[A. G. Maisey]

I apologise for letting my thoughts run away with me, Jussi.

I was reflecting aloud on the phenomenon of the exclusivity of language. Jargon.

Jargon serves a very definite purpose, and that purpose is , I believe, somewhat as I will set out below.

Any society is comprised of a number of groups of people who are members of what might be termed "sub-societies". These sub-societies can be groupings of professional people, trade groups, hobby groups, cultural groups, or any other group of people who have come together because of a shared interest.

Communication in society is carried out by the means of language. The greater society will have a language that is used and understood by all members of that greater society.

Similarly, the sub-societies within the host (greater) society will in many cases develop their own language, which although it may use the form and content of the language of the host society, will very often possess additional forms or words that can only be clearly understood by the members of the sub-society.

Two good examples of this use of a discrete language can be found in mediaeval Christianity, and modern law. In mediaeval Christianity, and in truth, up until recent times, the priest had a function of translating the language of the religion---Latin--- into the language of the common people. In law, lawyers have the function of translating the contrived forms of legalese into the language of the common people.

This use of obscure language by the practitioners of a profession is calculated to move the proceedings of the professions beyond the understanding of the uninitiated and to validate the existence of the initiates.

Sometimes a further development of the pattern noted above can be observed. This further development is the formation of groups within the sub-societies who possess ever more obscure language use, understood by increasingly smaller numbers of people.

Picture if you will a circle. On the outer edges of the circle will be the people who possess the ability to understand only the language that is common to all those within the circle. However, as one approaches the centre of the circle the numbers of people who share a common understanding decreases, to the point where the man right in the middle of the circle possess an understanding of words that is shared by perhaps only one person, other than himself, and this second person will become the successor of the man in the centre.

Power over those within the circle is gained by the possession of words, which are assumed to represent knowledge. Thus, the man with possession of words that are not known to others, possesses knowledge that is not known to others. He has in effect, become the high priest of that sub-society.

In the formation and sustenance of such sub-societies there is an inherent danger. This is the danger that as progression to the center of the group occurs, there is the temptation to either invent one's own words, or to reintroduce language that has passed from common usage. Knowledge is power, and by the invention or reintroduction of words, the understanding of which is shared with only a very limited number of people, the initiator of those words has increased the perception of his knowledge, thus increasing his power.

Now, we might well ask what all this has to do with keris. Well, I believe anybody who has had a few years experience of the wonderful world of the keris, will be able to answer that question for themselves.

I have had a number of teachers in the understanding of the keris, but my primary, and most important teacher was Empu Suparman Supawijaya. He was not a tolerant man. His knowledge was vast, but he was inclined to be very short tempered. I can remember very clearly his comments when I showed him a recent keris book that I had bought, which was by a prolific and well known writer on the keris. He thumbed through it, found a number of things with which he did not agree, became very agitated, and commented that it was a great pity that writers did not learn about the keris before writing about it.

My next most important teacher was also a maker of keris. I will not mention his name, for if I did I could not repeat his comments in respect of the book that is currently perhaps the most widely read reference on the keris. I asked him what he thought of this very comprehensive book. He commented that in his opinion it contained a lot of invention; he could not understand where many of the words and their meanings could have come from, and that much of the information contained in this book was simply wrong.

I have no doubt that both my teachers absolutely believed the opinions that they offered to me. However, I also believe that these opinions were in reality reflections of the way in which keris knowledge is structured.

There is a core of knowledge that is possessed of all, but within the sub-society that is constructed around the keris there are many smaller sub-societies, each of which is formed as I have illustrated above, by ever smaller overlapping circles of increasing "knowledge".

The "knowledge " possessed by the man at the middle of one of these groups may not even be recognised as valid knowledge by a member of a different group, but that knowledge does serve the purpose of supporting its possessor in his position of power.


Of course, the phenomenon that I am commenting on here occurs across all societies. It seems that we all have a need to mystify and obscure that to which we devote a large part of our lives, and to use this special knowledge of language as a lever of power. However, that which makes the case of the keris in Jawa particularly interesting is that Javanese society would appear to be more inclined than other societies to generate these special language groups, even to the point of producing completely hidden, or secret languages, something that has been commented upon since the time of early European contact. I cannot help but wonder if this is in large part due to the non standard nature of the mother tongue of the society, or perhaps a further development of the society's hierarchical structure.

The keris can be a difficult subject. For this reason, when writing, or speaking about the keris, I attempt so far as I am able, to use terms that I believe are widely understood, and where suitable, to frequently use words taken from English, an international language, in order to clarify my meanings. The use of obscure language that is understood by only a limited number of people does little to spread an understanding of the keris and its associated culture.

I'm sorry it took me so many words to explain myself Jussi, but I doubt that I could have shortened what I have written, and still have made any sense.