 All right, hello everyone, thanks for joining us from wherever you are, whichever part of the world you are right now. My name is Pangga, and I will be moderating this talk titled The Materiality in Primoor in Java by Wayan Jarasastrawan. And this talk is part of the series co-organized by the Center for Southeast Asian Studies and Southeast Asian Art Academic Program at SOAS. And to give more introduction to this series, I would like to invite Christian Nusnik from SOAS University of London to give a bit of introduction to this seminar series. Christian, time is yours. Thank you, Pangga. I'm just to introduce myself, I'm Christian Lutzonitz. I'm senior lecturer in Tibetan and Buddhist Art here at SOAS, at the School of Arts and the Department of History of Art and Archaeology. I just wanted to kind of shortly give an introduction to the first Southeast Asian Art Academic Program funded by the Alphawood Foundation that not only funded kind of three endowed academic posts, mine included, and that of Professor Ashley Thompson, Hiram Woodward, chair in Southeast Asian Art who is on research leave currently, so I'm kind of replacing introducing the series. The aim of SAP as it is shortly called is understanding the preservation of ancient and pre-modern Buddhists and Hindu arts and architecture in Southeast Asia. The Alphawood Program was associated with more than 90 scholarships between 2014 and 2019 for students from Southeast Asia, some of which now organize this lecture series. And currently it is a reduced program of three to four scholarships per annum. I also wanted to point out two publication series that is now organized. One is Pratu, the Journal of Buddhist and Hindu Art, Architecture and Archaeology of Ancient to Pre-Modern Southeast Asia. It's a post-graduate journal run by post-graduates as is this particular seminar. And the other one is a joint series at the National University of Singapore Press. The first publication actually edited by Panga and Luis Diederkot, who was another of the three endowed chairs, will be coming out in this month. Of course this seminar today is part of a seminar series as said by the Center of Southeast Asian Studies program and it's enabled through Alphawood funding as well. The series itself and the organization is led by postdoc students and alumni, namely Odom Loh, Kuntra Kohl, Hayditan, Pipet Khajejun and Panga Ariancia. And so yeah, with this I can kind of give over to Panga who will kind of lead through the talk itself. Thank you Christian and thank you for introducing the series that we are trying to organize for this period of time. And hopefully it can be as exciting as it is as we are currently also excited to have this seminar series right now and so as. And I'm sorry also for pulling you up from your lectures. So I'm just gonna relieve you from this stream and then we can have the talk after this. Thank you, Christian. Thank you. All right, so like we already announced we have Wayan Jarasasrawan with us today. Thank you for coming to this seminar. Jaras. Thank you very much, Panga. Thank you to Soas for inviting me and for all your organization behind the scenes and also to Aum and the others who will help put this together. Yeah, it's been a long time coming, right? It has. It's already originally scheduled in March and then because of the COVID situation we have to postpone it and then finally we decided to do it now using online platform like this one. And thank you for being patient with us for that matter. Okay. A little bit of introduction of Jaras. So Jaras is a PhD candidate in the Asian History of University of Sydney and then his research focuses on the historical writing practices of pre-modern Southeast Asians especially in text written in Malay, Japanese, and Balinese. He's also interested in the theory of history, the environmental and economic history of Southeast Asia, modern Indonesian history, and also Indonesian popular music. I guess that includes Dengduk? It definitely does, absolutely. Yes, I know that because we've been together, right? We have in years. And as you also may aware, as well, Jaras is also one of the founder and editor of the perspective of the past plots that are now currently integrated into New Mandala. All right, Jaras, are you ready? Absolutely. Okay, let's start with it then. All right, thanks very much, Panga. Thank you to everyone who's tuned in today. I'm very excited to be with you and to share some of my work. So, let me... I'm now full screened. Let me share my screen for the PowerPoint presentation. Bear with me. So, Panga, let me know if there's any problems with the presentation. It's good. Thanks. All right, so today, as Panga introduced, I'm a PhD candidate at the University of Sydney, and my doctoral research focuses specifically on the history writing of pre-modern Javanese. So, I'm interested in the ways in which the Javanese wrote history, the way that they used sources, the way that they understood and conceptualized the past. So, I come very much from a textual studies background, my undergrad was in literature and in languages, and now moving into text focused historical work. So, my reason for coming to materiality was sort of in a sideways manner. I was not originally a scholar of material culture at all, and I still don't have any claimed expertise in the study of, say, art history or archeology. But as a textual scholar, I found that materiality and especially the materiality of writing practices has become something that's become crucially important to my work in working with texts and working in history. So, today I wanted to share a bit about how that came about and what I think some of the important implications are when we're thinking about materiality of writing and how that relates to the study of history specifically in pre-modern Java. So, this is the sort of broad conceptual way that the talk is going to go. What I'm interested in is looking at how the materiality of writing influenced and affected the writing of history. This is the sort of, this is the basic basic thread of the argument that I want to push. So, just to give a brief outline, I'll introduce pre-modern Java as a setting. Since this is a talk about Southeast Asia and within the context of a Southeast Asia program, I won't go into too much detail but I recognize that many people will be coming from a non-Javanese background. So, I'll just give an introduction to the setting, the cultural and social setting of my study that emphasises a few important features. Then I'll go into a bit of depth about what I mean by the materiality of writing. You'll find that I end up in a sort of layman's or a common sense understanding of materiality but one that I think is illuminating and is worth coming into in a bit of depth. And finally, I want to introduce this notion of the precarity of the past. I want to put forward the hypothesis or the theory that for pre-modern Javanese the past was a precarious thing. It was often on the brink of disappearance. It was difficult to grasp, difficult to discover. And I want to link that historical problem which affected both the pre-modern Javanese as they sought to study their past and also it affects us as modern scholars trying to study the past. How this precarity is tightly bound up in the materiality of writing so that's how the talk is going to go. But first let me introduce pre-modern Java. So, I don't think I need to show you a map of where Java is or that's sometimes necessary for some audiences but I think what I wanted to emphasise here is what I mean when I say pre-modern this is a term I use to talk about what others call the Hindu-Buddhist period, sometimes the Indic period. Basically, the period of Javanese history between the 5th century the first written records that have survived and around the 15th century which is when the last powerful kingdoms of Hindu-Buddhist orientation began to decline and fall. So, this is about a thousand years between the middle of the first and the middle of the second millennium and I wanted to emphasise a few characteristics of pre-modern Java as a society. The first is that pre-modern Java was a state and a society that had the ability to organise resources on a very large scale. It was a society of relatively high population density especially in the agricultural areas of central Java and of east Java and it was able to leverage economic surfaces in order to produce highly sophisticated and high capital high value works such as Borobudur and many other works of monumental temple architecture a great deal of other kinds of material culture that have survived to the present day which indicate the wealth, the high level of organisation of Javanese society and I want to emphasise this because the study of Southeast Asian history often emphasises the fragility or the ephemerality of Southeast Asian states when compared to other states in other parts of the world their lack of bureaucracies and their personalised nature but in my view at least for pre-modern Java we have quite clear evidence of a society that was highly complex, highly organised one in which the state understood broadly played a large role in people's lives and through other kinds of quasi-state or institutions side by side with the state such as religious foundations, monasteries village organisations, rural corporations and those sorts of things the state and the society had an ability to leverage resources on a huge scale correlated with this is the clear fact of very close relationships between Java and the rest of the world this is a relief from Borobudur one of the several reliefs that depict ships because Java is an island naturally its connections with the rest of the world were by sea and in recent decades with the discovery of a few important shipwrecks in the Java sea and in the archipelago we are getting a better and better understanding of why and how the Javanese were connected so the connection is important because it relates to the manner of cultural sharing between Java and other parts of the world an important example of that is what used to be called indianisation and then later called localisation and nowadays called the Sanskrit cosmopolis these are all different terms used to try to describe with different emphases the kinds of cultural connections and other parts of the world that we can see, for example through recognisable art and architecture and very importantly for my purposes, writing so I want to make this point as well that for pre-modern Javanese access to literacy was relatively widely spread this does not mean that many Javanese in the pre-modern period would be able to write themselves had no way of knowing what literacy rates were but if we look at the documents that survive from pre-modern Java such as this inscription from the late 8th century we find and many others of this period a bit later we find that writing is not something that pertains only to the palaces and the kings and the Brahmins and a tiny elite the kinds of people mentioned in inscriptions and talked about in inscriptions and depicted as having a stake and an interest in the economic relationships and the political relationships that inscriptions entail or a relatively broadcast of society going all the way down if you want to use that metaphor to leaders of villages so I wanted to make the point because again, we often get the sense that Southeast Asians or Javanese say in particular they're oral people that their culture is deeply rooted in oral traditions which is of course true but that doesn't mean to say that literacy therefore was strange or unfamiliar I want to make the suggestion that literacy even if not directly accessible to everybody was indirectly at least accessible to many many people and not just exclusively locked away in palaces and in courtly centers so here is important because what I want to talk about now is sort of the first main body of my talk which is about the materiality of writing so what do I mean by materiality of writing what are one of the materials that go into writing I'm interested in things like writing surfaces so paper palm leaf metal stone that you actually physically write on I'm interested in the formats of written texts so how they're put together physically I'm interested in the tools that were used whether they were incised cut into the palm leaf or whether they were painted on with ink for example but most importantly for my purposes is that I'm interested in the durability of writing writing is different to oral to speech, to oral presentation or to memory it's different because something which is written down has an innate durability not an infinite one so all pieces of writing all written objects eventually degrade, decay and are destroyed but it is not by nature ephemeral writing has a duration and this becomes really important when we compare different types of material used for writing what is their durability and how do they last and on what context and how do they last becomes a really important and will be a central theme of the talk so how do we approach pre-modern writing the obvious way is to look at examples of pre-modern writing and I will do that shortly looking at inscriptions written on stone and metal that were created in the pre-modern period and which we can still read today and understand and interpret them but this is not the full story because many many texts that were produced in the pre-modern period no longer exist so we have to use other approaches we have to look at modern practices of writing and modern the materiality of writing in a more modern period such as the 18th or 19th century from which many many more manuscripts still exist so we will look at those modern ways of doing writing of practicing writing and extrapolate backwards so we always have to be cautious when we do that we can also look at visual depictions so images, artistic images of books of writing of manuscripts in the pre-modern period and infer what for example formats might have looked like and we can also use poetic description so old poems poems in old Japanese from this period in order to see how people describe the act of writing so I'm going to use all four of these to approach the question how did the Javanese write in the pre-modern period and what was the materiality of those writing practices so let me just talk about a few different kinds of writing surface some of the most impressive inscriptions we have from Java are carved on stone this is the Chiya return inscription from West Java with a beautiful lithic script issued by a king probably of the fifth or sixth century and a number of ornamentations so this sort of document was produced in an official context by a ruler in order to glorify and to leave a memorial and a mark to the achievements of particular kings and this is written in Sanskrit with a southern Brahmi script so we have in the document itself in the context in which this huge boulder was found in the river clearly it's been in situ since it was between the time it was produced and the time it was discovered in order to commemorate an important event an important intervention by the ruler in the organization of the waterway here an important type of surface used is metal very often bronze or some sort of copper alloy that is generically called copper plate but is generally an alloy rather than pure copper and these documents from Java tend to be of an administrative nature they're often about land transfers of different kinds or the giving of privileges from one party to another often from the king but not always so texts on metal were produced professionally very often so they were produced by a professional scribe on behalf of the beneficiary because the idea is that you get issued a metal inscription a copper plate inscription as a guarantee of the rights that you have received in that document so then you can keep that and you can show it to your children and your grandchildren and your descendants will maintain and preserve that record because that written record guarantees their right to whatever piece of land they may have been given or their ancestor was given so we see here how the the physical durability of the document is a crucial consideration for its legal value and its legal function which I'll come to a bit later now those are the two types of inscriptions that have survived types of writing surfaces that have survived there are others such as gold and clay but they fall into those categories the majority of texts were probably not written on stone or metal but on organic materials which for which I use a generic term riptide that comes out of the literature inscriptional literature and these largely don't survive, one of the oldest ones is the one I show here the bark cloth which has been dated in the 14th or 15th century but by and large we have almost no examples of manuscripts on palm leaf on bark cloth, on paper from anywhere before 500 years ago at the very very oldest so it's quite a different situation to the others and we can see here a number of different alternatives so two different kinds of palm leaf depending on which type of palm was more prevalent in different parts of the island of Java bark cloth not used very much in the Hindu-Buddhist period but much more popular in the Islamic period in Java and in addition to those different formats so we have a few examples of concertina format books that's from North Sumatra a cassette sort of rolled palm leaf from Sulawesi and in size bamboo from other parts of the Archipelago for a field then Java to show how different formats may have been used these examples are all modern by the way so these are all not pre-modern not old, these are 19th or 20th century so this is how we might go about extrapolating backwards from modern traditions making some conjectures about the sorts of formats that might have been available in an earlier time we do have a little bit of textual evidence very much an important didactic text from West Java in the 16th century written in old Sundanese talks about the variety of writing surfaces that were available and which one could use gold, silver, copper, bronze these are known steel and iron we don't really have many examples of those being used it's quite hard to imagine how because they're very hard but you never know so this sort of gives us a bit of validation that some of the the more modern formats and forms and surfaces on which writing was done may have also been known and in use at the 16th century at the latest and potentially also early at the era so this sort of gives us a bit of validation and potentially also earlier than that the second approach the second indirect approach if you like is through visual depiction so temporal reliefs in Java show a number of things that we can interpret as being very likely the big kinds of manuscripts so this looks very much like a palm leaf manuscript we don't know whether the size is realistic or naturalistic compared to the human figure if it is, it looks a bit more like one of the larger palm leaf manuscripts you get from South Asia rather than the smaller ones Indonesia you have a number of depictions of such we can see here that the crisscrossing cord around the palm leaf manuscript if it is in fact palm leaf manuscript looks quite familiar here we see what looks like a small number of palm leaves being held at the hand of these figures and you can see that the ends a droop they bend under their own weight and gravity so all of this makes us think this is sort of what palm leaf manuscripts are like and then we have a later image from the 14th century likely of what looks like a slightly smaller palm leaf manuscript but similarly all have this long rectangular shape and clearly to be read along the length rather than up and down so this gives us some sort of confidence that palm leaf in the way that we know it and the sorts of formats we're familiar with especially from Bali but also from certain areas in Java we're known also with these pre-modern times but it's not all a nice self-consistent story it doesn't fit all neatly together old javanese poetry has a number of terms for writing and writing is talked about quite a lot lots of people write love poems and other kinds of text as depicted in old javanese poetry and the terms that they use don't seem to fit very nicely so this word karas and tanah come up all the time and these seem to be a sort of writing board with a pencil rather than what we know in palm leaf manuscripts being scratched in with a stylus knife that's a bit different there's discussions of using pandanas petals to write love poems we don't know if that's realistic or not it might just be an imaginative sort of trope but even if it were real there's no way we could prove it because such petals obviously degrade very quickly and there are also another couple of different kinds of terms that are used to describe things that we don't have much evidence for still existing so we use these sort of different ways of approaching pre-modern writing practices but we're not sure exactly how it all fits together this is one of the difficulties of studying materiality when the materials are no longer completely extant we have to use these indirect methods and the indirect methods don't necessarily bring us to a nice self-consistent conclusion remember that because that issue is going to come up very importantly once again so the one thing that I really want to emphasize is that the organic materials which as you remember I called RIPTA this is based on the term used in these inscriptions was vulnerable to decay this is not just my hypothesis it's stated explicitly in copper and stone charters a number of them as you see here say the text of this document was originally on RIPTA originally on organic materials that's palm leaf but because that palm leaf document that RIPTA became rotten because it became illegible because it was decayed and damaged we had to copy the text onto something more permanent stone or copper or metal so here we have a very strong awareness that the durability of the material on which a text is written has huge implications for the text that it contains these charters these documents are about people's legal rights to land they're about their families rights they're about their relationships with the state these are very serious matters and so it's very important that the text that guarantees those rights the contracts or whatever are written on a material that is durable and permanent clearly in very many cases there are rules to perform this function of permanence and durability and that's why when we look at the whole documents that we have for the pre-modern period almost every single one is on metal or stone we have almost no remaining palm leaf RIPTA, paper bark anything texts from the pre-modern javanese period before the end of the 15th century so clearly the concerns that these people had the people who wrote these these inscriptions about how the RIPTA had gone rotten those concerns were very well placed so that issue is the key one that brings me into the second part of the talk which is how does the materiality of writing affect the writing of history I foreshadowed this problem by talking about the vulnerability of RIPTA my claim and one that I've argued for and I'm arguing for in my thesis and will keep arguing for in subsequent work is that the past was precarious for javanese people and what I mean by that is that for the javanese of the pre-modern period they had difficulty finding out information about things that had happened in the past so it's not just us culturally distant modern industrial society that struggled to understand past events in pre-modern Java also javanese themselves back then had difficulty accessing and discovering and finding the information that they desired about things that had happened in their own pasts maybe even as recently as a hundred or 200 years before their own lifetimes and this was the case for a number of reasons the first one is precisely the vulnerability of RIPTA problem that I talked about because most documents were written on organic materials the majority of them were written on such because that was accessible, it was cheap and for administration you want to produce documents in bulk but the downside, the trade-off for that ease of documentation is the fact that those documents don't last a long time as you copy them onto stone and copper so we can believe and I think with justification believe that a great deal of records were produced by the javanese state and by javanese people throughout the pre-modern period and they have been lost the original documents have been lost so although we have a great deal of literature and poetry and other kinds of texts from the 10th or 9th century in java in manuscript form those are not the original physical documents that were produced there those are copies of copies of copies such as this text a javanese copy of javanese material so the original document was lost and it's only if the text was copied many times over different iterations over the centuries and it seems to be the case that very few historical or legal documents survived many poems survived because poems of a general nature they appealed to lots of people everybody loves the ramayana for example so the ramayana was copied over and over again in many contexts but documents like land tenure like chronicles of specific courts and specific families these did not survive quite so well the reason is because they were physically vulnerable so the original record decayed was destroyed and if nobody had copied it before that happened the contents were lost forever it was not possible to regain it if you have a unique original record of something and you don't copy it in time then when the insects or the termites or the rats or the climate eats away at that original record it's gone forever like this one so that's really a crucial consideration another really important fact is that the archive of pre-modern java is not centralized and seems not to have been centralized very much we as modern historians when we want to reconstruct the history of magapai for example the history of mataram we use stone and metal inscriptions but those inscriptions are not all in one place they're not all stored in the capital at magapai they're dispersed throughout the countryside because many of them pertain to relationships over land and rural institutions and economies and as such they were placed in the places that they pertain to this is not just recent we have evidence from the 14th century of monks and other people having to travel to distant estates in order to discover facts about other parts of their history this photo is of singhasari the major temple near malang and this is the site where in the 14th century a Buddhist monk called prapancha who later wrote a poem that we still have talked about how he visited this particular temple and asked the person there please tell me about the history of the dynasty even as a person who was based at magapai who was a servant of the king haian waruk prapancha did not have access seems not to have access to basic information about the dynasty he had to go all the way to malang or the way to singhasari to discover these things so that shows the extent to which the archive was not all in one place easily accessible in order to discover a kind of comprehensive set of sources for the history of java one had to travel almost constantly throughout the countryside to all these local archives everywhere and this meant that the cost of finding out the full picture the full story of the past was very high this was another barrier another hindrance to the study of the past and this is another reason why the past was precarious even if the document survived which they often didn't they had to go travel vast distances in order to even know that they existed there seems to be no evidence of very many efforts to catalog to centralize to organize the existent historical archive in premodern java as for example was very much the case in imperial china for example now another really important consideration is about orality and memory so i mentioned before i emphasized the literate nature of premodern javani society and i stand by that orality and memory played a really important role that was intertwined with writing so rather than having a sort of an oral culture and a literate culture we find that information was often transmitted through a combination of oral written and memorial means and also visual art for example so we have the same stories the same narratives expressed in in oral form sometimes through performance we have it memorized and told orally again we also have it written down and copied from manuscript to manuscript with some texts we can see how a single text itself has gone through stages of being expressed in oral form and then the expression written for the way in which the text is put together the use of poetic meter the repetition of certain formulaic expressions the divergences in the accounts or give us to think this text has originally had an oral basis that was later written down this is common to many premodern cultures in the world and even modern cultures but i wanted to emphasize this because it meant that many javanese trying to learn about the past they could not depend only on written sources unlike a modern historian who focuses primarily on what we call primary sources by which we conventionally mean written documents produced at the time of the events we want to study that was not really a possibility for javanese historians difficult to gain access to those documents and by and large people learned about the past through oral means by remembering a story that was told to them and writing it down later or by having people show them documents which they committed to memory or paraphrased in speech at a later time and then those documents over the centuries turned into the historic traditions that we use today manuscripts, poems, chronicles were written that drew on the notion of a variety of sources not just primary written sources but also oral traditions also traditions of memorialization of kings and of places and of sages and that kind of thing so it's a very complicated way in which information about the past was transmitted and i characterize it as precarious because it meant that the javanese historians javanese people trying to understand their past tend with all these limitations and difficulties and that's not necessarily a negative thing but it did mean that they faced unique or distinctive circumstances perhaps not unique because many of these factors are found in other societies in the world too but certainly distinctive and certainly different to what we expect and what that means is that we have to think about the consequences if the past was precarious in the manner that i described if it was difficult to gain knowledge of the past as i described then what are the consequences of that firstly it meant that the historical record was highly fragmentary and it still is to date there are huge chunks of pre-modern javanese history for which we have no records and then certain periods for which we have lots the reigns of certain kings for example elanga in the early 11th century balitung in the early 10th century radin wejaya in the late 13th early 14th century we have heaps of records from that time but then other periods of history we have almost nothing so this fragmentariness makes it very difficult to talk about history as a whole and to trace its development another really important problem consequence that i want to focus on shortly is about conflicting version so even the documents that did survive so many so much did not survive but even that which did survive presents these conflicting versions and not just conflicting in terms of perspective in terms of a pro-king or an anti-king perspective right wing or a left wing perspective even the basic statements of what happened when were conflicting within the same tradition and sometimes even within the same source and the reason this happened was because the past was precarious because when you don't have an original written document an authoritative written document that says this is the day on which this happened then when you have different versions you can't adjudicate between them, you can't work out which one is right because there's no authoritative original to go back to if people are saying one thing in that village and a different thing in another village who's to say who's more accurate when you don't have a connection back to the original document so i'll talk about that kind of to round out the discussion shortly the effect of these two issues the fragmentariness and the conflicting nature of the record meant that as modern historians at least for the last 200 years scholars have been uncertain about the reliability of sources that we have struggled to make a good judgment about whether or not we can trust a particular source and the reason is because of their fragmentariness because they don't seem to give us a complete picture of what's going on and so we have this suspicion that we're missing out on the other side of the story we have this idea that the sources are sort of one sided and that's not necessarily because they are simply because we lack the opposing view we don't hear the other side of the story and so this makes it uncomfortable that maybe we're not hearing the full the full narrative and also where conflicts do exist they're of such a profound nature that it leads us to doubt whether or not the text is even reliable in anything it says or we see a text with a deeply problematic chronology for example with very confused dates some of which don't make sense and don't line up this leads to a powerful suspicion among historians that the text is not actually very useful or worthwhile Javanese historians of Java have argued about this for so long and we have not really got very much closer to a resolution so if you're interested in Javanese history and historiography you will have come across names like C.C. Berg like N.J. Krom H.J. DeKraft these scholars who particularly in the colonial period sorry, the first half of the 20th century wrote in Dutch arguing about whether or not Javanese sources were reliable or not and the discussions they had dragged on and they didn't really get very far and we've continued in the modern period, the post colonial period to talk about these issues but the facts remain the historical record is fragmentary and it's conflicting so that fact hasn't changed, those two facts haven't changed which means that we still can't work out how reliable the sources are we can't think our way out of the problem because the facts are still there so let me give you a brief example and I won't go on too long with this but I do want to make it a bit more concrete so it's clear what I'm talking about this is a text that I've studied in a bit of depth and I've published a paper earlier this year Indonesia in the Malay world this is the paraton it's a text probably composed in the 16th century in Java drawing on a large number of fragmentary older materials and putting them together and it concerns the history of the kings and queens of Java in the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries pluked out here the statements it makes about three kings two kings and one queen of Machapait also known as Hayam Wuruk Visesha his son-in-law and the sovereign queen Suhita Visesha's daughter and what we have in the one chronicle we have two completely different chronologies mixed together but in the original chronicle it's just a single list clearly two different versions of events were originally two separate documents that got merged together in the paraton that is, the new chronicle simply mixed together these two contradictory versions of events and if you look at it, it's clear in what year did we're casting Sukadai? 1311 or 1312 by the way the number in brackets 1389 with the asterisk is the year in the common era in AD whereas the number outside the brackets is the year in the Shaka year just to make it clear why there are two dates for each but which one is it? which version of events is correct and which one is wrong? and more importantly whoever put the paraton together must have realized that there are these conflicts it's not possible to look at this and think this is a coherent account of the deaths and reigns of the kings of Machapai in this time the question is why was it allowed why did the chronicle and the compiler put things together in this way? and in my theory my argument about why this was the case is because they could not work out which one was more correct because there was no original document they could go back to so here is the problem of the loss of original documents that when contradiction or conflict emerge between different versions of events there was no legitimate way to adjudicate between them and this one's accurate and this one's wrong because the documents on which they were originally based the 14th century documents all the way back written when Wakasing Suka was alive written upon his deathbed saying the new king is here those documents no longer existed or they were inaccessible the past was precarious and therefore when these internal contradictions emerged you could not get rid of them you could not make it better so this is a small example of what I find to be a very general phenomenon it's found throughout Javanese historiography this problem of conflicts and contradictions and my view is the most important reason for that is the precarity of the past and not other other theories have been put forward but I think that issue of the lack of access to written documents is the number one cause of these problems so why does this matter I feel like I got a bit passionate about that because it's my job I'm a historian of Java and so these problems are a big deal to me I've got to work out when did the kings live and when did they die and I've got to deal with these sources and texts but why does it matter to everybody else the reason I think it's important is because it illuminates the special challenges that we have when we work in Southeast Asia when we work in societies and not just in Southeast Asia but particularly Southeast Asia societies where the materiality of writing has these features that documents degrade easily that we don't have a very strong documentary record that it's quite precarious that we have these traditions that draw upon conflicting and fragmentary traditions and these situations pertain not just in Java of course they also pertain in other parts of Southeast Asia and importantly they also pertain in other parts of the world an example that I always like to bring up is we see many of similar kinds of things in early English history that period after the Romans had left Britain and as the Germanic tribes were coming in fighting against the pre-existing British Roman peoples and with conflicting traditions as we see in Java so this is not a culturally specific issue and that's why I think it's important for people broader than just Javanese people or people interested in Indonesia or even broader than Southeast Asianist because these sorts of questions are more broadly applicable so this is this is sort of where I end up I talked about the materiality of writing which is important of itself and I've become increasingly interested in it and engage with this issue of trying to work out what sorts of writing support what sort of writing materials people use back in the day but for me as a historian the relevance is that arrow how does it influence and shape the writing of history in Java and I think what I want to kind of persuade you of today is that the materiality of writing is a crucial consideration and we really need to think as historians we used to think of sources as sort of texts that float around in people's minds but they're not like that they're objects that exist in the world they have a form they have a physical presence and that physical presence matters it has an influence and over a long period of time that influence is very very strong so let me wrap up I wanted to make the point that we have a diversity we seem to have a diversity of writing materials in Java sorry, pre-modern Java not just palm leaf which many people know about not just copper and stone which we have in the museums but a whole range of other materials that at least there's some evidence they are being used although we can't be sure because for the ripped up for the organic materials we need to refer to indirect means the big point I wanted to make about the materiality is how precarious it was so the fact that ripped out that organic material was physically degradable that it was easily decayed easily destroyed led to the precarity of the written record as a whole that is documents that were produced throughout Japanese history to record land grants unless they were copied onto stone and copper they simply perished and that meant that Javanese historians both in the past and today really struggle we end up with a fragmentarian a conflicting written record that makes doing history very challenging finally as I alluded to I think that these sorts of findings can point to a broader theoretical understanding of the materiality of historical practice and these are buzzwords that are popular materiality, practice so many people thinking around this issue how is historical practice the doing of history how is it embedded in the material not just material culture but also the historical practice itself has a materiality to it and that's something that I'm very interested in and about and studying more and I think that this sort of case study for pre-modern Java can be a really good way into that so with that I'd like to thank you for your attention and also thank particularly the Southeast Asian Art and Archaeology Program and the Center at SOAS and also the people who have helped out putting this together and a number of people who have also given their kind comments on some of the work I've been doing for your attention. Thank you, thank you Jara for a very interesting approach and also a new perspective I guess on how we should approach the historiography of pre-modern Java as well as the pre-modern Japanese history and for those joining us at Facebook Live if we have questions or comments please feel free to write your comments in the comment box and then we can go through them one by one later or maybe now in the answer question session to start off the quick Q&A perhaps I think we can touch up touch some points from your talk there before you mentioned about what iPhone most interesting Japanese traditional for writing they always making copies of copies of copies like you said and you said also the archive or the manuscript actually disperse in all over the place and almost no one actually collect them in one place but then it rise up question about because making copies of course need resources need huge resources so there will be question about so who made these copies I guess in other word we can say who has the power to make history or who are the historians in pre-modern Java copies who got to make or write the manuscript maybe we have some part on that yeah absolutely so only a very small number of manuscripts that we could consider to be I guess historical, so kind of traditional chronicles texts about the history of kingdoms and at least in the 14th century which is the Majapai period more documentation we find that the people who are involved in this generally associated with religious institutions people who are connected with monasteries with clerical institutions the ones that we happen to have are often Buddhist but that's not by any means a rule or a standard we can be sure that Shiva Shiva clerics were also involved but the number is so small that's difficult to make generalizations that in general when we look at the manuscript as a whole so not just historical works but poems and literature and religious texts and all kinds of things we look at the type of people who are transmitting them and we do have a large proportion of people of the Brahmana caste and people who are connected with religious institutions and people connected with more remote remote communities away from the palaces away from the kratons for example in the mountains of Marapi we have a very rich collection of manuscripts that seem to have been produced by renunciate communities so aesthetic communities that lived in those high areas so I think there is a cross section of society not just controlled by kings for example it's not just naturally of course it's a selection process and we can be sure that many texts were simply not important enough to copy so it's not as though every single text was valuable if a text was no longer relevant if it was about a dynasty that had been destroyed or had been killed was no longer politically powerful to copy their life story and their ancestry anymore so I think that sort of unconscious or that sort of letting things just disappear without making the effort to copy them is probably one of the really important factors so rather than that natural attrition and selecting certain works to copy and certain works not to copy had an influence of course on what the record ended up being so do you know if there is any instance whether from some sort like can I say ancient inscriptions like stone inscription or metal inscriptions from early primordian java that revert in later primordian java in term of palm leaf writing or something like that I think what I'm aiming is a continuity and instruction yes it doesn't happen very often but it does happen sometimes so for example we do have a number of inscriptions from central java and also from Bali which are clearly copy they quote earlier inscriptions so it says well this is an inscription issued in the 19 the 900s but then they quote an older document from 800s and say oh this is how we know this was the case this monastery has these rights because 60 years ago there was this document here it is quoted and that's why we're doing business so inscriptions refer to each other to a small degree and they sometimes copy so you often have one inscription with 3 or 4 sections because the older document keeps getting copied and quoted so there is a sense of continuity but it's not super common but the question of the crossover between say when do the manuscript materials quote on the inscriptional materials that is rare but for example in Desha Wanana this 14th century manuscript text there are examples of the narrator Propuncia going to a monastery and asking to see the inscription so he wants to know about the history of the monastery it's a state how many lands it has and so he says can you please show me your charter look here this is all the land we have so there is evidence of these charters being used as evidence they were not just legal documents but historical documents and used as such in that time however these are exceptional cases when we look at chronicles we can see source material being used but it's not explicit and it's not clear how we can see it's compiling these different things but to my mind the fragmentary character comes through much more strongly so by default you are dealing with fragments you are dealing with traditions passed down orally and through complicated means and only sometimes did you have the security of saying hey look here's an original document i can quote this happens not very often at all okay so now we have questions actually from the participant in the facebook live one is from Angela too thank you Angela for doing us today the question is regarding the contradiction in dates between facts is it possible that the dates were not a priority for the writers or for readers but that instead other aspect of the text such as narratives, themes, motive were not a priority and could it have the fact that history were written on fragile material and often not copied reflect a perception of the relative significant in the society of history writing compared to other records i think that's also part of the way older historian approach pre-modern japanese writing like you said mention name like ccb chrome they also talk more about motive themes on the writing of the pre-modern japan i think this is a really important question i think it's a lot of people this is a lot of people's minds when they hear about this material for me the issue is issue of a genre it's clear to me that there are many genres of javanese writing it's a very rich literary tradition and each of those genres has their own priorities and interests so it's difficult to generalize across the javanese in general but it is easier often to generalize within a genre so to answer your question there are some genres of historical writing that are not interested in dates at all and this is a genre of what i call the heroic biography some may call it historical romance genre texts about the mongol invasion of javanese in the late 13th century these are poems and they're much more interested in thematic structure narratives the romanticization of heroic figures in war and in romance in love and the overall arc of questions about fate and about justice these sorts of things so that sort of genre of historical writing is very important because it gives us one of the detail that we lack from the chronicles however there exists and existed a chronicle genre that is very much concerned with chronology and this is not we have evidence for it for pre-modern in early modern javan, islamic javan there are genres of these chronogram which is the symbolic chronicles and they are very popular and this within this genre dates are very much an important priority and the dates in fact become the focus the events are almost secondary it's the chronology that becomes really important so i think that the fact of conflict is not due to the fact of conflict in the chronicle genre which is what i showed the example from the chronicle with internal contradictions in the chronology that chronicle was not due to i think a lack of interest or a deprioritization of chronology but rather again for the challenges of source material and trying to make chronological sense out of a fragmented record and to the second question about the relative significance i mean i think we sort of touched on this in Angga's first question i think that's right that there is perhaps significance i would say interest and relevance so i said for example at the epic poems like the Ramayana Mahabharata and poems based on that religious texts copied much more frequently than chronicles about kings and land grants and administrative stuff and the reason i think is because those texts had a broad appeal applied to everybody everybody can relate to the war between brothers and cousins in the Mahabharata everyone can relate to these amazing narrative themes in a way that perhaps what we would narrowly call historical texts about local politics about the everyday nature of the kingdom may have had a more restricted relevance one very plausible hypothesis about why these texts perhaps were chosen, not chosen to be transmitted but unfortunately it's very difficult to argue from absence so because the texts are gone we can't know for sure exactly why some were prioritized not others but if i had to guess that's how it would go on the note of January and relevance i guess it would be nice to pull up with the questions from our friend Atsoas Sayang Soka he questions could the language all japanese or probably sandwich and context for example commercial or religious purposes of the text influence the preferred choice of the material format and tools because you mention all these different materials i think it does have an influence for sure so the stone inscription that i showed the very old west japanese inscription written in sanskrit the script used and the language used very much part of a trans local tradition many scholars have studied from the kind of indian perspective sheldon pollock being one looking at this prasasti genre of royal eulogy, royal praise inscriptions written in sanskrit and for that stone it seems to be a preferred medium but then we also have similar stone inscriptions in old malay in a later period the use of old javanese for documentation administrative concern seems to also be a trend but not an exclusive one we often have for example a single inscription with sanskrit on one side and javanese on the other old javanese on the other and the sanskrit side tends to be more about administrative concerns but this is not a perfect one-to-one correspondence so definitely it's a really important consideration that we're dealing in a highly multilingual world pre-modern java the oldest inscriptions in java are since sanskrit and the second oldest are in malay javanese is the third oldest language in terms of the extant record that's used in java so the javanese and that's my point about long distance connections the javanese have been if you want to use the word cosmopolitan for a long long time and therefore we're dealing with this multi-glossic world and again my background in literature so I like to look at things in terms of genre and I think that we can think about the different genres of text, different genres of inscription being associated with different languages and also therefore being associated with different materials and the choice of writing something on copper plate versus writing on lontar what kind of palm leaf to use in sundanese for example there seems to be this distinction between using gabang palm leaf for more sacred or more valuable texts using lontar palm for less valuable, less sacred texts so there does seem to be an organize of the material choice in the tools but that's we need to take that as kind of case by case basis there's a lot more work to be done in terms of fleshing those questions out but I think it's very much a very interesting and a really good direction for future research in terms of multi-language in java I think I'm not born really whether there's hierarchy on language usage in premuren java whether royal has one preferred language and then the community has another preferred language and I guess that should follow up with the question from Harpinchang in Facebook that there will be version of stories different version of stories royal version person is said maybe for Ramayana it's a very popular poem or story in java yeah I think that's a really this question of class is very interesting or social status if you want to call it that different audiences and it's such a hard question to answer because we know so little about the premodern situation in terms of how these texts were preserved so much more about early modern situation how wayang works in 17th, 18th and 19th century how wayang works in the 14th century or the 13th century is a much harder question much less evidence if we're thinking about for example how historical narratives were presented very likely they would have been presented in different contexts written or recited version perhaps in a palace ceremonial context maybe a performance version so we know that in Bali there are performance versions of certain parts of the paraton the kenang rock story the story of rangga lawe used to be at least maybe not anymore presented in mask performances in topping in Bali and that would have had a much more mixed audience you'd have in the context of ceremony not just aristocrats and clerics and priests but also a broad cross-section of society by simply looking at the written textual record I find it hard to distinguish this is clearly a palace version and this is clearly a rakyat version I don't think that we can draw that distinction based on the text that exists but those men have been other versions that were very much more clearly aimed towards the people I have seen some attempts to draw out these inferences, implications about audience but I'm not sure that we have enough yet to be really clear about that we should assume given that these texts are very concerned with kings and aristocrats that they were the primary patrons of these texts but at the same time sometimes the texts are very negative about kings and queens sometimes they're very critical sometimes they seem to take the side of the rebels the rebels sound like heroes and the kings sound like villains so it's not we can't say for example just because a text is focused on a king or focused on the palace serving that palace's interest or that king's interest or is targeted towards that king the situation is unfortunately quite complex although we always do have to take it into account when we're interpreting it who are the people for whom this text was written and that's a question that always perplexes us okay we've been talking much more in depth about the point we can try to make it in more broader note and there is a question from River Boy that pertaining certain inscription i guess laguna copper plate i think i think what i'm trying to do with this is to reframe the question in more general notes concerning the material production and also material choice in writing in Java and then maybe you can compare that with other writing tradition in Southeast Asia do you see any commonalities difference or maybe some influence amongst others so i'll just use the specific question about the laguna copper plate as a point of departure this is not i know a few colleagues who are writing specifically about the laguna inscription so i'd certainly await the publication of their work and recommend it to you when it comes out hopefully quite soon in terms of the writing system it's clear to me that what we have in the laguna inscription is not necessarily javanese writing but a descendant of the common ancestor javanese and Malay and who are called Philippines writing so rather than being directly transplanted from Java it seems to be this southern Brahmi family of scripts that became adopted in Southeast Asia island Southeast Asia as a whole not just islands but also mainland Southeast Asia and over the centuries starting from the beginning of the first millennium gradually evolving into more and more specialized forms kemudian menjadi javanese-balanese sumatra tapi tidak seharusnya laguna copper plate dengan javanese-writing walaupun ada beberapa alasan di sana mungkin ada koneksi dengan javan jadi saya pikir soalnya tentang javanese-balan cerita-cerita di Southeast Asia dalam perjalanan pertama dan bagaimana javanese-balan kembali ke javanese-balan dalam pertanyaan bahwa dalam pertanyaan bahwa bahwa javanese-balan ini sangat penting bagaimana kita harus berkoneksi ke javanese-balan pertama-saya saya pikir bahwa apa yang berlaku di javanese menarik dengan javanese-balan tetapi tidak adalah diribut karena ia menarik menarik dalam bahwa berlambat Pernah menggunakan langkah sanskript dan vokabulari. Jadi, raja-raja yang berdasarkan, sehingga mereka adalah hero dari Mahabharata, dari Kali Dasar. Dan itu terus bergerak ke masa yang terlalu lama, bahkan dari 14th dan 13th century. Jadi, Javanese selalu mempunyai model sanskript di kawasan, ketika waktu indik. Tetapi, bagi contoh, keadaan dengan kronologi di Java, ini berbeda dengan apa yang berlaku di India. Saya tidak mengetahui keadaan keadaan yang lama di Kali Dasar di India. Dan setidaknya javanese mereka berlaku, ini berlaku untuk saya, keadaan keadaan yang lebih besar pada keadaan di Kali Dasar. Jadi, perlukan untuk mengawasi masyarakat, untuk mengulangkan siapa ada keadaan, dan siapa ada keadaan yang benar-benar. Ini berlaku untuk menghasilkan keadaan dalam domp murdered di Kali Dasar. STT berlaku untuk membantu keadaan yang benar-benar, bagi contoh mengakuskan keadaan yang benar-benar, menghasilkan keadaan, GitHub, melakukannya untuk mengekatkan foto di Kali Dasar. Kemudian, jadi, saya mengasihkan paksas keadaan yang benar-benar, dan mengasihkan terovada influence in the early modern period in mainland Southeast Asia is a sort of gulf difference. If you look at Thai chronicles, Cambodian chronicles of the early modern period, it clearly reached back to the Pali Canon and terovada texts. So there is, I think, we are dealing with sort of parallel and largely separate traditions, though of course I'm not at all a scholar of mainland Southeast Asian traditions, so I can't talk in any depth or detail about them. But it does seem to me that aside from a common influence perhaps of Sanskrit culture, writing systems, and awareness of the epics, awareness of the kind of the tropes, and the literary forms of Sanskrit literature in the whole of Southeast Asia, I think that the development of the historical traditions and practices does seem to be a more regional thing. Java's on its own path, Cambodia, I think on a different path, but that's definitely, again, that sort of thing is a really a good topic for collaborative project. Getting experts in, different experts of different parts of Southeast Asia really talk seriously about, this is what we find in Java, what do you find in your region? And I think that could be very, very fruitful, because we do have this tendency, especially in history, focus on what we know best, and I think reaching out to that sort of collaborative project would be really exciting. Alright, because of the time constraint, we have to go through some of the last question in Facebook to wrap up the discussions. I guess we'll just go with the question from Michael Paul Leib Better, questioning about the precarious city. Well, how precarious is Japanese material in Japanese sense compared to other geographies. And also that would bring us to the question by Angain Khanna, how I pronounce that right, about how vigilant we should be in looking at this material from pre-modern Java, in term of precariousity, I guess, of the past in Java. And I guess that also bring up how to conclude this discussion on how we should approach the history, or the historiography of Java, when we as Mediterranean historians are writing about Java in modern time. Thank you. So, just to Michael's question first, I think that we, that's a very hard question. Are certain spaces more precarious than others? I mean, yes, probably, but we don't know very much about how these texts travel, and that's sort of philological work that needs to be done. It's quite difficult as well, because we're talking of such a long time. So we're looking at texts that were written, say, in the 14th century, latest, the oldest copies we have of the 19th century. So it's 500 years of transmission. Many, many, many, many of these texts moved from Java to Bali. They would have moved through different geographical spaces. And we don't know very much about how that happened. So, we look at certain texts and we say, okay, well, it's clear that this text has been in Bali. Copies of this text have been in Bali for maybe 200 years, back to the 1700s or 1600s. But then it must have been put together in Java before that. And how did it get from Java to Bali? There are these, these stories about Machapayat falling and people coming to Bali, moving eastward at least. So, sorry for Machapayat going to Blambangan, moving eastward towards Bali, as the Islamic kingdoms rose. These are very precarious situations. And precarity is not just about physical decay, although that's what I've emphasised here in this talk. There are other kinds of precarity, of course, when you've got regime change, when you've got political instability, social instability, war, archives, even if they're dispersed, can be very vulnerable. And communities moving around, taking texts with them, their heirlooms, for example. So, if a person, if a society is pushed or a community is pushed out of an area, taking the history with them as it were, to a new place, that's a change of geography and that makes it more precarious. So, I can't answer the question fully because the data isn't yet there. But, and there's a risk of being speculative because we sometimes can't have the data to know how these texts travel through space. But as far as we can have that data, we can, we can be assured that precarity came in lots of different forms. And there's no, there's no hard and fast rule for saying, oh well, the mountains were safer, for example, than the plains, you know, because it was colder up there. We can't, I don't think, make those sorts of generalizations. Or Ang'ein. Yeah, I think that there's always a problem of presentism, especially within the guard, with the Deshawanana, because it's such a, it's been so, so much used in, in nationalist historiography in Indonesia in particular, to talk about how the nation-state of Indonesia has this precursor in the Majapahit Empire and these questions of what exactly did the Majapahit Empire consist of and how much power did it have? These are big problems. I mean, I'm not familiar very much with IR, so I can't really say, you know, what you shouldn't, shouldn't do. Presentism is an issue, and I think the solution is, at least a first, first attempt at a solution, is to try and focus on the language and the terminology used. It doesn't mean you have to learn all Javanese, but it, but it does mean, for example, looking at, when you look at the relevant parts of the Deshawanana. So you're talking about IR, the Deshawanana says about Majapahit that it is eternal friends, eternal friends, Satata Mitreka, with Siam, Cambodia, Anam. What does that mean? What does eternal friends mean? At least starting with a vocabulary that relates, and that means, you know, getting a translation, obviously, of that text. Robson, Stuart Robson, translation is the one you should use. Get Pijos as well, but compare it. Stuart Robson is more reliable. And then also get a copy of the Javanese text. And at least mention what those terms are. And so you say, be upfront. Okay. I'm not a historian, but I am interpreting this term as alliance. I'm interpreting this term as, you know, detente or something. So, yeah, be vigilant. Read the historical literature if you're interested. But yeah, at least be aware. It sounds like you're pretty aware of the issue of presentism and its dangers. So, my only real suggestion is try to be close to the textual evidence as far as your capability and your resources take you. Don't have to learn the language necessarily, but just a bit of vocabulary would probably help, I hope. And sorry, Panga, your last point was about what implications does this have for the study of Javanese history in general. Is that right? Ya. There are a couple, I think. The first is that we have to make explicit the fact that the record we have is so fragmentary and not a representative sample. I think if pressed on this issue, most historians would completely agree with it and say, yeah, of course, I understand. Yeah, you know, we do have to make, we do have to fragmentary record. No one would deny that. But, there is often a tendency for us to forget that when we're busy working. So, we just want to get, we want to find out what really happened. And so, we just assume, well, oh, there's no inscriptions for this period. Probably the state was in disarai. You know, so probably, so we come up with some explanation for why the record is fragmentary. dan kita melentak kesempatan ini. Tapi there is no text...لة ada no text between this period and this period which means that the later text must be refering to the earlier text with no intermediaries for example. We take the absence of evidence for particular documents as evidence for that absence. gives set like that it clearly sounds problematic. Kita memiliki tendensi ini, karena kita sangat usah untuk mencari banyak perintah dari rekod fragmentari, membuat banyak kesempatan dan spekulasi untuk menjelaskan kesempatan, menjelaskan kontradikasi, yang kita kadang-kadang lupa untuk memikirkan, oh, oke, tidak, tidak bisa mengatakan itu atau hanya mencari untuk membuat semuanya tergantung dengan baik-baik? Ketika tidak tergantung dengan baik-baik dengan baik-baik, dan ini adalah poin yang saya lakukan tentang piratone dalam paper saya. Mereka banyak istirahman, saya pikir, yang sangat baik adalah istirahman yang membuat kebahagiaan kecil, karena mereka mencari untuk membuat sesuatu yang tidak membuat kesempatan, membuat kesempatan. Mereka memiliki sebuah kronik dengan orang yang mati dua kali dalam beberapa tahun. Mereka mencari untuk membuat kesempatan. Oh, mungkin ada dua orang yang sama dengan orang yang mati dalam beberapa tahun. Atau mungkin ini akan berlaku di sini. Jadi menurut saya bahwa tekst itu baik-baik, tetapi interpretasi itu salah. Tapi saya pikir konsekuensi prokaratnya bermaksud kita harus lebih bersedia untuk menjadikannya. Mungkin tekst itu salah. Mungkin tradisi itu hanya masalah. Dan, setelah itu, setelah sebuah fragmentari, setelah prokaratnya, kita harus mencari cara untuk bekerja. Saya pikir tidak ada jawapan mudah, karena kita tidak bisa membuat sesuatu, kita tidak bisa mengatakan, sebuah tekst itu salah, jadi saya akan membuat sebuah teori yang tidak menghormati tekst itu. Tapi, saya pikir kita harus berhati-hati, dan sentiasa dikenal bahwa kita mempunyai tendensi untuk mencari sebuah teori yang tergantung, bergantung, bergantung. Dan kadang-kadang, kita tidak harus melakukan itu. Kadang-kadang, tekst itu hanya berlaku. Sebenarnya, dan saya pikir, menjadi baik-baik dengan itu, menerima apa yang terjadi. Mungkin, sesuatu yang kita bisa lakukan lebih baik-baik dengan sebuah teori. Oke. Jadi, pada keadaan itu, kita harus berakhir dengan berbicara dan berbicara. Terima kasih untuk semua orang yang telah bersama kami dengan Facebook Live, dan juga untuk pertanyaan, dan juga komentar, dengan komentar. Terima kasih, Jara, untuk berbicara yang sangat menarik, berbicara untuk berbicara, dan juga berkongsi dengan Prima dan Jawa. Terima kasih banyak, Prangva. Terima kasih untuk penggunaan yang sangat bagus, dan juga terima kasih untuk semua suportmu dan bersama-sama. Saya sangat-singin berasa tergantung dan terima kasih untuk beri peluang berbicara. Terima kasih. Terima kasih. Untuk para orang yang berharap menunjukkan kami lagi, berikutnya akan berada pada 25 November, pada bulan yang nanti. Mereka akan berada di sebuah sebuah sebuah sebuah sebuah sebuah sebuah sebuah sebuah sebuah sebuah. Apa yang itu?