An early figural hilt

[Jean]

Gustav, Thank you and sorry for the confusion, but I can't trace any Muslim indicator on this hilt.

[Gustav]

Alan, just one remark about the bas-relief. The description and possible provenance provided by you is rather convincing.

As I understand, Bernet Kempers saw it not just as "comic scene", but possibly as an (indeed) comic scene from Tantri Kamandaka. I don't have Tantri Kamandaka and have never read it, only overall description of main storyline, so I can't prove if there is such scene or not. But the central figure with some certainty is a Panakawan, - this means a dose of humor contained, so typical for Javanese art.

About the carvings on Bungkul part of early figural hilts and their possible development - I certainly have devoted more then passing attention to them - we could discuss them someday perhaps.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Gustav, Bernet Kempers does identify the central figure as a punakawan, and frankly, I have a bit of a problem with that too. In my reference ("Ancient Indonesian Art", A.J. Bernet Kempers, Harvard University Press, 1959) the Tantri Kamandaka is not mentioned. If Bernet Kempers was able to link this bas-relief to one of the Tantri stories, this would seem to indicate that this bas-relief came from a site which had more, or all of the Tantri stories, the Tantri stories do not stand alone, but as a series of animal tales containing advice on statecraft & morals suitable for a ruler. They are drawn from the original Pancatantra, which is a sort of Indian 1001 nights, Pancatantra is written in Sanskrit.

The Tantri stories appear on several candis in East Jawa and in Central Jawa. They can be found on Candi Mendut and Candi Sojiwan in Central Jawa, these are Early Classical, so pre-date the Kamandaka, but in East Jawa there are 14(?) Tantri stotries on Candi Jago, and 11 (?) or these can be related to the Kamandaka. Candi Jago is mid-14th century.

In Jawa the Pancatantra was used to produce five different versions, the oldest version is the Tantri Kamandaka which was produced around 1000AD to 1050AD, which places it around the period of transition from Central Jawa to East Jawa cultural period.

Now, in Old Javanese the word punakawan (panakawan) comes from "kawan", kawan means "friend", "panakawan" a member of a group that forms followers or retinue. In Modern Javanese "panakawan" means a servant or a follower, but has the further specific meaning in association with the wayang of being a clown-servant of the hero. In wayang there are four panakawan:- Semar, Petruk, Gareng, Bagong. Non-native speakers of Javanese tend to think of a panakawan in association with its wayang usage where the idea of servant + humour is present, but in reality the primary meaning of the word "panakawan/punakawan" is simply a member of a group of followers or retinue.

So, we have the question of whether Bernet Kempers intended his identification of the central figure as a panakawan to be wayang related, or whether the word should be understood in its general, rather than specific sense. Since he uses the word "comic" we can be reasonably confident that he is using panakawan in the sense of a wayang character. This is where the problem arises, because it seems probable that the comic nature of the wayang panakawans did not arise until wayang golek was replaced by wayang purwa in the 15th century in Demak, the replacement occurred because of Raden Patah's prohibition that applied to the wayang golek puppets.

So, if wayang punakawans became comic in the 15th century, how could a bas relief attributed to an earlier period represent a comic punakawan? Bear in mind, in Majapahit Old Javanese was in use, and a wayang punakawan was not automatically a comic figure. Moreover, the comic punakawan is associated with the Ramayana, and the Tantri stories do not involve the Ramayana.

I apologise for all this digression into off-topic matters, but the problem is this:- we cannot sensibly discuss the implications and intended meanings or purposes of Javanese/Balinese artistic representations in the absence of very diverse understanding of related fields, nor can we adopt a mental frame of reference that draws only upon our own life experience in the present era. In simple terms we need to try to adopt a frame of reference that applies to the time at which the matter being examined was generated.

We do not learn to understand the keris by studying the keris, we need to diversify our attentions and look at other elements.

[Gustav]

Alan, if you address me in the last two paragraphs, - I have diversified my attention for some time already, and posted a "Majapahit era carving where human figure is represented with some parts of it's body rendered in the lung-lungan style", something, at which you didn't look consciously until now and doubted its existence in Majapahit period.

Regarding Panakawan -

from what I did read about Panakawan until now I understand, that they are purely Javanese invention, as they doesn't exist in Indian sources, and that comic element surely was a part of character of Panakawan earlier then Raden Patah's politics. For the first time I also hear that comic Panakawan are associated only with Ramayana. Here my experience totally differs.

If we take a look to reliefs of Candi Surowono, c. 1400, the behavior of Panakawan serves as commentary to the actions of protagonist Arjuna.
Sometimes they do just the opposite of their master, for example, during Arjunas temptation they busily make love with the female servants of the nymphs. Sometimes they mimic actions of Arjuna, as in the battle scene, where they make threatening gestures at Siva.

So I am quite sceptic about your sentence "... because it seems probable that the comic nature of the wayang panakawans did not arise until wayang golek was replaced by wayang purwa in the 15th century in Demak, the replacement occurred because of Raden Patah's prohibition that applied to the wayang golek puppets.", also because of another reason.

If you really mean that, Wayang Golek is a Wayang figure style, which quite certainly even didn't exist in 15th cent., and developed in Cirebon area most probably in 17th cent.

Wayang Purwa is the classic Wayang repertoire, which consists of Jawa-Dewa, Arjuna-Sasrabau, Ramayana and Mahabrata. Other sources list Para-Dewa, Lokapala, Ramayana and Mahabarata-Baratayuda.

So Wayang Golek and Wayang Purwa belong to completely different categories, like grapes and bottles.

Regarding Tantri stories and the relief I posted - there is a story called Angling Dharma, of which the Tantri story "Language of Animals" is an introduction. Here a jewel-crowned snake princess, her father snake king appears, later a priest, father of Ambarawati, which is turned into Rakshasa. Ambarawati, arguing with her Rakshasa-father, travels in company of Panakawan.
And there is another Tantri story "Goose and Tortoise", where a goose carries two tortoises with help of a stick. The tortoises are distracted, let the stick go and fall to the ground.
Often such scenes with Panakawan are meant as comic, burlesque comments on storyline, not as part of the story itself, or even seemingly totally isolated. Perhaps Bernet Kempers saw it as a gathering of protagonists from two stories, possibly depicted on the same building.

[A. G. Maisey]

It seems that in spite of my best efforts I am not infrequently misunderstood, even though I am a protagonist for clear writing and simple expression, it appears that much of what I write is read as if it contains messages that I never intended.

I apologise to all who may read this for my unintentional lack of clarity. In this post I have attempted a slightly different format, in that I have interpolated individual responses to each of Gustav's comments, hopefully this will reduce the misunderstandings.


Alan, if you address me in the last two paragraphs, - I have diversified my attention for some time already, and posted a "Majapahit era carving where human figure is represented with some parts of it's body rendered in the lung-lungan style", something, at which you didn't look consciously until now and doubted its existence in Majapahit period.


I apologise Gustav, if you thought I was still speaking directly to you, rather than giving a rather rambling response to your post for all to read, this was entirely my error in failing to clearly identify where my remarks directed to you ceased, and my remarks intended for whoever might care to read them began.

I often tend to write in what I think of as a conversational style, as if we were all sitting in a big circle, where some remarks might be for one person and heard by all, and other remarks are obviously for everybody. The reason I write like this is because I need to squeeze my posts to this Forum in between other obligations, so I mostly write from the top of my head in an undisciplined manner, and I admit this can cause some confusion.

Again, my apologies for confusing you. I will try to keep this present post very simple and very direct, but regrettably, it might be a rather long post.

The Majapahit era carving to which you refer is the one that Bernet Kempers has identified as coming from Tulung Agung?
If so, this carving has a figure that Bernet Kempers identifies as a punakawan, and another that he identifies as a bhuta. We can accept that the punakawan is intended to be seen as human, this punakawan figure has no parts of its body hidden or represented as tendrils or foliage.
On the other hand, the bhuta does have some parts of its body represented as foliage. Bhutas are spirits or demons of the forest, this sort of representation of a bhuta is not at all unusual in older Javanese "raksasa" hilts; I'm guessing that if I went looking for this type of representation of bhutas in other places, I would probably find the same or a similar style applied.

My own interpretation of this carving is that we might possibly have a scene that includes a specific bhuta, Bhoma, present. Unless we can positively identify this bas-relief as a part of a Tantri series, then all I have to form my opinion is a carving in the absence of context. Perhaps Bernet Kempers knew that this carving was only one of a series, in which case his interpretation could well be valid, but if he did not have this additional information, well then, he is just guessing out of context too.

In any case, the carving shows a man & a bhuta, the bhuta is repesented in a usual way, the man is represented as a man, complete with fingers and toes --- or most of them anyway.

Regarding Panakawan -

from what I did read about Panakawan until now I understand, that they are purely Javanese invention, as they doesn't exist in Indian sources,

Yes, this is so.

and that comic element surely was a part of character of Panakawan earlier then Raden Patah's politics.

Yes, possibly, but it does seem to have intensified following the Demak bans.

The thing is this:- modern wayang kulit performances are full of social comment, moral teaching and philosophy. I am uncertain whether or not this was always so, but what we do know is this:- modern wayang kulit was used as tool of conversion by Islam.

A wayang kulit performance can last from dusk to dawn, and it is necessary for the dalang to keep his audience interested, he does this by introducing comedy and topical comment into the performance. The clown servants that are commonly called "punakawan" are critical in this delivery of humour. The punakawans are possibly indigenous deities that were pushed into the background by Jawa Hindu, then Islam, they actually are intended to represent the common people and their purpose in a wayang performance is to upset the social order, they usually speak in ngoko, while the characters with higher status are speaking krama, or krama inggil, or maybe kawi. These days most Javanese people cannot understand everything said in a wayang performance, but they do understand the clown-servants, so the jokes often get delivered by those punakawan.

For the first time I also hear that comic Panakawan are associated only with Ramayana. Here my experience totally differs.

I'm afraid that by reducing my comment to bare minimum rather than being all inclusive, I have caused you to misunderstand me Gustav. What I wrote was this:-

"--- Moreover, the comic punakawan is associated with the Ramayana, and the Tantri stories do not involve the Ramayana.---"

The punakawan in the wayang context is not limited to only the Ramayana, taking only Semar, who is the senior punakawan and the elder brother of Batara Guru, one of the names of Siwa, Semar is actually a god, but he appears as the common man, in different forms of the wayang, and different plays, Semar can have different sons, so the concept of "punakawan" can be extended into many more places than just the Ramayana. I mentioned the Ramayana because I think everybody knows of the Ramayana and in the Javanese Ramayana, Semar and his sons are decidedly humourous.

If you re-read my comment you will find that I have neither stated nor implied that punakawans exist only in the Ramayana. I have said two things, firstly that the comic punakawan is associated with the Ramayana, secondly that the Tantri stories are not associated with the Ramayana. I have said just this, and no more.

If we take a look to reliefs of Candi Surowono, c. 1400, the behavior of Panakawan serves as commentary to the actions of protagonist Arjuna.
Sometimes they do just the opposite of their master, for example, during Arjunas temptation they busily make love with the female servants of the nymphs. Sometimes they mimic actions of Arjuna, as in the battle scene, where they make threatening gestures at Siva.

I'm familiar with Candi Surowono, in fact I think I have a complete photographic record of all the reliefs that are still present on this candi. Only the base remains, and it has a mix of stories, there are some Tantri stories, the Arjunawiwaha story runs right around the base, but it is broken by another couple of stories that I've forgotten the names of.

In fact, I doubt that we can call the clown-servants in the Surowono reliefs "punakawans" , I might be wrong, but I doubt that Semar is present in these reliefs, and in the wayang context we cannot have punakawans in the absence of Semar. Yes, this is a bas-relief, rather than a wayang play, and clown servants might be referred to as "punakawans" in the principle sense of the word, especially as it applied in Old Javanese, but if we do that we lose the inherent comic implication that "punakawan" + "wayang" generates. In fact, I think one authority on Surowono refers to the clown servants as "grotesque dwarfs", I forget who that was.

So I am quite sceptic about your sentence "... because it seems probable that the comic nature of the wayang panakawans did not arise until wayang golek was replaced by wayang purwa in the 15th century in Demak, the replacement occurred because of Raden Patah's prohibition that applied to the wayang golek puppets.", also because of another reason.

If you really mean that, Wayang Golek is a Wayang figure style, which quite certainly even didn't exist in 15th cent., and developed in Cirebon area most probably in 17th cent.

It is very difficult to be too positive about anything that concerns wayang golek. We can be relatively certain about a lot that concerns wayang purwa, wayang wong, wayang klitik, wayang beber &etc & etc & etc but with wayang golek we do not really have very much to go on For instance we do not know with certainty that it dates from the 17th century, we tend to assume that it came to North Coast Jawa from China, but we do not know this with certainty either. Many assumptions are applied to wayang golek.

What we do know is that many people in Jawa who take an interest in this sort of thing believe that Raden Patah objected to figures in the round being used in puppet plays, and also objected to the wayang kulit puppets being actually seen by the audience, so he banned representations of gods and god-like characters that could be seen. Because religious leaders were very keen to use the wayang plays for the purposes of religious propaganda they replaced the puppet plays using visible characters, with wayang purwa, that is, shadow theatre.

What did originate at a later date, I think it was during the time of PBII, around 1700&something, was wayang golek menak.

The passing of time tends to distort perception, and a lot of things that we believe to be so today are really very open to question. It is as I have sometimes said:- the more I learn, the less I know.


Wayang Purwa is the classic Wayang repertoire, which consists of Jawa-Dewa, Arjuna-Sasrabau, Ramayana and Mahabrata. Other sources list Para-Dewa, Lokapala, Ramayana and Mahabarata-Baratayuda.

So Wayang Golek and Wayang Purwa belong to completely different categories, like grapes and bottles.


No Gustav, all wayang is one category. The word wayang indicates a traditional performance, there are many different forms of wayang, and the repertoire of each form can be either similar to, or the same as, or completely different to another form.

Regarding Tantri stories and the relief I posted - there is a story called Angling Dharma, of which the Tantri story "Language of Animals" is an introduction.

Yes, this is one of the versions

Here a jewel-crowned snake princess, her father snake king appears, later a priest, father of Ambarawati, which is turned into Rakshasa. Ambarawati, arguing with her Rakshasa-father, travels in company of Panakawan.
And there is another Tantri story "Goose and Tortoise", where a goose carries two tortoises with help of a stick. The tortoises are distracted, let the stick go and fall to the ground.

True, and many, many more moralistic teaching tales.

But we do really need to consider the rather loose use of the word "punakawan". In the wayang context a punakawan is Semar or one of his sons, in a wayang performance that does not include Semar, it is perhaps questionable whether a grotesque dwarf, or a clown-servant can in fact be called a "punakawan" in the wayang sense, but any member of a group of retainers and followers can be called a "punakawan" in the ordinary lay usage of the word.

So when Bernet Kempers calls the figure in the Tulung Agung relief a punakawan and then uses the word "comic", to me, that implies a wayang association with Semar. Where is Semar? Or is it a Tantri story? Or is it something else entirely? I don't know, but with this relief taken totally out of any context at all, we could all hypothesise forever, and know nothing more with any certainty at the end of it all.


Perhaps Bernet Kempers saw it as a gathering of protagonists from two stories, possibly depicted on the same building.

Possible.

All this sort of discussion eventually reduces to hypotheses, and in the case of the present root of the discussion, all this following commentary is really pretty irrelevant. There is very little that can be stated with certainty, there are a lot of questions. We can recount popular belief, we can wheel out the opinions of some of the recognised Greats --- who seldom seem to be able to reach agreement between themselves in any case.

This discussion began with a rather refined interpretation of a pretty typical North Coast hilt that included some design modification.

Gustav, you asked a question, or perhaps a couple of questions that to my mind seemed to be non-specific and obscure.

Do you feel that you might be able to re-phase these questions in a more specific way?

Perhaps you have some of your own ideas that you would like to run past us?

[Gustav]

Alan, once more, thank you very much.

I am sorry, but I must return to this, and I wont have time to write anything else till Sunday evening:

"This is where the problem arises, because it seems probable that the comic nature of the wayang panakawans did not arise until wayang golek was replaced by wayang purwa in the 15th century in Demak, the replacement occurred because of Raden Patah's prohibition that applied to the wayang golek puppets."

Wayang Golek is a material and construction type, in this case of a puppet. Other types with puppets involved are, for example, Wayang Kulit, Wayang Klitik. There are other Wayang material and construction types where puppets aren't involved, like Wayang Beber, Wayang Topeng, Wayang Wong.

Wayang Purwa is a certain part of repertoire, not a material or construction type. And Wayang Purwa is the old, classical part of repertoire, as it contains Hindu mythology. Other important part of Wayang repertoire is Wayang Gedog (Panji cycle), Damarwulan cycle, many Babad, and there are many lesser known, like Wayang Calonarang, Wayang Cupak, Wayang Jayaprana.

So Wayang Golek isn't repertoire, it is just a puppet construction type, and of classical ones - Kulit, Klitik and Golek - ist is clearly the youngest one.

Wayang Kulit is mentioned already in Arjunawiwoho, 11th cent. It is possible that Wayang Beber, consisting of pictorial scrolls, and some kind of Wayang involving human actors or dancers existed at that time or even earlier.

Wayang Klitik and Wayang Golek are not known on Bali (except for some modern and short-lived experiments), so in analogy to certain features of Keris we can say, they didn't exist in Hindu Java. Their formation started probably only in 17th cent., but there are some hints which indicate, that Wayang Klitik could be older, possibly from 16th cent. The main repertoire played with Wayang Klitik figures are Damarwulan, which is historically placed Majapahit, but was created most probably in 16th cent., and Panji cycle (Wayang Gedog), which is historically placed in 12th cent. but certainly is younger then Wayang Purwa and is linked with Chinese influence.

The main repertoire played with Wayang Golek figures are Babad Cirebon, which consists of stories dealing with Islamisation of Cirebon (outside of Cirebon replaced with Babad Jawa, which deals with Javanese history from Islamisation in 16th cent. till Diponegoro war) and Babad Menak, which deals with adventures of Amir Hamza, uncle of Prophet Mohammed, as well as Panji cycle and very seldom Damarwulan.

I have a quite good library about Wayang, and have never read about existence of Wayang Golek puppets before 17th cent. If a place of origin of Wayang Golek is mentioned, it's always West Java (Cirebon). The Methode of construction is known from Chinese puppet theatre, the repertoire played with these figure deals mostly with younger history and Islamic tales.

The oldest existing Wayang Kulit and Wayang Klitik puppets date from 17th cent., but there are no known Wayang Golek figures from that time.

So - Raden Patah in 15th cent. couldn't replace a puppet construction type called Wayang Golek (which even wasn't invented at that time) with repertoire called Wayang Purwa (which deals mostly with Hindu Mythology and was well known even prior to Majapahit) - as it isn't possible to replace puppet with story. You can replace only puppet with puppet or story with story.

And the comic element in nature of Panakawan is shown on structures which well predate Raden Patah, and in stories which aren't part of Ramayana.

[A. G. Maisey]

Gustav, I accept without question that you are very well informed in respect of the theoretical aspects of the wayang, however, I am not writing from a theoretical base, I am writing from a base of general knowledge, all of which has been acquired in Central Jawa over a 50 year period.

At one time I had a very highly regarded dalang who gave TV performances as a next door neighbour, two doors away I had a Balinese student of the ASKI (now the ISI, previously the STSI) who was studying to become a dalang, my housekeeper had a niece who was a working dalang (yes, these days there are female dalangs) , there was another ASKI student just across the road, but I did not know him well, the two gentlemen on my side of the street I saw and spoke with regularly, and I spoke with the niece on an irregular basis. During the 1970's and early 1980's I had a relative who was a middle level dalang and wayang kulit maker, he usually acted as my driver when I was in Solo.

In short, I have had a lot of contact and a lot of conversations with dalangs, I have attended a lot of wayang kulit performances and wayang wong performances, I attended one wayang beber performance back in the 1980's, that was in Pacitan, down on the south coast, I doubt that there is anybody now who plays wayang beber. Apart from wayang professionals, any performance of wayang will always generate a lot of discussion amongst people who attended and people who wanted to attend but could not, so I've had a lot of these lay conversations also.

I have never studied the wayang, but I am reasonably well read in wayang literature, one needs to be if one is serious about keris study, and I do have a small number of books and other literature that deals with wayang.

From a personal perspective I do not like wayang kulit, it is clever, it can be relaxing, but I'm good for probably no more than 2 hours maximum of a wayang kulit performance. I do rather enjoy wayang wong, but only in long separated doses.

So Gustav, I am coming at this wayang thing from a different direction, and that direction is a direction that I learnt to follow in Solo, Central Jawa. If my direction does not sit well with you, that's OK with me, you have no need to speak with Javanese people on a daily basis, but I do, and I'm not going to adopt ideas from books in conversation with these people. You stay with your books, I'll stay with my community beliefs.

Now, having laid all that out on the table I'll do a little bit more quibbling.

For anybody to state with certainty that wayang golek began at any particular time is indeed a very brave act. But we can state that wayang golek menak began at a relatively certain point in time. Yes, wayang golek menak is mostly associated with West Jawa.

Raden Patah gets into the story because even as the ruler of Demak the imams would not give permission for him to see the wayang performed in the traditional way with puppets in the round or with painted puppets, so he duly issued the required edicts to prevent playing wayang in the old ways, but then the imams gave permission for only the shadows of the puppets to be seen. A lot of people, including it would seem, some dalangs, believe that this was the point where they really had to learn how to hold their audience, and that involved more humour, more social comment, more moral comment.

In respect of the word "wayang".

Wayang is a form of story telling, sometimes those stories are told with the aid of puppets made of leather that are manipulated by a dalang in a way that throws the shadows of the puppets onto a screen, this is "Wayang Kulit".

However there are many other different ways of presenting those stories, some use the painted puppet in front of the screen, some use other puppets of various forms, sometimes a scroll with illustrations can be used, sometimes the story is told by human players, and this last is "Wayang Wong".

Wayang is story telling with illustrative assistance.

The most common form of wayang now is wayang kulit. The first mention of wayang involving the use of leather puppets dates from about the middle of the 800's, the word used to refer to this was either "ringgit" or "aringgit" --- if "aringgit" it would be reference to a performer, "ringgit" would be the type of performance, and both refer to the use of leather puppets. There is an inscription from the early 900's that says (I think) "Ki Galiki mawayang", in English this is:- "The Honorable Galiki played wayang".

Yes, leather puppets have been wayang props for a long time --- and so have other, less popular wayang props.

There are many forms of wayang, many more than I can remember, and probably more than I have ever heard of. They all involve telling a story. That story might be one of the old ones inherited from India that are included in the Wayang Purwa repertoire, or it might be something modern that involves the struggle against colonialism, or even modern politics or social agendas.

The established traditional forms of wayang have over-lapping repertoires These repertoires can contain stories with the same name, but they can be told in a different way.

From the traditional perspective, the wayang provides a means & method of social and moral guidance, to a great degree it fills a need that in traditional Western societies is filled by the Sunday Sermon. The characters and stories from the wayang form a reference point for the value systems of the Javanese people, both at grass roots level and amongst the elites. People will be likened to one wayang character or another, in accordance with personal traits and behaviour, or appearance; the correct way in which to act will often be influenced by the lessons that have come from the wayang.

Possibly some academics might have a different perspective of the wayang than I do, but my perspective has been gained over a very long time living with and relating to the people for whom the wayang is an important part of who they are. As with any belief system the beliefs surrounding the wayang are perhaps sometimes a matter of truth being that which is accepted by the greatest number of people.


Now, the comic punakawan.

There is absolutely no disagreement between us that in some Javanese monumental art there are elements of humour included. I think this sort of falls into the category of "Javanese Sculpture 101".

The people of Jawa are now, and have always been members of the Human Race, I might be wrong, but I believe that all communities of Human Beings, right across the world include in their make-up, an element of humour, and probably have always done so.

The statues and bas-reliefs of Old Jawa were a way of communicating with the members of Javanese communities, and all communication becomes a little more effective where an element of humour is involved. So humourous scenes were included in some narratives shown in the bas-reliefs on candis and in other places in order to keep the viewer continue with his viewing.

These narrative bas reliefs were in the nature of comic strips, just like Superman and Captain Marvel, if you wanted people to come and visit your candi and pray to you, or communicate with you through meditation, or to bring you offerings, you gave them something to keep them coming back. That something was the narrative bas relief. The comic strip.

Exactly the same as a story teller including humour in his stories so the audience will stay put.

Yes, humour did exist in Jawa before the 15th century. I agree absolutely that this is so.

However, to refer to a figure in a bas relief as a "punakawan" when that person is not able to be identified as Semar, or Petruk, or Gareng, or Bagong, or alternatively as a member of a defined group is simply not acceptable.

Even more unacceptable is to take an unidentified character in a bas relief and relate that character to an identified character in a wayang performance (of any type). To name one of these characters as a "punakawan" he must be one of the Semar group, or a member of some other identified group, he cannot be just a stray person who has wandered in off the street (so to speak).

The comic punakawan is related only to the wayang, and his role intensified as less and less people were able to understand the archaic languages, the element of humour in the role of the punakawan intensified when the dalang was forced to work only with shadows.

On the other hand, any member of a retinue or a group of followers can be referred to as a punakawan, and this usage can apply not only in wayang, but in common colloquial usage.

We need to understand the purpose of the punakawans in wayang. The wayang performances have the princes and the warriors and all the other elite characters speaking in Kawi or in Old Javanese, almost nobody today understands those languages, so in order to follow the story-line, the archaic languages need to be translated, the punakawans deliver the gist of the story in ngoko, which everybody can understand, and they intersperse this delivery with humour and asides.

When the dalangs were deprived of actual physical characters by the 15th century prohibitions, and they needed to rely on only their voice and some shadows to tell the story, they needed to work harder to hold their audience, and the belief is that they did this by increasing the humour delivered by the punakawans.

Maybe we can get back to keris hilts?