[A. G. Maisey]

Novan, this is a solid presentation.

Keep this sort of thinking up and you might even get to learn something worthwhile about the keris.

Well done.

Alan - thanks for clarifying the meaning of pawakan and other adjacent terms. You raise a very insightful point regarding the word "pawakan" and how it suggests that the keris is not perceived as inanimate in the Javanese mind.

If it is not perceived as inanimate, then pawakan (not to mention wanda) seems to me to be a very important concept when it comes to describing things about the keris that we can see with our eyes. We might then be going some levels deeper with wanda and batin, where batin seems to be approaching a perception of a keris' essence.

Yes Novan, it is important, and I think that for many people, Javanese collectors, dealers & etc included, the concept of "pawakan" might be as far as classification of a keris goes, in the sense that "if it looks like a Majapahit keris, it is a Majapahit keris" . Overall visual impression.

However, that visual impression also is supposed to generate a judgement of "good" or "not so good>bad". What I actually wrote in my notebook in about 1983 or 84 was:-
"pawakan which is good will give a harmonious impression when viewed at arms length. Not leaning forward over the gandhik too much, not standing too straight"
So we have all these other terms that Harsrinuksmo has thrown into the ring, but honestly, in terms of keris pawakan, I have never heard most of them.

Its not just that either, to understand what a word really means in a different language you must be able to speak and understand the language. You must be able to understand how native speakers express their ideas, the parameters that apply. Somebody who is judged as handsome or beautiful by an Australian, might be judged as quite the opposite by a person of Pacific Island heritage. Even where a translation from one language to another language is reasonably accurate, does that word in a different language conjure up the same, or even similar mental image as it does in the original language?

So to begin to be able to use the pawakan concept as it might be used in, say, Solo by a Javanese keris literate person, you really should not only be able to speak the language, but also you should at least understand how to apply cultural & societal mores.

~

Bjorn has provided us with a list of categories for pawakan. According to Alan's definition perhaps these categories and words are better described as words related to wanda. But they were helpful for me to at least think of a question about categories and classifications when it comes to the keris and what purpose they serve.

Bjorn's list of words was apparently lifted from Jean, who lifted from Harsrinuksmo.

Lets look at the list:-
• kaku: clumsy, not harmonious --- stiff, rigid, ALSO clumsy, awkward, ungainly (BI), in Basa Jawa(BJ) stiff, awkward

• wingit: eerie, giving a terrifying impression --- does not exist in BI, in BJ haunted, spooky, dangerous (also singit)

• prigel: giving a deft and skilled impression --- skilful (BI), ditto + dexterous (BJ)

• sedeng: average --- in BI "sedeng" with the first "e" accented means "with a part in the hair", or with both "e"'s accented in Jakarta dialect it means "crazy", however, and this is where things get interesting, what Harsrinuksmo really means is "sedang", "sedeng" being an alternate colloquial pronunciation for "sedang", and one of the meanings in BI for "sedang" is "average, moderate, medium". In BJ neither sedang nor sedeng exist, but we do have "sedhang", first "e" accented which means "folded diagonally" and we have "sedheng" which means "enough, just right"
I have no problems with BI and I'm OK with BJ ngoko, I also know a little bit about keris, I know immediately what Harsrinuksmo means by "sedeng". But unless you can in fact use the language how confusing might all this be?

• demes: giving a neat impression and nice-looking --- in BI "demes" first "e" accented means a flat nose, "demes", no accents, does not exist, in BJ "dhemes" first "e" accented means "with a refined or distinguished manner", "demes" does not exist in BJ

• wagu: not harmonious --- "wagu" in BI does not exist, "wagu" in BJ means "ungainly, poorly proportioned, unpleasing, tasteless"

• odol: coarse, sloppy --- in BI this is the colloquial name of toothpaste, in BJ it does not exist, but "odhol" does exist , being just a slightly different pronunciation, and one of its meanings is toothpaste, but another meaning (amongst several) is "rough, crude"

• kemba: tasteless --- this word is not found in BI, in BJ it means "insipid, without spirit" , it appears not to be a common word.

• tampa semu: not giving any impression --- in BI "tampa" should be "tanpa"> "without", & "semu" has several meanings, the applicable one here would be, I think, "appearance", in BJ "tanpa" is also "without", "semu" can also be appearance, but again, this is interesting, because use of this word extends to meanings like "what can be read on the face", "what is outwardly visible of something inside", "to seem to be something", "to have the appearance of something"

• sereng: strong, fierce --- in BI, "sereng", first "e" accented means a firecracker, specifically a skyrocket, without an accent the word does not exist, in BJ "sereng" means "stern, harsh, angry"

• bagus/ayu: handsome, pleasing --- in BI "bagus" means "fine, good, exemplary"; "ayu" means "pretty, beautiful"; in BJ the word "bagus" is not found, in BJ "ayu"means "pretty, beautiful"

I have not given my understandings in the above, I have given dictionary meanings, for BI : Echols & Shadily, for BJ: Robson & Wibisono.
Have a close look at the dictionary meanings, and then consider if you believe that you can accurately use any of Harsrinuksmo's pawakan terms to accurately classify pawakan.


The tangguh system uses the names of historical, sometimes mythical, polities or (pseudo)geographical places. The tangguh system may have served the purpose of making a judgment on a kerises value based on whether there is honour associated with that keris' classification.

So, off the back of that, some questions that I'd like to ask about pawakan.

* Is it a system like tangguh, where it has a finite list of categories that might be represented by Javanese words referring to physical features?

pawakan is a part of the system of tangguh, and if we consider the overall visual impression of a keris in a similar way to the way in which we consider the overall visual impression of a man it does have some use, but some of the words in the Harsrinuksmo list I would find extremely difficult to apply to either a man or a keris if it was just there in front of me doing nothing


* Would a student learn this by way of referring to kerisses considered to be archetypes or standards, and sighting or handling many over a learning lifetime?

in the 1970's and 1980's, in Solo, it was a pretty general standard that no recognised ahli keris (keris expert/authority) would accept as pupil any man who was not a married & with family, a settled member of the community, in age terms this meant that most prospective students under about 40 years of age were rejected. Now, if one has reached 40 and had the more or less varied life experience of a married 40 year old with responsibilities then one is going to have a degree of experience in judging men simply by the way they look. Think of a keris as a man, and this experience becomes transferable. However, as with all experience knowledge and ability usually increases with age, so yes we are looking at a lifetime of learning.

* Does it serve a social or practical purpose other than to have a specific lexicon by which to describe kerises, in the same way that tangguh has a purpose and lexicon?

as above, pawakan is one of the tells used in providing a tangguh, it gives us a peg to hang an opinion as to the excellence or otherwise of the keris, just that. If somebody wishes to try to tell us why he thinks that the pawakan of any particular keris is either suggestive of excellence or suggestive of something else, well, he can use any words in his own language to do so, he need not stick with Harsrinuksmo's list, which frankly I find just a little less than definitive

* Does understanding and knowing how to classify pawakan (or tangguh, or wanda, or batin) mean that one understands the keris? (what even does it mean to understand the keris?)

of course not, it is just one tell, or indicator, amongst many, but understanding of keris is a different ball game. Empu Suparman considered that the "understanding" of keris began with three basic levels:-

1) to learn the features, two ways of looking at this:- sepuh(age), wutuh(degree of preservation), tangguh(opinion of factors indicating origin), this way is the old way; a more recent way is "morjasirapngun" = pamor, waja(steel),wesi(iron), garap(workmanship), wangun(design, shape, appearance), using this more recent standard one appraises each of the things mentioned separately

understand:- this is kindergarten, this is the first level of understanding, and this first level includes a thorough understanding of tangguh. According to Empu Suparman , to learn everything included in level one will take a number of years.

2) to learn an appreciation of form; the first part of this is to understand "guwaya", this means "complexion". and it refers to an understanding of when the colour of a keris is well presented and does in fact agree with the tangguh that the keris appears to have, this of course means that we need to know what colour, or "complexion" a keris of , say, Majapahit tangguh should have when it has been correctly stained.
The second part of understanding form is to understand wanda, this means that we need to be able to gauge the personality or feeling of a keris. The same keris can generate different feeling in different people, in the same way that a man can be judged differently by different people. Examples of how one might express the wanda of a keris would be: wild, brave, angry, proud, friendly, quiet, bad, afraid --- I'm using English so I do not need to go into writing a dictionary again. It is only possible to proceed to this second level after the first level is perfect. Most people do not make it to the second level.

3) the third level is to understand the feeling of a keris. In the opinion of Empu Suparman it is a total impossibility to understand feeling until a complete understanding of level one and two have been achieved. A person who is skilled at level three can form a judgement from vibration alone, he does not need to see the keris, he only needs to hold it and he will receive a clear impression of the esoteric qualities of the keris. At this third level the physical appearance of the keris is totally irrelevant.

What I've given here is a very shortened summary of Empu Suparman's opinions and beliefs, and these would reflect the opinions and beliefs of most Central Javanese ahli keris during the period I was gaining my keris education, roughly 1970's to around 2010.

However, my own opinion of what understanding of the keris involves goes along a slightly different path. I believe that it is absolutely necessary to have an understanding of Javanese and Balinese beliefs, and to be able to understand these beliefs in a way that is as close as possible to the way in which a keris literate Javanese or Balinese person would understand the beliefs.
However, my idea of "understanding" includes several other levels of understanding that incorporate socio-cultural understandings, and spiritual understandings that move away from the fairly restricted belief systems of the keris experts. I also include the purely technical aspects of manufacture.

In any case, the understanding of the keris is something that does require reasonably dedicated learning over a lengthy period. I've been at it for around 66 years, and I'm still a very long way from actually knowing very much at all.