The Fall of Hindu-Javanese Kingdoms and The Rise of Islamic States in Nusantara -- Runtuhnya Kerajaan Hindu-Jawa dan Timbulnya Negara-negara Islam di Nusantara, 1968 reprinted 2005). Or "Sriwijaya" from the same author. "Pamalayu Expedition" which was sent by Singasari kingdom (1275), they went back to Java -- bringing two Malay ladies (in Indonesian version, we called the two sisters as Dara Jingga and Dara Petak). Dara Petak was married to Raden Wijaya -- the then founder of the Majapahit kingdom (1294). Their son was king Jayanegara. While Dara Jingga was married to a Singasari hero in Sumatera, (the local name: Adwayawarman). The son was Adityawarman.. (See some versions of WF Stutterheim, Prof CC Berg and Prof VG Kern). Or the diversity of Bugis. After the fall of Gowa 1669 (in the hand of Vereenig-de Oost-Indische Compagnie, VOC), the Bugis warriors were spread. And the East Javanese leader, Trunajaya was established his power in Madura. Trunajaya organised the rebellion against Mataram's ruller of Amangkurat I -- the successor of Sultan Agung. Trunajaya organized the eastern power of Nusantara, including the warriors from Bugis. All the ports in Java were occupied, and Mataram was invaded and Plered Palace of Mataram was occupied too (according to the Australian historian, MC Ricklefs) in the end of May or end of June 1677... But, I look back to far, Kai... Ganjawulung P e n a n g s a n g I I ________________________________________ Pak Ganjawulung, Other than keris, history is another subject of my interest, and on Nusantara context, they are often corelated. Pangeran Adityawarman then ruled Palembang after handing over Pagaruyung to his mother, Dara Jingga (matriach system?) then became the ruler (governor?) of Palembang who paid tribute to Majapahit. His grandson, Parameswara , eventually opened Melaka after falling out of favor with Majapahit kingdom. That is why most Palembang & southern Malay Peninsula kerises are very much influenced by the Javanese. G a n j a w u l u n g ________________________________________ Yes Penangsang, Matriarchy. This was also, because of the royal ruler came from woman-royal blood. Dara Jingga and also Dara Petak, were the daughters of Melayu (Dharmasraya) king Tribuwanaraja Mauliwarmadewa. (Analysis from Prof Dr Slamet Muljana -- based on interpretation of old texts: "Kidung Panji Wijayakrama" and "Pararaton" -- see Muljana's book, The Fall of Javanese-Hindu kingdom and the Rise of Islamic States in Nusantara, 1965 reprinted 2005). After the vanishing of Sriwijaya kingdom (San fo t'si, according to old Chinese version), in Sumatera there were two kingdoms: Dharmasraya (located in the then Jambi now) and Palembang. And in 1339, Adityawarman founded a new kingdom in Pagarruyung, after serving in Majapahit kingdom. At that time, Prof Muljana wrote, Adityawarman was 45 years old. About the same age with Jayanegara or Kala Gemet, the Majapahit king and also the son of Raden Wijaya - Dara Petak. That was history... Ganjawulung P e n a n g s a n g I I ________________________________________ Pak Ganja, Were Dara Petak and Tribuana Tunggadewi (not sure of the spelling) the same person? I used to watch vcd's version of Tutur Tinular whereby it was said that Jaya Negara's mother was Tribuana Tunggadewi (who eventually became Ratu Majapahit after the death of his son Jaya Negara). BTW, have you tried to dress your sepokal blade with the matching hulu & sarung? Pics please.... G a n j a w u l u n g ________________________________________ Quote: Originally Posted by PenangsangII ... Were Dara Petak and Tribuana Tunggadewi (not sure of the spelling) the same person? I used to watch vcd's version of Tutur Tinular whereby it was said that Jaya Negara's mother was Tribuana Tunggadewi (who eventually became Ratu Majapahit after the death of his son Jaya Negara). BTW, have you tried to dress your sepokal blade with the matching hulu & sarung? Pics please.... Dear Penangsang, Dara Petak was not the same person with Tribuana Tunggadewi. In Majapahit, based on interpretation of "Pararaton" text, Dara Petak was named as Indreswari. Beside Indreswari (Dara Petak), Raden Wijaya had two other wives from king Kertanegara's daughters (of Singasari). They were Gayatri and Tribuana or Tribuwanatunggadewi... Indreswari was able to "compete" with the two other Kertanegara's princesses, and became the first lady of Majapahit at that time. But the internal conflict between royal family was still existing, just because the next throne (Jayanegara) was half "overseas blood". Raden Wijaya or Kertarajasa Jayawardhana reigned 1294-1309. The "half melayu blood" Jayanegara reigned for 19 years from 1309-1328. But then, the throne went to Tribuwanatunggadewi (Jayawisnuwardhani) after 1328... Rajasanegara or more popular as King Hayamwuruk, was the golden age of Majapahit Kingdom, reigned after Tribuwanatunggadewi (not mentioned the year) but until 1389... That was history, according to Prof Dr Slamet Muljana -- based on the old texts of Kidung Wijayakrama, Pararaton and Negarakertagama. And also from some source (prasasti) and Chinese chronicle... My sepokal? No, I am going to return it to my friend in East Java. He told me, that he got another Bugis blade, but I don't see it yet... Ganjawulung P a n g e r a n D a t u I Beg To Differ .... ________________________________________ Quote: Originally Posted by ganjawulung ..., Raden Wijaya had two other wives from king Kertanegara's daughters (of Singasari). They were Gayatri and Tribuana or Tribuwanatunggadewi... Is this another case of: 'History is the ACCEPTABLE version of events and there usually exists more than one'? According to me, Raden Wijaya/Kertarajasa was married to FOUR daughters of Kertanegara, namely, Tribhuwana, Jayendradewi, Prajnyaparamita/Rajendradewi and Gayatri/Rajapatni. Tribhuwana WAS NOT Tribhuwanatunggadewi. Tribhuwanatunggadewi was the daughter of Gayatri and full-sister to Dyah Wiyah Rajadewi. Quote: Originally Posted by ganjawulung ....., reigned after Tribuwanatunggadewi (not mentioned the year) but until 1389... Dyah Hayam Wuruk Sri Rajasanagara ruled in the period: 1351 - 1389 CE. To quote a friend of mine, Supomo Surjohudojo: '... in any tradition it is not the facts, the 'cold' facts, which are the truth, but rather how people see the facts, how people interpret them in accordance with their traditional way of life, and finally how people absorb them into their warm blood so that they become a part of their lives; that is indeed the truth'. Cheers. A. G. M a i s e y ________________________________________ Then there was good ole Bony's opinion:- "History is a set of lies that people have agreed upon" But its all good fun---isn't it? G a n j a w u l u n g ________________________________________ Quote: Originally Posted by Pangeran Datu ....According to me, Raden Wijaya/Kertarajasa was married to FOUR daughters of Kertanegara, namely, Tribhuwana, Jayendradewi, Prajnyaparamita/Rajendradewi and Gayatri/Rajapatni. Tribhuwana WAS NOT Tribhuwanatunggadewi. Tribhuwanatunggadewi was the daughter of Gayatri and full-sister to Dyah Wiyah Rajadewi. Dyah Hayam Wuruk Sri Rajasanagara ruled in the period: 1351 - 1389 CE. . Dear Pangeran Datu, I agree with you, that in many cases, (say it) there is no absolute truth in history. This is a real example. There was a contrary opinion between Prof CC Berg and WF Stutterheim on Adityawarman, although both of them were known as experts on Majapahit era. According to Prof Berg, Dara Jingga was the daughter of Kertanegara (Prof Stutterheim: Dara Jingga was not the daughter of Kertanegara, but the daughter of Melayu King (Dharmasraya king) Tribuwanaraja Mauliwarmadewa. In his book (in Dutch) "De Sadeng-oorlog en de mythe van groot Majapahit". Prof Berg wrote that Dyah Dara Jingga was married to Raden Sanggramawijaya or Kertarajasa Jayawardana (First king of Majapahit). And their son was Arya Damar or Adityawarman. Thus, according to Prof Berg, Adityawarman was the youngest son of Raden Wijaya. Contrary to Mr Stutterheim's opinion. Prof Berg's opinion, according to Prof Dr Slamet Muljana, was also contrary to the old texts of Kidung Panji Wijayakrama (Songs of Panji Wijayakrama) and Pararaton. According to those two old texts, either Dara Jingga or his sister Dara Petak were two Melayu blood, which was brought from "Pamalayu Expedition"... Dara Petak was married to Raden Wijaya, and Dara Jingga actually had been married to Adwayawarman, Singasari's hero who stayed in Sumatera after the Singasari expedition... Yes, you are correct, Tribuana was not Tribuana Tunggadewi. Tribuana and also Gayatri were two daughters of (king of Kediri) Kertanegara. And the two Kertanegara's daughters, had two daughters: Tribuana Tunggadewi (and then called as Bhre Kahuripan) and Rajadevi Maharajasa (Bhre Daha). Jayanegara (the half blood Prince) became king of Majapahit in 1309 CE, and was killed in his bed while ill by Tanca. Tanca than killed by Gajah Mada, the patih of Majapahit. Gajahmada than appointed Bhre Kahuripan (Tribuana Tunggadewi) and Bhre Daha (Rajadevi Maharajasa) as "Rani" (woman-kings) of Majapahit. Tribuana Tunggadewi than married to Kertawardana and their decent was Hayam Wuruk (Abhiseka Rajasanagara), the greatest king of Majapahit kingdom... Quote: Originally Posted by Pangeran Datu To quote a friend of mine, Supomo Surjohudojo: '... in any tradition it is not the facts, the 'cold' facts, which are the truth, but rather how people see the facts, how people interpret them in accordance with their traditional way of life, and finally how people absorb them into their warm blood so that they become a part of their lives; that is indeed the truth'. Cheers. Yes, Pangeran. I agree with your friends opinion.... Bravo! P e n a n g s a n g I I Majapahit revisited ________________________________________ Dear Pak Ganjawulung, So, the great Prabhu Hayam Wuruk was not a direct decendant of Kertarajasa Jayawardana? Another thing, there was a conspiracy theory to oust Prabhu Jayanegara - it was said that Ra Tanca (the palace doctor) was coerced by Patih Gajah Mada & Tribhuwana Tunggadewi to poison the young king who was planning to marry all three of his half sisters. Ra Tanca went along with the plan because of grudges on Jayanegara for stealing his wife and destroying his good friend who had rebelled against Majapahit - Ra Kuti. Coincidently, Patih Gajah Mada was the one who had reinstated Jayanegara by crushing the rebellion. Pak Ganja and all, I would like to add one question, during this turmoil period, what kind (pakem?) of keris used by the courtiers? From what I saw in the movies, the actors were using keris resembling modern Surakarta pieces . My guess is, should'nt it be keris lurus Jalak Sangu Tumpeng made famous by Arya Hanggareksa? P a n g e r a n D a t u ________________________________________ Quote: Originally Posted by PenangsangII .... My guess is, should'nt it be keris lurus Jalak Sangu Tumpeng made famous by Arya Hanggareksa? AsWrWb Hi PenangsangII, I know nothing at all about the film so I may be totally off the mark I assume that you are referring to a film about the Jayanagara era (1309 - 1328). If this is so, then I'm afraid that I'll have to disagree with your suggestion. I believe that the Dapur Jalak Sangu Tumpeng was originally commissioned by Dyah Hayam Wuruk Sri Rajasanagara (1350 - 1389). So there would be a discrepancy of at least two decades. WRT films... one should not take them too seriously, otherwise one may be driven to distraction. Insanity, even. Films need to be taken with a grain of salt ( sometimes, even a whole shaker-full). They tend to exercise artistic licence to the limit; sometimes, even beyond. Cheers. WsWrWb A. G. M a i s e y ________________________________________ Very true Pangeran, very true. But Zulu was pretty spot on---so the experts tell me. Talking of pinches of salt, are you suggesting that we do not need any salt with the beliefs of who commissioned what keris and when? |
|
|
|
18th June 2007, 11:45 AM
|
#2 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 401
|
I am sorry too TC that your thread was somewhat hijacked by the history buffs. But I am glad that Pak Ganjawulung has moved it so that we can discuss Majapahit history further. It's very imperative that we study Majapahit if we are to understand the keris diasphora to most part of Malay archipelago.
Pangeran Datu, I thought dapur Jalak Sangu Tumpeng was created ONLY by Mpu Hanggareksa who lived during Keratanegara's reign (Singhasari), and most likely commissioned by either Kertanegara himself or by Sanggramawijaya after the defeat of Jayakatwang. I guess I'll have to check my facts again at the national library in KL. There goes my weekend plan 
|
|
|
|
|
18th June 2007, 03:20 PM
|
#3 |
|
Vikingsword Staff
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,293
|
Gentlemen
Please, in the future if you wish to change the subject in an existing thread just start a new one; it is so much easier for all to follow rather than to transfer quotes .
Thank you all .  Rick |
|
|
|
|
20th June 2007, 06:56 AM
|
#4 |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: J a k a r t a
Posts: 991
|
Thank You, Rick,
I am so sorry for the incovenience I made... Ganjawulung |
|
|
|
|
20th June 2007, 03:46 PM
|
#5 |
|
Vikingsword Staff
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,293
|
No apology needed Ganjawulung
; I just made a gentle reminder to all our members to please try to stay on the topic of the original post in a thread.Please feel free to continue with this new thread that you have started . My best, Rick |
|
|
|
|
20th June 2007, 05:00 PM
|
#6 |
|
Keris forum moderator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 7,127
|
I agree with Rick. I have seen many threads of late vere off on tangents that have absolutely nothing to do with the original thread. There are many forums out there where the moderators will split such threads, but i (and i believe Rick as well) would rather not get that domineering in the conversation (nor do we have the time
) and sometimes these tangents will lead to something good. So as long as the conversation is civil and in the ballpark of keris or keris culture i am of the mind to let the discussions take theirown course. But if you have sometime new to say that is totally off the subject it is always best to open up a new thread right away. "If you build it, they will come."
|
|
|
|
|
26th June 2007, 06:58 AM
|
#7 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 401
|
Jalak Sangu Tumpeng
Hi all,
My trip to the National Library didnt yield anything WRT keris Jalak Sangu Tumpeng. However, a little information was found right under my nose in the compilation works of A.H. Hill in "The Keris and Other Malay Weapons" that the particular dapur was attributed ONLY to Mpu (Aria) Hanggareksa. According to tutur tinular (unwritten folk lore), keris Jalak Sangu Tumpeng was commissioned by Ranggalawe who was both Singhasari & Majapahit nobleman. |
|
|
|
|
28th June 2007, 04:12 PM
|
#8 | |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: J a k a r t a
Posts: 991
|
Quote:
According to an old Javanese book, "Panangguhing Duwung" (The Tangguh of Keris), King of Majapahit Prabu Brawijaya I commissioned keris with dapur of Jalak Sangutumpeng to Empu Hangga in Tapan in the Caka (Saka) year of 1303 or 1381 CE. (But this is confusing, because according to MC Ricklefs -- A History of Modern Indonesia Since c 1300 -- Brawijaya I or Kertawijaya reigned 1447-1451. There was discrepancy of more than 50 years...) The Javanese text is as follows: "... Pandjenenganipoen nata Praboe Brawidjaja ingkang kapisan, ijasa dedamel, noeroen dedamel dapoer Djalaksangoetoempeng, kalijan dapoer Djalaksamelanggandring, saha dapoer Mangkoerat, toewin dapoer Mangkoenagara, ingkang damel Empoe Hangga ing Tapan, kala ing taoen tjandra-sangkala 1303.." The translation, "His Majesty King Brawijaya the first, commissioned -- copying the dapur Jalak Sangutumpeng, and dapur Jalak Sumelang Gandring, dapur Mangkurat, and also dapur Mangkunagara. Was made by Empu Hangga from Tapan, in the Saka year of 1303..." About who was Empu Hangga, the Javanese book told us that Empu Hangga was the grandson of the well known Pajajaran's Empu Marcukunda. Empu Hangga dwelled in Tapan. During Majapahit era, Empu Hangga from Tapan changed name as Empu Singkir because of "wisik" (whispers) from the late Empu Anjani his grand-grand father, once in his dreaming. Ganjawulung |
|
|
|
|
|
29th June 2007, 01:25 AM
|
#9 |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,897
|
Pak Ganja, I don't know what year Panangguhing Dhuwung ( Mas Ngabehi Wirosoekadgo) was first published, but it mentions PB X, so it is clearly after about 1900, possibly even as late as the 1950's.Incidentally, the text you have quoted from Panangguhing Dhuwung, I cannot locate. I have a photocopy of the edition from the Mangkunegaraan library, and what looks like a second edition without the drawings of keris.I cannot find this text in either edition. Could you assist me by giving me a page number, or a heading? Thanks.
I would like to mention another book, "Silsilah Keturunan Empu Tanah Jawa" (Pangeran Wijil I) When do we think this might have been written? Possibly during the 18th century? I have never done an analysis of "Dhuwung". against "Silsilah", but my reading of both books seems to indicate that a major primary source for what is in "Dhuwung" is Pangeran Wijil's work, this would apply most especially to early periods.If not directly drawn from "Silsilah", it is probably reasonable to assume that it is indirectly drawn from that, because by the time Panangguhing was written, the contents of "Silsilah" had already passed into the belief system If Silsilah Keturunan Empu Tanah Jawa was written in the 18th century, that means it was written 400 years after the period when Empu Hangga might have existed. One must query the sources upon which Pangeran Wijil might have drawn to produce his work, one must also consider the social and political motivation for the production of "Silsilah". As to whom Empu Hangga was, this is Empu Angga , son of Empu Manca, grandson of Marcukunda, great grandson of Empu Anjani, brother of Empus Kuwung, Keleng, and Sombro. Empu Angga's line continued with Empu Jigja, his son, but stopped with his grandson, Empu Mandangkara.Empu Keleng's line continued all the way through to Empu Lujuguna IV, and Empu Maragati. This is from Pangeran Wijil's Silsilah. Possibly it may serve our knowledge of the keris better were we to acknowledge that the "history" of the keris, as preserved in Javanese popular belief has its roots in the writings of court scribes, beginning no earlier than the Kartosuro era. Enquiry into the social and political conditions which prevailed in Jawa during this period may be useful in gaining an understanding of the roots of keris history as a part of Javanese popular belief. |
|
|
|
|
29th June 2007, 06:45 AM
|
#10 | |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: J a k a r t a
Posts: 991
|
Quote:
I don't know, which "Panangguhing Duwung" I have. These are the fotos of the first page of the book, and also the close-up of the page which mention the keris Jalak Sangu Tumpeng (spelled as Djalaksangoetoempeng).. I do hope it will help... Ganjawulung |
|
|
|
|
|
29th June 2007, 08:13 AM
|
#11 |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,897
|
Thanks Pak Ganja.
That text and picture are not in either of the copies I have, so it looks like we have a third version of "Panangguhing". Are you able to give the author and publication details of your copy? |
|
|
|
|
29th June 2007, 09:25 AM
|
#12 |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: J a k a r t a
Posts: 991
|
Three in One
Dear Alan,
This Javanese keris book actually is a trilogy. But was binded in one book. The first part is about keris in general -- the history, the iron and babon (special source) from Cirebon litterature (66 pages), Name of the kings and the kerises they had commissioned was written in the second part (31 pages) and the third part is about dhapurs (30 pages). The book is not thick enough. Altogether only about 127 pages. Not mentioned the year of the printing, nor the publisher. But is seems that it was published by either Kraton solo or the noble man of that palace. Ganjawulung |
|
|
|
|
29th June 2007, 09:36 AM
|
#13 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 401
|
Thanks Pak Ganja, Alan. How I wish I were in Indonesia where a lot of keris resources were readily available.
From all the available versions of Panungging Dhuwung, is there any mention about Mpu Gandring. Was he a real or mythical character? The reason I ask is because there was a story (or theory) on another forum that the famous Hang Tuah's keris, the Taming Sari was actually the infamous keris that Ken Arok commissioned and was forged by Mpu Gandring. Thanks in advance. |
|
|
|
|
29th June 2007, 10:23 AM
|
#14 |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,897
|
deleted:- duplication
|
|
|
|
|
29th June 2007, 10:25 AM
|
#15 |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,897
|
And thank you again , Pak Ganja.
So it does look as if what you have given us is from a source other than the famous work by Ng. Wirosoekadgo. Actually, the form of that page you were kind enough to provide us with reminds me of something I've seen. If I get a chance I'll go through my files, its possible I could have a copy of that. Regarding Empu Gandring, if one believes he was real, he was real. I personally feel that he was a legend, but after hundreds of years and taking into account the nature of records in old Jawa, if anybody wants to say he was real, I won't argue with them. |
|
|
|
|
29th June 2007, 12:25 PM
|
#16 |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,897
|
I knew I'd seen that picture and that form of words before.
Pak Ganja, the first page of your three part book is from a liitle booklet printed in Solo in 1934. It is called "Pakem Doewoeng Angka I, Wesi Adji", and was printed by Stroomdrukkerij "De Bliksem". The part of your book that tells about Prabu Browijoyo I and sangutumpeng is from an unnamed manuscript that was owned by PB IX, the drawings were done by Ng. Sawikromo. I have a photocopy of the original, not the romanised version. I cannot read Javanese script, so I had it translated into Indonesian. However, I'm sure I've seen the romanised Javanese text somewhere too. But here's an interesting thing:- Empu Angga was a Pajajaran empu; that's where the Silsilah places him, but he worked for a Mojo ruler. What is the other part of your three part book, Pak Ganja? I may be able to identify that also. |
|
|
|
|
29th June 2007, 06:01 PM
|
#17 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: J a k a r t a
Posts: 991
|
Quote:
Quote:
Empu Jakasupa was the son of the great Empu of Majapahit, Empu Supamandrangi (married to a king's daughter). Empu Supamandrangi was honored as Pangeran Sendang Sedayu. His son Jaka Supa is so spectacular. Born in the end era of Majapahit, Jaka Supa then worked for Demak Islamic kingdom, but only for a short time. He then went to Madura and changed his name as Empu Ki Macan... (The Tiger). And not stayed for a long time in Madura. Ki Macan alias Jaka Supa then crossed the straits and dwelled in Surabaya during Demak era, changed name as Empu Kodok (The Frog). In the Pajang era (King Hadiwijaya 1568-1582) Empu Kodok moved silently to Pajang. The exact place is in Laweyan, Solo (Central Java) now. People surround called him, Empu Galeng. (Galeng means small dikes in rice field), because he always worked in the rice field's dike. One day, he was called by king of Pajang and then honored as a "minister" of "Pande" (smith) and was given name as Empu Umyang. (Umyang means "raving" or "talking alone"). Called like that, because once he tried his kris to someone -- and the victim then raving, talking alone...). The very fast growing of Empu Umyang resulted jealousy from the previous empu, Empu Tjoeblak (Cublak). Then, defamation happened. Empu Umyang was expelled by the king, and then stayed for short time in Madiun (East Java) and bore the new name, Empu Tundhung Madiun (tundhung means expelled). Then he moved to Kudus, still in the era of Pajang kingdom, bearing name Empu Tundhung only. The great king of Mataram, Sultan Agung Hanyokro Kusumo (1613-1645) was preparing an attack to Batavia (now Jakarta), attack to VOC. He gathered empus from all over Java, including Empu Tundhung from Kudus. Empu Tundhung was more than 105 years old at that time but still productive, He was one of the 8 "empu tindih" (leading empus) among the 800 empus of Mataram during the preparation of the Batavia attack. Because of "forever young" Empu Tundhung, he was then given a new name as Ki Supa Anom (anom means young), or more popular as Ki Nom... And the last days of Ki Nom, he then was awarded property of land "200 karya" (I don't know the conversion of this measure) in Mataram, and the noble name as Pangeran Sendang. Good property, and also beautiful wife of king descent... Empus, were regarded as important assets for many kingdoms in Java in the past... Ganjawulung |
||
|
|
|
|
30th June 2007, 12:07 AM
|
#18 |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,897
|
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, 04:04 AM
|
#19 | |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: J a k a r t a
Posts: 991
|
Quote:
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
30th June 2007, 05:19 AM
|
#20 |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,897
|
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, 07:42 AM
|
#21 | |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: J a k a r t a
Posts: 991
|
Quote:
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
30th June 2007, 07:48 AM
|
#22 | |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: J a k a r t a
Posts: 991
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
30th June 2007, 09:15 AM
|
#23 |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,897
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
1st July 2007, 07:15 AM
|
#24 |
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
2nd July 2007, 12:32 AM
|
#25 |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,897
|
Thanks for the additional pics Pak Ganja. I think I've seen a copy of the first one, but I don't recognise the second one. I might have have a copy of it, but I don't immediately recognise the style.
The trouble is, I have two filing cabinets full of original and photocopied old books and manuscripts, most have been translated into Indonesian, and I've read them all, but to find or identify something, unless I immediately recognise it, I need to pull everything out of the cabinets and sort through it. Back 20 years ago when I was accumulating all this printed and written information I was convinced that when I had brought it all together and studied it, I would have learnt an enormous amount about the keris. In fact, after reading it all, and spending quite a bit of time on some particular sections, what I found was that there is an enormous amount of repetition, a lot of imagination, almost no possibility of substantiation, and none of these writings can be found to go back very far in time. Effectively, these old writings comprise recitations of elements from a belief system. Yes, they were interesting to read, and yes they do help to educate us in the attitudes and beliefs of the people who wrote them, and for whom they were written, but they do not tell us very much about the core nature of the keris. I guess their value pretty much comes down to what it is that any individual person wishes to learn about the keris. For some people these writings could be extremely valuable; for others they can be something of only subsidiary interest, by which I mean that they provide additional knowledge on the way in which some people viewed the keris during one particular period of its history. To draw a modern day parrallel:- Haryono Haryoguritno's "Big Book of Keris" has recieved a lot of criticism from a lot of people who do not view the keris in quite the same way that Pak Haryo does, however, in 50 years time his book will be viewed as an immensely valuable contribution to the art of the keris, whilst it may not recieve the same level of acclaim for its contribution to the culture of the keris. It may be as well to bear in mind that whenever we read something about the keris, what we are reading is just one point of view of one aspect of the keris. Possibly there are no ultimate, all encompassing, answers. |
|
|
|
|
2nd July 2007, 04:52 AM
|
#26 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: J a k a r t a
Posts: 991
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
2nd July 2007, 05:15 AM
|
#27 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 401
|
Pak Ganja & Alan,
Thank you and fascinating discussion indeed. May I ask what type of dapur of the last keris in the illustration - the one without the dagu and having a bowie-like profile? I never saw this dapur before. |
|
|
|
|
2nd July 2007, 05:44 AM
|
#28 |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,897
|
Pak Ganja, in so far as your remarks in respect of Javanese oral tradition, you are stating the obvious. I believe that all people with any interest at all in the keris and things Javanese would be aware of this.
The nature of oral tradition is that it is recitation of belief, not recitation of fact. Beliefs in any community change with the passing of time and in accordance with those external factors which impact upon the society which is host to the oral tradition. Because of this, when the oral tradition finally gets written down, perhaps 500 years after the point in time when it originated, it reflects not the original event or belief that gave rise to it, but rather, the cumulative effect of all influences upon that oral tradition, since its point of origin in time. Oral traditions grow and develop and dependent upon the social environment in which they exist, can serve valuable social functions of moderating, controlling, teaching, the people who hear those traditions. Since the needs of a community are seldom fixed, but vary according to many factors, the oral traditions change to serve the needs of the community. The nature of an oral tradition is that it is a tool that serves the community. Thus, what we see in a 1935 (for example) record of the oral tradition is the 1935 version of that tradition, not the 1435 version of it.And most certainly not the record of facts that gave rise to that original 1435 version. I am not discounting the value of the beliefs recorded in written versions of these beliefs, be they from whatever year, but I am saying that the value they possess is as a tool for the measurement and analysis of the beliefs of people at the time when the belief is written down. They are of little value in measurement and analysis of the beliefs of the people who lived at the time when the oral tradition originated. As to the difference between Javanese and western traditions, either oral or written, this is a superficial difference in perception only. Western traditions and beliefs are manipulated and changed constantly, once again, in accordance with the needs of a community, or perhaps only the perceived needs of a community. The thing that we must keep uppermost in our minds at all times when discussing the keris, is that it is a cultural icon that is subject to a variety of beliefs and belief systems. Including the belief that "keris knowledge" was often the possession of a single person. Yes, I agree totally, it was often the possession of a single person--- provided one believes so. |
|
|
|
|
2nd July 2007, 07:52 AM
|
#29 | |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: J a k a r t a
Posts: 991
|
Quote:
Ganjawulung |
|
|
|
|
|
2nd July 2007, 09:26 AM
|
#30 |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,897
|
Yeah Pak Ganja, I reckon that has got to be one of the all time favourite party tricks of people who conduct seminars---the number of times I've seen that trotted out at seminars and training courses is beyond count.
But that is only one of the factors. As I wrote above, oral traditions are tools, and those tools get altered to do different jobs, depending on the needs to the community---or sometimes the needs to the "bigmen" in the community---the power elite. The traditions, stories, myths, legends, and the belief systems that surround the keris are all a part of understanding the keris, so we do need to be aware of these. But we also need to be aware of the nature of man and his societies. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
