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

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

A. G. Maisey · 1st July 2007, 11:32 PM

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.

ganjawulung · 2nd July 2007, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

...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

This is because, the written culture is something new to the Javanese world. In the past, all traditions had continued orally. Oral tradition was the core nature of Javanese life for almost as long as their past history. It is much different with western culture. Written tradition is their long time culture...

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

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

What we must bear in our mind, that keris tradition in the past, is a "sinengker" tradition. Sometimes, keris knowledge was belonged to one person only or two persons only (between the empu and the king who commissioned the keris). Even empus in the past, had kept their outstanding ability to their death...

PenangsangII · 2nd July 2007, 04:15 AM

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.

A. G. Maisey · 2nd July 2007, 04:44 AM

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.

ganjawulung · 2nd July 2007, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

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.

When I was in secondary school, I was taught by my teacher about how "the oral traditions' grow. In a play, consisted of more than five pupils, my teacher whispered silently to the first pupil -- a short sentence. Then, the first pupil was ought to whisper his pal beside him the same short sentence. And the last pupil was ought to report to the teacher, what sentence he heard. And that was happened. The last pupil "reported" the whispers in very different meaning from the original.... That was only ten minutes discrepancy. Then, what happened if the "oral tradition" endured for a century, two centuries, three centuries? And not just for a short sentence?

Ganjawulung

ganjawulung · 1st August 2007, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PenangsangII

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.

Dear Penangsang,
Sorry for neglecting your long time question. That dhapur is "cengkrong". Every cengkrong has longer gandhik (dagu?), sometimes more than half length of the blade. Some cengkrong has luks too. But if with luks, you must mention the number of luks: cengkrong luk three, cengkrong luk five (according to Bambang Harsrinuksmo's ensiklopedi) until luk seven... The form of the cengkrong's ganja is different too..

Ganjawulung

1st July 2007, 06:15 AM	#2
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

30th June 2007, 08:15 AM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,013	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, 11:32 PM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,013	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, 04:15 AM	#5
PenangsangII 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, 04:44 AM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,013	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.