Table Of ContentPANJI, THE CULTURE HERO
A STRUCTURAL STUDY OF
RELIGION IN JAVA
KONINKUJK INSTITUUT
VOOR TAAL-, LAND- EN VOLKENKUNDE
TRANSLATION SERIES 3
W.H. RASSERS
PANJI, THE CULTURE HERO
A STRUCTURAL STUDY OF
RELIGION IN JAVA
SECOND EDITION WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY
P.E. DEJOSSEUN DEJONG
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 1982
First edition 1959
e Copyright 1982 by Springer Science+ Business Media Dordrecht
Originally published by Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land-en Volkenkunde,
Leiden, the Netherlands in 1982.
AII rights reserved, including the right to translate
or to reproduce this book or parts thereofin any form.
ISBN 978-94-017-6496-4 ISBN 978-94-017-6657-9 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-6657-9
WH. RASSERS AND HIS CRITICS
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND EDITION OF
HIS COLLECTED ESSAYS
The first edition of Paiiji, the Culture Hero has been out of print
for several years now, and the Koninklijk Instituut has frequently
been asked whether a reprint was envisaged. In the light of
critical comments on the volume we should, nevertheless, con
sider whether this is sufficient reason for re-issuing essays dating
from the years between 1925 and 1940. In other words, we
should enquire what is the value of Rassers' articles by the
standards of present-day anthropology. When we do so, we
should make a distinction between the first three, which original
ly appeared before, and the fourth, of a few years after 1935.
The year 1935 was an important one in the history of Indo
nesianist studies carried out in the Netherlands, particularly at
Leiden University: in May 1935 J.P.B. de Josselin de Jong,
appointed to the Chair of "Indonesian and General Anthro
pology" pronounced his inaugural address, in which he outlined a
programme for comparative studies within the "Indonesian Field
of Ethnological Study" (1935/1977); a few months earlier,
F.A.E. van Wouden's Ph.D. thesis, written under his supervision,
was published. In this work van Wouden applied the principles
being formulated by his supervisor to his study of "types of
social structure in eastern Indonesia" (1935/1968). Van
Wouden's book was, therefore, one step -many were to
follow - towards fulfilling de J osselin de J ong's programme,
which can be summarized as follows. Given the established fact
that the Indonesian languages are related to one another, it is a
reasonable assumption that the anthropologist may study Indo
nesia as a "field of ethnological study", i.e. an area "with a popu
lation which appears to be sufficiently homogeneous and unique
to form a separate object of ethnological study, and which at the
same time apparently reveals sufficient local shades of differences
to make internal comparative research worth while". The anthro
pologist who undertakes this work should pay special attention
to the phenomena which are to be considered "the structural
VI
core of numerous ancient Indonesian cultures in many parts of
the Archipelago" U.P.B. de Josselin de Jong 1977:167, 168).
The two "structural core" elements particularly relevant for our
present discussion are double descent and asymmetrical con
nubium.
It will be clear that Rassers' article of 1940 (the fourth chapter
in this volume) adopts the same point of view. Referring to van
Wouden's book, Rassers considers it a valuable aid "in the recon
struction of the type of society in which we must locate" the
Javanese material culture and the associated myths which he is
investigating (see pp. 274-279 in particular).
In the earlier articles, of the period before 1935, no such
elaborate reconstruction of early Javanese society is attempted:
they interpret the belief and classification systems in terms of a
simple moiety structure- what J.P.B. de Josselin de Jong
(1977: 172) was later to include among the "structural core"
elements, under the name of "socio-cosmic dualism". It is to the
three earlier articles that we shall first turn our attention.
The critical comments on "The meaning of Javanese drama",
"Siva and Buddha", and "The origin of the Javanese theatre",
taken together, are as was to be expected from scholars writing
thirty to forty years after these essays were originally published.
The main objection is to Rassers' historicism: in the words of
A.H. Johns (1964:91), "Rassers' propagation of the concept of a
primeval dualism as determining the structure of virtually every
expression of Javanese cui ture has been particularly harmful".
Here, the critic is surely overstating his case. Rassers' demon
stration that "dualism" is the principal structuring feature of the
culture elements he studied (e.g. the house, the kris, the theatre)
can hardly be refuted, although one can entirely agree with Johns
when he rejects the notion of a primeval dualism in a "hypothe
tical indigenous Ur-society".
This is also the thrust of the long, perceptive review of the first
edition of Paiiji, the Culture Hero by Rodney Needham, who
first gives due praise to Rassers' "minute knowledge of Javanese
institutions" and "considerable skill in internal analysis", but
then criticizes the basic weakness of Rassers' approach as
follows: "He thinks that the 'only' model for a dualistic sym
bolism is dual organization (more precisely, in fact, a two-section
system), but this does not exist on Java, and cannot be shown
historically to have existed there, so that it becomes necessary to
reconstruct for the remote past a proto-J avanese society of which
VII
the classification is a faint and dispersed reflection" (Needham
1960: 175; italics added).
Every present-day anthropologist and philologist will agree that
Rassers adhered too strictly to the tenet of the Annee Sociologi
que group, that social classification, i.e. the division of society
into distinct groups, is not one type of classification among
others, but the basic type, the fons et origo of all others. A typi
cal phrase of Rassers' is to be found on p. 42 in this volume:
"Wherever [such] a tribal division is found it has been possible to
establish that the classification based on it extends to everything
that exists ... " (italics added), with a footnote reference to
Durkheim and Mauss's article "De quelques formes primitives de
classification". However, one need not accept Needham's
criticism on the grounds that the dual organization assumed by
Rassers "cannot be shown historically to have existed" in Java,
for this may be due to his, and our, lack of sufficient historical
data. This brings us to a point of considerable interest, not only
for an evaluation of Rassers' work, but for the logic of scholarly
discourse in general.
Between 1960 and 1963 the five volumes were published of
Th. Pigeaud's java in the Fourteenth Century: in effect, a new
edition and translation, with notes and commentaries, of the
famous Old Javanese poem Nagara-kertagama. This work, of
1365 A.D., gives information on the lands and institutions of the
kingdom of Majapahit by describing the ceremonial royal pro
gresses of the king through parts of his realm in 1359, 1360,
1361 and 1363. "Orderliness and classification are the marks of
the poem" (Pigeaud 1962:3).
In his commentary, Pigeaud repeatedly specified the basic clas
sificatory principle, namely "the fundamental duality idea"
(1962:146). This idea becomes manifest in many ways, a few of
which should be mentioned here.
1. In the composition of the poem itself, e.g.: "The [chapter
describing the royal chase] is placed just about the middle of the
poem. The Javanese conception of duality, by division into equal
moieties, no doubt was an important factor in the composition"
(1962:146).
2. In court etiquette: "As to the food and the manner of its
being served two groups are distinguished. The first group, con
sisting of the Royal Family and the courtiers, were served with
ritually pure food on gold plate ... The second group eating im
pure food from silver plate probably was formed by the country
people" ( 1962: 309).
VIII
3. In the structure of the kingdom as such. In Canto 1 7,
"Janggala and Kadiri are mentioned together as name of the
whole realm" (1962:41). This is elaborated on p. 122: "The
reunion of Janggala (the districts on the lower course of the river
Brantas) and Kadiri (on the upper Brantas ... ) that is mentioned
in [Canto 40, stanza 4] ... was considered the crown of any
great King's life-work". Pigeaud comments on "the Janggala
Kadiri antithesis" that it "probably was much older than the
11th century. The 14th century Majapahit view of it as a dynas
tic disintegration which came about in historical times was a late
development of the primeval tribal conception of human society
as forever splitting up into moieties" (1962:202). This is more
happily phrased on p. 521, where the unfortunate term "tribal"
is avoided: "Kahuripan (or Janggala) and Kadiri were the most
important [provinces], probably more on account of an ancient
division of the realm into moieties founded on primeval native
belief than on economic grounds".
In brief, the "dualism of the realm" (1962:524), basic to the
Javanese perception of the state in the 14th century, was "prob
ably much older than the 11th century". If we finally pass from
the state as a whole to the humbler level of the rural com
munities and the representatives of the outlying districts, the
situation, as described, is enlightening enough to be recounted in
some detail.
4. The commoners' organization and the administration of the
kingdom. Canto 63 deals with the commoners' contribution to
the expenses of court ceremonies. Two representatives of the
contributing "rural communities" are mentioned, and "the
tendency to have pairs is connected with the fundamental idea of
cosmic and social duality" so frequently mentioned in the com
mentary. The two men who represented them "may have been
representatives of two groups of common rural communities in
East Java, whose inter-relation was of the same kind as the rela
tions existing between the Kadiri and the J anggala moieties of
the realm" ( 1962: 17 4 ).
Later in the Nagara-kertagama, the poet describes the great
annual court festival, where law officers, lairds of manors, re
presentatives of the landed gentry and commoners come to pay
homage. It is again two heralds or messengers (Ranadhikara and
Mahadhikara) who introduce the "governors in the outlying dis
tricts" and the "rural communities" respectively, in Canto 88. In
Canto 91, these two gandek or heralds again make their appear
ance, in a very curious passage:
IX
"Arya (the Honourable) Ranadhikara is forgetful that there is a
respectful announcement (to be made) to the Princes.
Arya (the Honourable) Mahadhikara now is his companion, to
gether they speak: ..." (etc.; Pigeaud 1960: 108). Pigeaud elu
cidates this stanza as follows.
"The description of their behaviour is suggestive of a ceremoni
ous address spoken by the two men together and answered by
Royalty according to a tradition of long standing. As it is most
improbable that the Honourable Ranadhikara really would forget
his traditional duty the remark on his forgetfulness is the poet's
(and the Court's) explanation of the two men acting and speak
ing together. ... Evidently the strange double ceremony was
puzzling already to 14th century Majapahit courtiers. Probably
the real explanation of duplicated ceremonies is: originally the
functionaries represented the two moieties of primeval tribal
society" (Pigeaud 1962:323, 324 ).
Even if we reject the expression "primeval tribal society" in
favour of "early Javanese society" or a similar phrase, it cannot
be denied that the elucidated Cantos 68 and 91 (texts in Pigeaud
1960:79, 80 and 108; commentary in Pigeaud 1962:201, 202
and 323, 324) are highly relevant for our discussion of Rassers,
who associates present-day binary oppositions in Javanese culture
with a binary form of social organization which "must have"
existed in the (unspecified) past.
In the first passage, we have to deal with the 14th century
perception and explanation of a "dualism of the realm" as a
whole, which "probably was much older than the 11th century".
In Canto 91 two heralds or messengers, whom we encoun
tered in Canto 88 as introducing representatives of outlying
districts and rural communities, act out a "duplicated ceremony"
which was already "puzzling" to the 14th century courtiers, in
cluding the poet.
Several paragraphs of the poem of A.D. 1365, in sum, contain
references to contemporary or much earlier forms of a binary or
dualistic social organization prevailing at various levels in the
kingdom of Majapahit. This gives very strong support to Rassers'
conjecture.
Does this mean that, in my opinion, the criticisms directed at
Rassers' works are unjustified? Of course not. It goes without
saying -or, rather, it should have gone without saying- that
Rassers too closely followed the reasoning favoured by the
Annee Sociologique group that the social structure is the origin
of, and the model for, all other structures. Given the data he so
X
meticulously gathered, a modern (i.e., post-1930) anthropologist
might have argued that1 if we encounter binary oppositions in so
many spheres of Javanese culture, it is a reasonable hypothesis
that there is, unobserved, or was also social dualism in Java. In
this case, the recent te-study of the Nagara-kertiigama would have
confirmed this hypothesis.
Rassers came very close to such an argument, but distorted it
by his historicism. While recognizing the fault in his argument,
we should also acknowledge his achievement. Rassers was right,
but he was right for the wrong reasons.
When we turn from the first three essays in the present volume to
the article "On the Javanese kris", first published in 1940, the
contentious point is not so much "dualism" as double descent.
This system is introduced on p. 277, when Rassers refers to van
Wouden's then recently published thesis of 1935. Rassers agrees
with van Wouden that various phenomena in the domain of social
organization can best be explained as having "evolved from an
original system reckoning with both patrilineal and matrilineal
kinship" (p. 278), but adds the cautionary note: "A double uni
lineal kinship system ... does not any longer exist anywhere in a
perfect state of preservation" (p. 279).
Nevertheless, a typical criticism of this part of Rassers' argu
ment is as follows: "There are no genuine double unilateral
systems any nearer than the eastern tip of Indonesia, more than
2,000 miles away from Java, in the islands off the coast of New
Guinea ..." (Hildred Geertz 1965:295). One might rebut this by
pointing out that "genuine" double descent systems have been
recorded much closer to Java, e.g. in western Sumba and in
southern Sumatra, but this whole argument is irrelevant, as it
ignores the Field of Ethnological Study concept, and the mutual
ly interpretative studies of Indonesian societies which are based
on it. A few explanatory notes will not be out of place here.
As we observed at the beginning of this Introduction, a pro
gramme was formulated by J.P.B. de Josselin de Jong in 1935,
and partly carried out by van Wouden in the same year, which
entailed studying Indonesian societies as related to one another
by concentrating on four "structural core" elements, one of
which is double descent. The way such studies were carried out
in practice was that the investigators used the "structural core"
elements to explain the recorded occurrence of phenomena
which, in themselves, appeared inexplicable. In casu, double
descent could serve to explain the random distribution of various
