An early figural hilt

[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?

[Gustav]

Alan, the comical/serious Panakawans, non-Panakawans and humanoids carved in lung-lungan style aside -

if you are serious about your sentence about replacing a puppet construction style, a MATERIAL OBJECT,
with a repertoire, a compendium of tales, an IMMATERIAL OBJECT -
which is impossible per se and really a nonsense - and that is a book knowledge against a community knowledge in your opinion -
I am afraid, and I regret it, I am not able to participate in a discussion with you.

[A. G. Maisey]

I'm very sorry that you feel like this Gustav, but I do understand your frustration, it is a frustration that can arise when a foreign word is used mixed in with a different language. This is certainly a difficulty, and I'll try to clarify that, but I would most respectfully ask you to read my explanation of the word "wayang" and consider if what I have written is at variance with what you have written.

In fact, my understanding of the meaning of the word "wayang" is not at all as you have summarised it in your post #15.

I feel, that a large part of your frustration could be caused by a simple misunderstanding of the actual meaning of the word "wayang", and the way in which it can be used. I did try to clear this up in my previous post #14, but my explanation is buried in text, and it might easily have been missed, here it is again:-

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.

In essence, "wayang" is theatre, and just as with the English word "theatre", it can be used with an adjective to indicate the type of wayang that is being referred to. The word "wayang" is Javanese and it existed in Old Javanese, where the primary meaning is "pertunjukan", that is to say "a performance" but Zoetmulder qualifies this and specifies:-

"pertunjukan ( dramatik) yang didalamnya disajikan cerita (dengan boneka-boneka, oleh penari)

in English this means:-

"a dramatic performance that contains a presentation of a story, using dolls or puppets, or by a dancer" (the word "boneka can be understood as either "doll" or "puppet").

This is the meaning of the word "wayang", as it was understood in Old Javanese.

Modern Javanese seemed to develop from around the end of the 16th century, and it is common practice to regard Javanese used prior to this as Old Javanese, but in technical terms, Old Javanese was already adopting a new form during the Majapahit era, so purist linguists hold that the period between Majapahit and Mataram was the period in which Middle Javanese was used. Middle Javanese is the transitional phase between Old Javanese and Modern Javanese.

In Modern Javanese the word "wayang" is ngoko, the krama word is "ringgit". When used in the absence of an adjective, both these words can be understood to mean either the puppet used in a shadow-play, or the shadow-play itself. In Modern Javanese there are at least 17 commonly used adjectives that when combined with the word "wayang" will convey a specific meaning of the word wayang.

The word "wayang" has come into Indonesian (Bahasa Indonesia), and in this language, when used alone, it can mean either a shadow play, a leather puppet, or a traditional drama performance. As with Modern Javanese there is a plethora of adjectives that can be used with the word "wayang" to indicate the way in which the word is to be understood, of course, in normal colloquial usage the adjectives are not required if the meaning and/or intent is already clear from the context.

The most common usage of "wayang" when it is used to refer to puppet is in reference to a leather puppet, strictly, the leather puppet should be referred to as "wayang kulit", but because in Indonesian a leather puppet will be intended to be understood 99.9% of the time, it is common practice to drop the adjective "kulit" when referring to a puppet.

If we go to the glossary of Kinney's "Worshipping Siva & Buddha", which you appear to be drawing upon quite heavily, we find that the meaning of the word "wayang" is given as:-

"wayang (kulit) Javanese shadow play with leather puppets (kulit means "leather" in Javanese) "

So even here we see the meaning of "wayang" given as "shadow play", and when the adjective "kulit" is added, we have "shadow play with leather puppets".

Perhaps Gustav, you can now understand that that your characterisation of my understanding is in fact quite erroneous.

The Common Man

I wrote the above earlier this morning, over coffee, whilst I was having breakfast. Later in the morning I had two visitors, both native speakers of Javanese, now living in Australia, one is a retired accountant, the other is a retired public servant, neither of these people is an artistic nor culturally aligned person, both just ordinary people getting on with their lives and more interested in soap operas and yesterday's game of golf, than in shadow plays than the traditional culture of Jawa.

Because I'd just finished writing the above, wayang & etc was at the front of my mind, so I ran a question past them:-

"Tell me, if I say the word "wayang" to you, what is the thought that comes into your mind?"

Both gave answers in the same vein, one said, more or less:-

"Wayang? Just by itself? Impossible, what is the rest of the sentence? My first thought is just who is the wayang? Who is being manipulated?"

The other person said:- "That's just somebody standing there, doing nothing, waiting to be told what to do"

This was the way these two people thought of the word "wayang", a puppet, somebody who is manipulated and ordered around by somebody else. I should have remembered this when I was writing the above. To many people in the higher classes, and many people who are grass roots Javanese, the wayang is an integral part of their lives, but to ordinary middle class people who one might say are culturally unconscious, the wayang is part of another world, these people think of the word "wayang" as a derogatory description of somebody who is manipulated. For example, many politicians are referred to as "wayang".

There is perhaps a very timely message in this.

[Gustav]

Alan, thank you once more - actually I understand quite well all you have written in your last posts - I would say, it's the basic knowledge for somebody, who is really interested in Wayang.

Once more - the reason why all this started is my fundamental problem to understand just your sentence:

"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."

Please correct me if I am wrong -

Wayang Golek in context of Wayang is a PUPPET constructed in a specific style from specific materials.

Wayang Purwa IS NOT A PUPPET, in context of Wayang it is a certain repertoire, a compendium of stories (presented using puppets or dancers, as per Zoetmulder, who forgets Wayang Beber). How can a puppet be replaced by a repertoire? This is my first problem with your sentence.

My second problem - the Wayang Purwa repertoire is the main repertoire of Wayang. It absolutely surely existed in Majapahit and before Majapahit. Why should Raden Patah replace something (you write Wayang Golek, a puppet style) with a repertoire (Wayang Purwa), which was ancient already in Raden Patah's time, was anyway the main repertoire and moreover deals with non-Islamic themes?

My third problem: I have not seen any academic publication, in fact no publication, which would mention Wayang Golek puppet style before Raden Patah's time, in Raden Patah's time, and at about a century after Raden Patah's time. Nothing similar to Wayang Golek is known on Bali (except for 4 modern performances between 1995 and 1998), which most probably would be the case if Wayang Golek or some kind of "puppets in the round", as you write, would have existed in Majapahit. There seems to be an general agreement that Wayang Golek with a quite big certainty originated in West Java and specifically in Cirebon, the puppet construction style is close to Chinese puppet construction style and the big part of repertoire played with these puppets is Islamic/deals with Islamisation of Java.

I hope I explained my thoughts clearly this time.

[A. G. Maisey]

Gustav, I must admit I do have more than a little bit of difficulty in understanding your motives in pursuing this matter. I will try to satisfy you once more, but in reality, I believe I have already answered your questions in this most recent post of yours in my own previous posts. But I'll try again, hopefully with a little more success this time.

Wayang golek can mean "golek puppet", and it can also mean "golek puppet performance"; "wayang" can be used in many ways, in the context of a wayang performance it must be understood as "performance".

The same is true of "wayang purwa":- "wayang purwa" can be understood as "the puppet theatre repertoire that includes stories from the very beginning", or it can be understood as:- "a puppet theatre performance that draws upon the repertoire of stories from the very beginning".

In the passage that you quote, I was writing about performances, which I believe is obvious.

The Javanese language is like unto English in that a word can be understood in a number of ways, depending upon context.

Your second problem.
There are a number of beliefs that surround the Raden Patah prohibition, and it is not likely that we will ever know the complete accurate details of the prohibition and its eventual lifting. Some things that should be considered are that Raden Patah (AKA Jin Bun, AKA Cek Ko Po) had Chinese blood lines, and that the Muslim population on North Coast Jawa in the 15th century was made up principally of Chinese traders.

Another thing that we need to consider is that the early leather puppets were believed to be heavily ornamented with paint and possibly with moveable parts. Men watched the puppets from the dalang side of the screen, women from the shadow side of the screen.

Raden Patah was not born Muslim, he converted to Islam, and as with many new converts to a religion he became a little extreme in his views. So although some people say it was the Muslim clerics who wanted the bans, others say that Raden Patah himself wanted the bans and the clerics found a way around these bans, principally because they wanted to use the wayang (theatre) for religious propaganda.

So what is believed to have happened is that new puppets were devised that were painted black, and were without moving parts, it then took another couple of hundred years for the style of the puppets, and for the manner in which they were watched, to come back to what had been usual prior to Raden Patah.

Now Gustav, you must understand, what I am relating here is based upon conversations with people whom I believe know more than I do about the wayang. As I have repeatedly said, any slight knowledge I may have of the wayang has not been acquired through books or study, I have very little interest in the wayang, and no interest at all in adding to the slight knowledge I already have. A somewhat similar situation to my knowledge of the ballet of the Western World:- I am completely uninterested in ballet, it bores me, I do have a little bit of knowledge of ballet, but that is due to the fact that I have a couple of relatives who are ballet teachers and ex-performers. Ballet, wayang, for me both these performing arts do not register on my list of things to spend time on.

Now, your second problem seems to need an explanation of the actions taken by Raden Patah in respect of wayang performances. I cannot give you a verifiable explanation, and frankly I seriously doubt that anybody alive today can. You have the interest in this, you obviously enjoy what you have read, so go the texts and form your own opinion. It is likely to be just as valid as any opinion I that may have.

Your third problem.
Gustav, just one more time:- I am coming at this entire wayang matter from a different direction to your own. Anything I have written is based on popular belief and the belief of working dalangs. That belief may be more or less accurate, or it might not be so. I don't care either way. I'm not interested.

What I do know is this:- it is not my part in any interaction with Javanese people to try to teach them that their cultural beliefs are incorrect, thus, what they may care to tell me, I accept, if I disagree I keep it to myself. If you want people to open up and talk to you, you do not set yourself up as an authority and try to teach them things that you, yourself only half understand.

In effect, your "Third Problem" is no problem at all:- you have your own sources of information, and you can form your own opinions. There is no problem. I am absolutely uninterested in trying to get you to accept my opinions, my opinions are for use in speaking with and interacting with a lot of people with whom I have social and family intercourse with every day. My opinions are of no use to you.

Gustav, I do appreciate that you have a deep knowledge of and interest in the Javanese puppet theatre, I most gently suggest that if you wish to continue conversation that involves this form of the performing arts, that you would be well advised to seek out somebody who has a similar deep interest in this subject, because I have very little interest. I am aware that there are some discussion groups centered around the puppet theatre in general, perhaps one of these groups might be a better place for you to continue discussion of the wayang?