[A. G. Maisey]

MAURICE, I do understand that you have indicated your desire to leave this discussion, but you have asked me specific questions, and I would be quite ill-mannered were I to ignore your questions.

Thus:-
Do you have such old information written about gold, that this had been preferred over suassa considering its talismanic aspects?

No.

Or is it for collectors assumably because more gold is found instead of suassa?

I do not understand the question

I really do have some considerable difficulty in understanding just exactly what is being thrown back and forth here.

It seems that the point being examined is whether or not some people, at some time, in some place preferred suasa to gold because of some supposed talismanic qualities possessed by suasa.

We have no definite, supported evidence to confirm that this is so, merely the comment of a European visitor to the Dutch East Indies, 300 odd years ago. Yes, the man who made the comment was a trained observer, yes, he had a reputation as an ethnographer as well as a considerable reputation as a naturalist, but the fact remains that his comment on suasa appears to be just a passing comment.


I do not believe that anybody who has been party to this current discussion has challenged the possibility that suasa may have been preferred by some people at some time, and that possibly the preference may have been based upon some reputed talismanic qualities rather than the desire to keep one's head, or for one to appear more wealthy than was truly the case.

Let us never forget that at some places and during some times, in the region concerned, the wearing of gold on keris, and for other purposes, was very strictly confined to certain people.

So is there any element of dispute or disagreement in this discussion?

Perhaps David is a little sceptical of this suasa talismanic thing being a wide ranging belief; perhaps I am a little sceptical of the comments being anything other than common gossip, but our scepticism is not at all important, simply because the possibility of talismanic properties being associated with suasa is virtually a foregone conclusion, bearing in mind the cultural and societal beliefs and practices of the peoples concerned.

The comments of G.E. Rumphius are entirely in concert with the social and cultural elements of the time and place. These comments are neither remarkable, nor are they important, they are simply one more smidgen of information of this type to add to our already bulging basket that is overflowing with comments, remarks and rumours concerning the possible and probable beliefs of peoples with a magical world view.

However, in spite of what I have written above, I do have a couple of further matters that I would like to address:-

MAURICE:-

Rumphius mentions the word "Susuhunan" (Sussuhunam), and "Javanese", thus he is quite clear that he is referring to a specific societal group. The Javanese people lived, and live, in "The Land of Jawa", this is not the same as "The Island of Jawa". So, although Batavia was located on The Island of Jawa, it most definitely was not located in The Land of Jawa.

It is my firm belief that G.E.Rumphius did not ever venture far outside Batavia, or the lands under VOC control.

In the 1600's, and even much later, it would have been quite unwise for a European to have done so. Although the Dutch had the The Wheel, and similar ingenious methods of justice, the indigenous peoples of The Island of Jawa were not far behind the Dutch in their application of physical pain to whatever Europeans they could capture. Old reports tell of saplings being bent and the ankles of unfortunate Europeans being attached to these saplings, as the saplings slowly straightened, the Europeans were slowly separated into two bundles of bleeding, quivering flesh and entrails. No, G. E. Rumphius would not have gone wandering off into Mataram seeking information, he would have remained within the territories under Dutch control.

Thus, his references to the Javanese and the Susuhunan would have been garnered at some remove from the actual place concerned.

But here we have a problem.

The word "Susuhunan" is a Javanese word, it is the word that is used to refer to the Ruler of Surakarta, as far as I can ascertain, this word does not exist in Old Javanese, so it would appear to be unlikely that this word was used in reference to any ruler prior to the establishment of the Karaton of Surakarta Hadiningrat. The Karaton of Surakarta Hadiningrat was established in 1745 (or 1742) by Pakubuwana II. However, supposedly this word "Susuhunan" appears in text that was written some time prior to 1700.

To my mind there are just too many questions associated with this supposedly original comment made by G.E. Rumphius. Bearing in mind that the publication of his works, some time after his death, needed to be a commercial success, I really do think that examination of his original text would be needed to confirm some of the comments attributed to him, comments that would be of interest to a general readership.

KAI:-
You mention:-

" However, I'm with Maurice that Rumphius' account certainly needs to be taken into account since it is one of the few very early *and* extensive sources and actually quite similar to the important Chinese reports."

Would you be so kind as to provide the references for these Chinese reports?

Thank you.