Tunggak Semi
 

Dhapur "Brojol" with pamor "tunggak semi" (sprouting bud), and dhapur "tilamupih" with pamor "kupu tarung" (fighting butterfly). Both with Yogyanese hilts...

Ganjawulung

Sabuk Inten
 

Almost every collector who collect Javanese kerises in Java, know this popular dhapur "sabuk inten" (diamond belted), with 11 luks. As popular as Nagasasra (mostly thirteen luks, with naga or dragon relief). For comparison, I show you the dhapur "sengkelat" (thirteen luks) with almost similar "ricikan" (details) -- only differed by luks number... (The sengkelat with Solonese hilt is from 21th century, and the Sabuk Inten with Yogyanese hilt supposed to be from Mataram era. Or say it, keris with Mataram style)

The wood of the "branggah" style sheath is quite rare. It is from "nagasari" wood (Messua ferrea Linn.). Nagasari tree, is believed, came from part of India. The name of origin is "nagakesara". Or maybe in Malay, you may call it as "penaga lilin, penaga putih or penaga suga. Correct me if I'm wrong...

Ganjawulung

This may come a bit late, but I wish to say that I greatly enjoyed the pictures posted. I have always liked beautifully-grained wood turned into excellent sheaths and hilts, sometimes at the expense of the blade. :D

A big thank you to Pak Ganja for sharing. :)

Dear BluErf,
And sometimes, the keris sheath is more "expensive" than the keris... In Jogjakarta, the keris sheath made of "timoho" wood with "pelet ngingrim" (ngingrim motive, it is difficult to say this motive in words) is as valuable as a keris itself...

Ganjawulung

I found and example of a cis -- or more exactly, "cis and taji" -- in Karaton Solo's Museum (The Solo Palace Museum) just in the outer inside part of karaton. (Please see the picture, and the name tag below the special weapon).

Cis, according to this court information, is straight in form. And "taji" (cock's spur or curved nail of a cock) is curved in form. And the use of this weapon is for elephant-soldier...

Ganjawulung

I agree as well. I have a piece in my collection, which sheath is more expensive than the blade itself... I believe some of us have ensemble that are like that. But the end result, is very satisfying... I sure. ;)

As for the timoho wood you described, it should look pretty impressive... if you don't mind, can we have a look, please? :D

Dear Shahrial,
I've posted the keris warangka (sheath) with "ngingrim" motive in its timoho wood, on this same thread (#22, on 14th of July 2007). The same valuable motive of timoho is "sembur" (like tiger's fur dot). I know, Marco last week "desperately" sought this kind of "sembur" motive in Jogjakarta. (Now he is still in Bali....)

Ganjawulung

Pak Ganja,

That looks like an ankus, elephant goad to me. How long is the handle?
When used by a man riding on the elephant, the handle is normally short. When used by a man walking beside the elephant, the handles are longer about 5 feet long but the hook is smaller. ;)

Excellent! Thanks for sharing. :D

Not too long,
I think it is the type of one "pengadeg" landeyan (spear-handle). One pengadeg is the same size of a standing man with hand straight upward...

Ganjawulung

Yes, very hard to find a timoho sembur :shrug: .... mybe next time in Yogya i will be more lucky :)

Pak Ganja, I fear that you may have been just slightly misled; I'm afraid your court informant was a little deficient in his knowledge.

The photo of the implement and signage from the karaton musium is in itself misleading. If you are able to investigate this matter, you will find that the cis of which you show a photo was previously displayed along with some taji. It would seem that the taji have been removed, leaving only the cis , however, the sign has not been altered.

Your photo shows an excellent example of a cis.The cis is not a weapon, it is an angkus, used to control an elephant.

The taji that used to be displayed were the ones used on animals when they were matched against one another, or against macan tutul. They were used mainly on goats in these matches, and the taji were mounted on a frame that strapped to the goat's head. You can still see examples of these taji in the Musium Radyapustaka, on Slamet Riyadi, just near Sriwedari. There's probably some cis there too.

As you have indicated the word "taji" is associated with fighting cocks, however, its usual usage is not for the cock's natural spur, rather, it is used to refer to the steel spur that is bound to the cock's foot when they fight.These spurs are straight, or sometimes waved like a keris blade,but they are not curved, and most definitely not curved to the extent of the hook-like blade of a cis.

Dear Alan,
What I saw in the Karaton museum was, a solely tombak in a single cupboard, closed with fixed glass. And just in the foot of the tombak, was a single name-tag for a single object in the solely cupboard.

If according to you, this "court informant" was a little deficient in "his" knowledge, then.. It is beyond my capability and capasity to say that the info was not right...

Ganjawulung

Be this as it may Pak Ganja, but I am talking observed fact here.

Going back some years cis and taji were on exhibit in the karaton musium. I really do not care what the sign says that you photographed:- that sign is wrong, if it was referring to a single object, that object is a cis.

If you recieved an explanation from a guide, or attendant, or from anybody else, for that matter, the person who provided the explanation was wrong.

I am not seeking agreement from you, nor am I seeking concensus.

I attempted to correct the false information as gently as I could. I am now saying very plainly that the information that you were provided with was wrong.

To check the correctness of what I am saying, one does not need to have extreme depth of knowledge in this field. All that is required is to go to a good Javanese dictionary and one will find it spelled out.

Pak Ganja, you are Javanese, I am not. However, one does not need to be Javanese to know that it is a cultural trait of the Javanese people that when a question is asked, an answer will often be given without regard for the correctness of that answer, simply to try to ensure that the person who asked the question will not be disappointed by not receiving an answer.

You tried your best to obtain a correct answer, but the person whom you asked provided you with incorrect information.

Dear Alan,
Excuse me if I'm misunderstood. Is an angkus is weapon for elephant? And harpoon is weapon for fishing? Is a cis, meant for elephant and also fish? If for elephant, for what purpose? Killing? Would you like to inform me please...

Ganjawulung

I don 't mean to speak for Alan here, but it would seem that he already answered this question in a previous post. :shrug:

No Pak Ganja, I beg you to please forgive me.

Apparently my use of language has been insufficiently clear. I dealt with this matter previously, but apparently I dealt with it in an inadequate fashion.

I will try again.

A cis is an ankus.

An ankus is a tool used to guide and control an elephant; such a tool is probably correctly named as a goad.

An ankus is not a weapon.

A harpoon is a tool used to spear whales, crocodiles and big fish. Strictly speaking this is also not a weapon.

A weapon is an implement which is used for fighting.

Here I quote my previous post of 17th July:- I feel that what has happened with this group of items that we know as "cis" in Solo, is this:- some of them are correctly named as "cis", and these are the ones that look, and probably functioned as, an angkus; the others which bear a resemblance to a correctly named cis, are in fact not cis at all, but various types of harpoon used to harpoon crocodiles, or sharks and other large fish.

Again I beg your forgiveness for being so imprecise and inadequate in the use of my own native language that I was unable to present information in a clear manner, in addition I feel that I must also ask your indulgence for causing you to waste so much of your valuable time on such an inconsequential matter.

Thank you Alan,
Your explanation gives me clear information about the meaning of the word "angkus". (I didn't find this word in my English dictionary). That's why I ask you explanation.

I found this example in museum, not by intention. I was just seeing the collections of the museum in Solo last week, and coincidentally saw this "elephant goad".

Thanks a lot, Alan
Ganjawulung

If you cannot find "angkus", try "ankus". I've seen it spelled in both ways, and I'm not quite sure which is correct.

Thanks Alan,
I try to find it, either in bigger Longmans, Webster, Collin Cobuild dictionary, later.

Ganjawulung

You can find it here... ;)

http://www.nga.gov.au/Wolfensohn/RED/ankus.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankus
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/d.../d0000989.html

Yogya vs Solo
 

SO CLOSE YET SO FAR

This two cultural cities, Surakarta (Solo) and Yogyakarta in Central Java is so close, only 65 kms apart. Yet, they have quite significant differences in their keris style, and also their practice. Physically, but sometimes non-physically.

Some “solo-school” will say “that’s allright” for certain practice in keris. But “yogya-school” say, “no, you may not do that”. Practice of “mbesut” (refining old kerises), for instance. Solo-school will say, this practice is permitted. But yogya-school will say, no, you may not do that. Yogya will keep old pusakas, old form of kerises as they are, even if the keris edge is corroded.

Some “keris besutan” (keris which has been refined) are easily recognized, from the smooth edge, and also from the very tip of the blade. Solonese besutan, usually changed the tip of old kerises with different type of tip, named as “mbuntut tumo” (as the tail of louse). Once a keris was refined by solonese – even by the famous “ahli besut” of Solo royal palace named Matang – yogyanese would not want to collect it, even it is a good and original old keris from Pajajaran, or Majapahit whatever. Also, fanatic yogyanese won’t put new keris (nom-noman) from Solo in their collection. Newly made solonese keris, is quite different from “classic” style of keris, like Mataram kerises, or older.

Why so different? That is a matter of historical background. Back to the turning point of their brotherhood between the heir of Mataram and his brothers, in 1755. That was the year of “palihan nagari" (the division of the Mataram kingdom), as a result of civil war between the sons of Mataram ruler, Susuhunan Amangkurat Jawa (Amangkurat IV, 1719-1727).

The first rebellion came from Raden Mas Said, the son of Mangkunagoro -- the eldest son of Amangkurat Jawa -- not from the consort of King, but from the mistress. The heir, Susuhunan Paku Buwono II, actually was the 10th son of Amangkurat, but from the consort of King.

In 1745, King Paku Buwono II announced that anyone who could root out the rebellion of Raden Mas Said, would get Sukowati area – in the eastern part of Solo. Mangkubumi – the 21th of total 42 sons of Amangkurat Jawa but from the mistress of the King – succeeded to root out that rebellion. But the King PB II denied his promise. In anger, Mangkubumi then rebelled, and fighting against the King PB II which was backed by the VOC (Vereenigde Nederlandsche g’octroyeerde Oost-Indische Maatschapij, a European multi-nation company at that time).

PB II was very ill when this King “handed” the Kingdom to the VOC. Then PB II was died in 1749. The civil war still took place, until “Gianti Treaty” in 1755. This treaty, which was signed by Nicolaas Hartingh – on behalf of VOC and King of Mataram Paku Buwono III (successor of PB II) – and Mangkubumi, divided Mataram into two kingdoms: Yogyakarta (Mangkubumi, then Hamengku Buwono or HB I) and Surakarta (Paku Buwono III).

Related to “keris world”, Mangkubumi who became Hamengku Buwono I chose “the old style” of Keris, the style of Mataram. And from then the Surakarta kingdom applied “gagrak anyar” style, new style in their kerises, their sheaths. For the "gagrak anyar" style, Solonese kingdom modified the "pesisiran" (coastal state) style.

The ruler of Yogya, Hamengku Buwono I was the uncle of Paku Buwono III -- ruller of the Solonese kingdom. Even not only keris they have differences. Their wayang also had some differences in details and style. Quite significant. Also their style of music, dances….

Ganjawulung

dear Gonjo,

after paliyan negari
If in Keraton Jogja, there are Kiai Plered & Kiai Kopek. There is Kiai Wewe Putih (Gumarang) in Pakualaman. How about in Keraton Solo and Mangkunegaran.

Usmen

That's beyond my knowledge, Raden. There is still a tradition of "sinengker" (people outside kraton may not know), especially about the pusakas. Yes, the English book on Kraton Yogya mentioned some names of legitimate pusakas, like Kanjeng Kiai Joko Piturun (keris) -- the symbol of kraton legitimacy for the heir or Kraton Yogyakarta. You may read also the interesting book of the (Australian) historian MC Ricklefs on "The Missing Pusakas". He mentioned quite a lot of names of Kraton pusakas...

This is what I know:
On pusakas (kerises, tombaks) may be Yogyakarta has better ones, or at least older pusakas. But on arts (dances, music, litterature) Solo is better. What people know abroad on those kind of arts, usually come from Solo. You may find such "karawitan" (Java traditional music) professor as Mr Sumarsam at the Wesleyan University in US. He comes from Solo too. Also DR Rahayu Supanggah, the prominent Javanese musicologist in Indonesia now. He comes from Sragen (formerly Sukawati) in the east of Solo..

For me, both -- Solo and Yogya -- gave their share for the development of the Javanese culture. Personally, I am solonese. But most of my collections are Yogyanese. And I love Yogya style too, I love the simplicity -- Yogyanese philosophy in their kerises...

Ganjawulung

Dear Ganja
I agree with you about semplicity in Yogya keris (mainly for pendok and sarong ....in my opinion gayaman with its "free -from -angles form" has, like an egg, a great balance and elegance).

Please, could you explain in depth about "keris besutan"?

Marco

Dear Marco,
The edge of old keris, is usually "serrated" (pls correct me, if I used the wrong English term), because of age, and corrosion. In Solo, the practice of "mbesut" (smoothen the serrated edge, reshape the blade) is permitted. Of course, by the specialist of it. Matang is a wellknown specialist of mbesut practice in Kraton Solo. You may call, such old but reshaped keris as "keris besutan" or "keris larasan".

So, "mbesut" or "nglaras" (verb) keris, contains intention of reshaping, beautifying the corroded keris edge -- of course, without heat treatment. But for they who don't agree with such practice, may call such reshaped keris as "keris ongotan" (negative meaning). Ongotan means "sharpened", like pencil. (True) yogyanese, doesn't practice this...

This is only my simple opinion...

Ganjawulung

Pak Ganja,

Which one of these two schools - Solo & Yogja, follow the tradition of old schools of say, Mataram era? I believe that I read it somewhere that Sultan Agung's time was actually the keris golden era.

And another stupid question, according to tangguhan, original dapor pasopati was created during which era?

Dear Penangsang,

Both "schools" follow most of the old tradition, and only different in certain aspects (sometimes totally different). In certain sense, Solo school is more modern. If you are interested in keris making, then you must be "solo-scholar"... Solonese modern keris-making (technically) is much better than Yogya. There are more solonese keris makers than yogyanese nowadays. "Yogya school' has more appreciation on old style of keris (originality is more important), and also spiritual experience...

In warangka (sheath) and appearance, solonese kerises are more glamour if not luxurious. (Warangka studded with diamonds and gems, and gold pendhok etc)...

For collectors, it is interesting to collect both "nom-noman" (new) style of their kerises. You may compare, the nom-noman Paku Buwanan vs Hamengku Buwanan. Very interesting, really worth to compare. (So, ideally, you must be both scholar --solonese and yogyanese).

About dhapur Pasopati, I don't have any clue who first created that dhapur. It only was told in old keris literature, that most of kerises that were made by Empu Setratoya (in Mataram period), had dhapur sabuk inten (luk 13), dhapur carita, dhapur kalamisani and dhapur pasopati. Empu Setratoya had some other names in different kingdoms. He was named too as Jaka Supa, the son of the famous Majapahit empu, Supamandrangi (Pangeran Sendang Sedayu).

Empu Setratoya or Jaka Supa, in the Demak period named as Empu Macan, in Pajang period as Empu Kodok and then Empu Toendoeng. And in Mataram era, as Empu Setratoya...

The two pusakas of Kraton Yogyakarta, named as Kanjeng Kiai Lindri and also Kanjeng Kiai Naga, bear dhapur pasopati (straight keris, with two sogokan, but with kembang kacang pogok or short sekar kacang...)

Ganjawulung

Thanks Ganja.
Last question: during "mbesut" there are no problem with the pattern of original pamor?

No, Marco. No problem with the pattern of the original pamor. The "ahli besut" did not change the pattern of pamor. But the form -- especially the luks, the curves -- changed a little bit. Like I told you before, they changed the tip of the blade, from usually the type of "nyujen" (very sharp point), to "mbuntut tumo" (the tail of louse), or change the "dha" of the greneng to flat (no more greneng). It could mean also, that you could no more change the tip back to nyujen anymore. (in another words, once become the solonese pusaka, will never be yogyanese pusaka anymore...) So, now you know the philosophy behind the besutan, related to their past history

Ganjawulung

Pak Ganja, you tell us that "Both "schools" follow most of the old tradition---"

I find this to be intensely interesting information. In the sense of the question that generated your response we must accept "old" in this context as dating from the time of the Mataram Era. This era stretched over a considerable period, but if we date it from , for example, the time of Sultan Agung, we are talking circa 1640.

Is this how you intend your response to be understood, or are we looking at a slightly different date?

Whatever date we are taking as the date that would apply to the time of the "old schools", would you please be so kind as provide a reference?

Even if that reference is to come from an oral tradition, can you link that oral tradition to a person or source that predates, say, 1800?

Actually, I have found much of what you have written in the posts made to this thread to be very interesting, and more than once I have had to stop myself from dashing into print. However,I think I have probably reached the point where I need to provide a slightly different perspective in respect of some matters that you have raised.

In my experience I have found that a blade point will only be changed to mbuntut tumo in very select circumstances. It is far from general practice. Perhaps the best known sponsor of this change to mbuntut tumo is a very famous and very wealthy keris connoisseur who holds an elevated rank in the Surakarta Kraton. It is not a practice that is applied to every old blade that needs to be maintained.

Of course, the smoothing of a blade edge is maintenance, as a blade which does not have its edges smoothed will deteriorate more rapidly than one which has been correctly maintained.Correct maintenance of a blade contributes to preservation of the cultural inheritance of Jawa. Failure to correctly maintain items of cultural heritage eventually results in the disappearance of that heritage.

If I think back over your posts , I believe I can recall several occasions when you have provided the information that Jogjakarta selected the "older style" of keris, whilst Surakarta opted for a more modern approach.

In fact, when Jawa was partitioned, and the Kraton of Jogjakarta needed to select a keris style, they clearly wished to differentiate that style from the existing style that was already in vogue in Surakarta. The Surakarta style of keris , even down to today, displays the inheritance of Majapahit, and some of the distinctive features that we today recognise as indicative of Surakarta, were already in evidence in the dominant style of Kartosuro.As you would be aware, during the Kartosuro period there was an increase in intensity of Javanese values amongst the elite of the realm. It is possible that this increased "Javaneseness" that arose during the Kartosuro Era, contributed to the alteration in style of the keris in Kartosuro, when compared with the keris style that exemplified Mataram.

Thus, when Jogjakarta opted for a keris style displaying some of the features of the Mataram style of keris, they were in fact opting for a style that displayed features associated with a more recent period than that which was already in vogue in Surakarta. Naturally, this was considered to be only fitting, as Jogjakarta was clearly the more recent kingdom, thus it should use the more recent style:- Mataram.

This is similarly reflected in the titles which apply to the ruler of Jogjakarta, and the ruler of Surakarta. The title in Surakarta was, and is, "Susuhunan", which is a Javanese term. The title in Jogjakarta was agreed upon as "Sultan", which is not a Javanese term, but an Islamic term. It appears that at the time Mangkubumi agreed to use the term Sultan, he considered that it was a fitting title for the ruler of a kingdom that had been partitioned from another.

A study of the way in which both Jogjakarta and Surakarta developed following partition will demonstrate that the values in Jogjakarta tended to be orientated towards Islamic values, whilst the values in Surakarta tended more towards traditional Javanese values.

As has been frequently mentioned , the Jogjakarta keris style is somewhat more restrained than the Surakarta style. This is evidence of the dictum of the "plain man" which is predominantly an Islamic, rather than a Javanese trait. On the other hand, Surakarta style in many ways retains the exuberance of the original Javanese style, as demonstrated in pre-Islamic art, and developed through to the present time in the flamboyant style of Bali.

So, when we try to reconcile, or to understand, the basic differences between Jogjakarta style, and Surakarta style, we really need to go back to Sultan Agung and his taking of this title.Rather than seeing Jogjakarta style as a reflection of "old", or "traditional" Javanese style, it is as well to consider the part that Islam played in formation of the original Second Kingdom of Mataram, and how this same influence came to bear upon the values which came into play upon the formation of Jogjakarta.

It is sometimes overlooked that during the early part of his reign, PBII was strongly Islamic in his orientation. Of course, as his reign progressed and he became less and less able to fulfil his duties effectively, his orientation turned around completely and he died at an early age with a Dutchman as his most trusted advisor. Bad period in Javanese history. However, it seems probable that one of the contributing factors to the move by many of the elites towards Javanese values, following the disaster that was PBII, can be sheeted home to the rise of Islam during the early years of PBII's reign. It seems that it was felt that society and the court had become too Islamic, and that fortunes could be changed by a move back towards a traditional Javanese value system.

It is very easy to look at superficial differences and make pronouncements that seem to reflect what can easily be observed, however, when just a little investigation of causes and influences is carried out, a somewhat different opinion is able to be formed. So it is that when we consider the forces in play at the time of, and leading up to, the partition of Jawa, we are left with evidence that demonstrates that Jogjakarta is the guardian and promoter of the "new" Jawa:- Jawa after the coming of Islam, whilst Surakarta's orientation is a continuation of Javanese traditional values, and the reconciliation of those values with the new faith.

The more recent events involving Jogjakarta and Surakarta, which have taken place since the Japanese occupation, become much more easily understood when the differences in character between Jogjakarta and its ruler, and Surakarta its ruler are understood as a reflection of the forces that gave rise to the formation of the two kingdoms and the value systems which apply within these two entities.

Coming back to keris style, we must remember that much of the lavish adornment that is so much a part of present day Surakarta keris style has its roots in the era of PBX. This was a time when Surakarta was more than a little wealthy, and PBX seemed to think it was his God-given duty display this wealth---and more.

According to legend, the mpu who first made a keris of dapur pasopati was Mpu Ramadi in the Javanese year 152

keris Besutan
 

I'd like to share this keris besutan that I found in Surakarta.
seem that the pamor is still in good pattern in the sempaner keris.
But there is a change in tilam upih keris, it become nunggak semi.

Thank you so much Pak Ganja & Alan. Very well said explanation, as always, though I have no idea how to guess what year exactly is Jawanese year 152....

Regarding keris mbesut, as I understand it is an act of resharpening or reconstructing worn out blade, while in normal condition no one would resharpen a keris blade. However, I was shown a keris by a Malay Pandai Keris that there is actually one type of keris that needs to be resharpened every now and then. He called the keris as Keris Kilir that originates from a Malaysian state of Perak. Kilir in Malay means to sharpen. The original profile should not change at all, but the keris itself must be sharp all the time. The keris dapor can be straight or wavy, but I believe the besi used in forging the blade that qualifies to be called keris kilir or otherwise. Very rare but it exists. I'm not sure whether there is any such keris from the rest of the archipelago.

152 Saka would be around 230 AD in the Gregorian calendar.

Beskap vs Sorjan
 

Dear Alan,

Everytime, if we discuss about the style of Solo and Yogya – in keris, for instance, or in wayang, or their traditional dresses – we must be prepared to a “never ending” discussion. These two “schools” are so dichotomic. But anyhow, discussing Solo vs Yogya is always interesting for me…

Apologize me, Alan, not to discuss in a ‘chronological’ way. But I try to response your questions and statements (that need further explanation from you) erratically. This not just mere “word-game”. But beyond… These are about values in Jogjakarta, that according to you, tended to be orientated towards Islamic values, whilst the values in Surakarta tended more towards traditional values, back to Majapahit. And you mention too, about the title of the Solo ruler, Susuhunan – that sounds more Javanese to you, and Sultan that sounds Arabic.

Don’t you think that actually both titles are Islamic? Please regard further, that the empire of Susuhunan is “kasunanan”, and not “kasusuhunanan”. And of Sultan, is “kasultanan”. Susuhunan is also called Sunan. Susuhunan Paku Buwono (PB) II for instance, also called as Sunan Kombul (rules in the year of 1670-1674), or Susuhunan PB III alias Sunan Suwarga, and Susuhunan PB X alias Sunan Sawarga, PB XI Sunan Hangabehi… But all Hamengku Buwonos are sultans.

Sunan and Sultan, are titles to differ, whether the ruler is in Yogyakarta Sultanate, or Kingdom of Surakarta. You may compare too, back to the era of Islamic kingdom of Demak (1500-1548). During Demak era, there was Sultan Trenggono – one of Raden Patah’s son. But almost in the same era but in different part of Java, in the other Islamic kingdom of Cirebon, there was Sunan Gunung Jati.

As you know, all the “nine wali” (walisongo) – the Islamic religious leaders in the 15-16th century -- bore the Sunan title too: Sunan Bonang, Sunan Giri, Sunan Kudus, Sunan Muria, Sunan Kalijaga… etc A Sunni leader in Turki, Mahmoud of Ghazni, also called Sunan too (998-1030 AD).

Or you may see the predicate, both for Susuhunan or Sultan. Susuhunan Paku Buwono, for instance, his formal name is always “Sampeyan Dalem Ingkang Sinuhun Kanjeng Susuhunan Paku Buwono ing Ngalaga Senopati Ngabdurrachman Sayidin Panatagama” (His Majesty Susuhunan Paku Buwono – Commander in Chief, Leader of Islamic religion and society). Or Sultan, that always bears formal names as “Sultan Hamengku Buwono Senopati ing Ngalaga Ngabdurrachman Sayidin Panatagama Kalifatollah” (Sultan Hamengku Buwono, commander in chief, Leader of Islamic religion and Society).

Both, were Islamic, continuing the tradition of Mataram (Panembahan Senopati in Ngalaga, was the founder of Mataram Kingdom, ruled in 1575-1601), but in different clothes… You may look at their formal dresses, royal dresses. Solonense formal dress for reception, named as “beskap” – derived from the Dutch word ‘beschaaft’ that means ‘civilized’. Newly design of Javanese dress, that has dutch influence. While Jogjakarta has the “old” (I mean, before “palihan nagari’ or Gianti Treaty 1755. Not “old” style, Mataram style. The Jogja’s dress named as “sorjan”, real Javanese name, and maintained the traditional Mataram dress…

In the old days, (I remember) Solonese proudly said “beskap” (beschaaft) to say, that Solonese dress is “more civilized” than Jogjanese “sorjan” that looks “ndeso” or rural, pagan, villageois... And I remember too, the Jogjanese used to say proudly too, "hmm, we are Mataram(ese)", not dutch...

Ganjawulung

Pak Ganja, before I respond to your post on titles, I feel that I must say this:- my expertise does not lay in all of the areas upon which I may comment. My expertise, and indeed, my professional foundation, lays in finding the answers to questions by accessing the knowledge of others.

So, if I say that the word "sultan" is Islamic, and "susuhunan" is Javanese, this is not my opinion formed from hearing or reading these words, rather, it is information lifted from the work of people whose job it is to know about language , and about history. All I do is repeat the knowledge of others who are recognised authorities in a particular field, I do not hold myself forth as any sort of an expert.

So let us now look at the three titles you have commented upon.

Sultan Agung was the first in Jawa to use this title of Sultan, from memory, I think he sought it from the Sultan of Turkey, which personage was at that time the only one in Islam permitted to bestow the title. He did not use the title until quite late in his reign.

In modern Indonesian the title of "sunan" has two meanings:- it is the title of the holy men who first brought Islam to Jawa, and it is a title of the ruler of Surakarta.

The roots of the word "sunan" are Islamic, not Javanese.It is a word first used as the title of Islamic holy men, and then later adopted by the premier ruler in Jawa.

The word "susuhunan" is similarly a title of the ruler of Surakarta, however, it lacks the Islamic association that is possessed by the words "sunan", and "sultan".

Thus, in usage the title "susuhunan" reflects Jawa, and the title "sunan" reflects Islam.

At the time of the partition of Jawa PBIII was known by the title of "susuhunan". In Hartingh's negotiations with Mangkubumi prior to the signing of the treaty, the matter of title was the first one that was discussed and settled. It was agreed that it would be inappropriate to have two Susuhunans Pakubuwana, so the title of Sultan Mataram was proposed and was accepted by both sides. Mangkubumi pointed out that three sultans ruled in Cirebon, and that two sultans had ruled in Mataram and in Pajang in the 16th century.Mangkubumi put forth the argument that the Javanese language knew no other title with the same significance, seemingly implying that this title of sultan was particularly appropriate for a divided kingdom.(Jogjakarta Under Sultan Mangkubumi--Ricklefs).

It is important that we recognise the distinction I am making between the value systems which applied in the new kingdom under Mangkubumi, and in the old kingdom under Pakubuwana, and that have developed into the shades of difference that we can see today.

At no time have I said, nor implied, that Jogjakarta was Islamic and that Surakarta was Javanese, and that by adoption of these values they each automatically excluded the other ideological values. What I said was that Surakarta's orientation was towards traditional Javanese values, whilst Jogjakarta's orientation was towards Islamic values.

Use of the word "orientation" indicates a tendency, it does not indicate a hard-line committment. So you have the situation where those elites who supported Mangkubumi were undoubtedly and beyond argument Javanese, but they, and Mangkubumi himself , had the tendency to maintain a firm committment to the Islamic values that had arisen during the Kartosuro period. Since he had assumed the title of "sultan", this in itself reinforced the connection with the first Sultan of Jawa, Sultan Agung, with the Islamic Sultans of the North Coast, and of Pajang. Sultan Mangkubumi was the "new man". He represented progress whilst at the same time continuing a value system that had developed from and been syncretised with, the values of Jawa.

Now, in Surakarta it was a slightly different situation. PBIII was the inheritor of a realm in ruins, and bear in mind:- he only inherited it at the will of the Dutch. The elites who had maintained their committment to PBIII had endured the Kartosuro period--- one might say that they endured it "up close and personal"--- they were more than aware of the changes that had taken place in Kartosuro under PBII, and were undoubtedly aware of the role played by Ratu Pakubuwana in the promotion of Islamic ideologies within the court. This strengthening of Islamic ideologies within the court of Kartosuro tended to alienate the court, and the elites, from the common people.

After the partition, court ideologies in Surakarta tended towards a restoration of the ideologies that would realign the court with the common people. Apart from anything else, this gathering of the abangan to the bosom of the court was a political necessity to permit the continuation of the realm. At the same time, the Susuhunan of Surakarta was in the very difficult position of only maintaining his position with the agreement of the Dutch, who in fact had by this time assumed the position of overlords. The Javanese perspective of the Dutch Governor General at this time was that he was another ruler within Jawa, but the most powerful ruler within Jawa.

Jogjakarta had been formed from a combination of rebellion and Dutch manipulation, whilst Surakarta had been permitted to remain as the result of Dutch political expediency. The feeling in each of the courts differed in that one saw itself as having been established through force, the other knew that its continued existence depended upon cooperation with the Dutch. So it came about that Surakarta developed a tendency to more readily absorb Dutch ideas, whilst at the same time attempting to foster a return to the agrarian roots of the Javanese heartland.

Surakarta had already learnt what could happen with an over committment to an ideology that was at variance with the ideology of the common people, and additionally Surakarta had the experience of the strength and the deceit of the Dutch overlords. It could be said that the Surakarta elites had been through an educational process.

Of course, the Jogjakarta elites had been through an educational process too, but the result in Jogjakarta was widely different to the result in Surakarta.

The result of these differences today is that Jogjakarta is Javanese with a court ideology and a more general system of values that has a strong thread of Islamic ideology running through it. Surakarta is Javanese with a court ideology that has attempted a syncretistic approach of amalgamation of Javanese, Dutch, and Islamic ideologies. Both courts, and both demographic areas of influence are Javanese; both are Islamic, however one has a stronger orientation than the other towards the ideologies of Islam (as it is practiced in Jawa), and one has a stronger orientation than the other towards the native Javanese ideologies of the abangan---with of course, greater evidence of European influence.

I did not say that Surakarta "--- tended to traditional values, back to Majapahit---".
What I said was "---The Surakarta style of keris , even down to today, displays the inheritance of Majapahit,---", and I also said "--- the values in Surakarta tended more towards traditional Javanese values.---"
Two different statements, and in different contexts, that should not be taken from their original contexts and combined.

Both courts demonstrate the acknowledged Javanese trait of syncretism, but one has tended in one direction, the other has tended in a slighly different direction. Both are of course of the House of Mataram, but let us not forget, that the trunk of that tree of Mataram is Surakarta. Jogjakarta, The Mangkunegaraan, The Pakualamanan, are branches from that tree, and in the case of the Pakualamanan, a branch from a branch.

In essence , Pak Ganja, I feel that we are in broad agreement on this matter. I do not agree that there is a dichotomy, or completely opposed nature in either of the two courts, nor in the two demographic areas. Both are simply different expressions of the same culture.Different expressions created by different roots and different experience.

I know that you are an enthusiastic supporter of the work of Prof. Ricklefs. I suggest a close reading of "Jogjakarta Under Sultan Mangkubumi, 1749-1792", "The Seen and Unseen Worlds of Java, 1726-1749", "War Culture and Economy in Java, 1677-1726". Most of what I have written during this discussion can be supported by reference to these works.

I am still waiting for your references relating to the "old schools", and exactly how you intended the dating of "Mataram" to be understood.

Pak Ganja, Pak Raden, Alan

I am glad that this topic is discussed in depth. History is another passion of mine, and in Tanah Jawa context, the post Demak era.

You see, most of my history lesson came from my late grandfather, who belonged to the 2nd wave of immigrants from Tanah Jawa to Tanah Melayu (peninsula). The 1st wave was in the 15th C, during the Malaccan Sultanate, whereby many Jawanese & Buginese were hired by the Malaccan Kingdom as professional soldiers (mercenaries?). The 2nd wave took place in the 16th C when many Jawanese soldiers who served Adipati Yunus in his crusade to free Malacca from the Portuguese occupation, chose to stay in the peninsula. The 3rd wave was as a result of Jaka Tingkir's hagemony thruout Tanah Jawa, while the 4th wave (economic immigrants) was in the 19th C.

My grandfather might have been biased (and could have been wrong too) in saying that when Sultan Trenggono chose Jaka Tingkir as his successor, the wahyu keprabhon was lost forever, hence he never told me any stories post Demak era. According to him, the glorious empire of Majapahit & Demak disintergrated because Tanah Jawa was ruled by commonners (Jaka Tingkir) and subsequently by senopaten blood line.

Thus, by having the discussion here, esp pertaining to Jawanese kingdom post kartosuro, has seriously changed my perspective with regards to Tanah Jawa history, the land where my ancestors blood was spilt. Please continue the discussion. Thank you.

PenangsangII

It can be an interesting exercise to trace the bloodlines of the current House of Mataram back to their origins. I will not comment further on this.

When I read Javanese history I constantly have the feeling that Mario Puzo must have been a student of Javanese history.Of course, he claimed to be a student of the history of the Mafia, but I suspect that he had really studied the history of Jawa.

dear Gonjo and Alan,

allow me to contibute for this discussion and please correct me if I do a mistake.

Sultan, sunan and susuhunan refer to islamic words.

The rootword of Susuhunan is Sunan. The repetition of SUSUhunan means superlative. Implicit meaning of Susuhunan is THE GREATest SUNAN or SUNAN the GREAT. The pure repetition must be SUSUNAN (instead of susuHunan). Why using H? Because "H" in this case is to show that the users come from High Elevated People in Jawa society, e.g:
ADI becoming hADI
ARGO = hARGO
ANOMAN = hANOMAN

So, there is no strong evidence either Surakarta or Solo if one of them claims inheriting Mojopahit (just based on the different title of its king: Susuhunan and Sultan). However, if there is opinion both of them were influenced deeply by Majapahit culture. Perhaps, it was true. It was because Mataram (before devided becoming 2 or 4) represented "indigenous" people. Indigenous means old/Majapahit culture. Thats why Mataram's Sunan was Sunan Kalijogo (the only Sunan came from indigenous people, others Sunan were overseas: arabic, chinese, etc).

According to a word of WALISONGO. Wali means priest/Sunan/messenger. Songo means Nine. However, imho, Walisongo does not means the NINE WALIs. Why? If we count the number of Walis in Jawa, it will not be NINE. If we read the history of Jawa, especially the begining of Islamic era, All Walis were not in the same generation. Part of them were son or even grandson of others. So Walisongo = NINE WALIs is anachronism.

imho, again, the rootword of Walisongo is Jawa language. It comes from WALI SANG HO(ha). Wali still means messenger/priest/Sunan. HO(ha) is the first word of Jawa alphabetic: HO NO CO RO KO (ha na ca ra ka). In arabic word, the first word is ALIF. Some Jawa-Islamic scholars believe that ALIF is the symbol of singularity. It is the symbol of GOD (Allah). Meanwhile, HO in Jawa, it represents HOM(aum, om) for Jawa-Hindhu beleiver. Ho/Om/Aum is the ultimate power holder.
So... WALISONGO means WALI SANG HO means WALI SANG ALIF means WALIYULLAH means "the messenger of God"

It is tricky way of (Sunans of) Jawa. How did they do to transform the OLD VALUE (hindhuism) to the NEW VALUE (islam). From the OLD GOD to the NEW GOD. Anyway, this is just my opinion... the very ordinary people who spent his childhood in JAWA.

warm salam,

Usman

Dear Alan and all,

On periodisation, there is no one word between “solo school” and “jogja school” to fix which was the “fixed pole” period of “nom-noman” or “nem-neman” (young period of keris making), until nowadays. You may look at these recent keris-book writers such as Bambang Harsrinuksmo and Haryono Haryoguritno for instance.

Haryono – which I consider as “solo school” – mentioned in his recent book (Keris Jawa, Antara Mistik dan Nalar) that “keris kuno” (old keris) is keris from 17th century and older, while “nom-noman” is keris from 18th (and of course, younger than 18th century). He based this periodisation on the process of the keris making.

Old kerises, according to Mr Haryono, had a different phase of purification of bijih besi. The younger keris is made from such material which its bijih besi was processed by “tanur tinggi” (please consider this technical term, which I only know the Indonesian term). So the periodisation is not based on historical background, but on the making of kerises.

While Mr Harsrinuksmo – which I consider neither “solo school” or “jogja school” – said in his known Ensiklopedi, that keris which categorized as nom-noman is based on period of era in history. May I quote from his book, as this:

“In Surakarta, which classified as kerises nom-noman are kerises or tombak (spears) which were made during the reigning of Sunan Paku Buwono IX and X. While in Jogjakarta, Hamengku Buwono VII and VIII.”

As you know, PB IX reigned in Solo 1861-1893, and PB X 1893-1939. While Sultan Jogja, HB VII 1877-1921, and HB VIII 1921-1939…

Which classification would you use? I don’t have such credible knowledge, which source from 1800s. I just based on my simple knowledge on historical periodisation. Old school “ended” in Majapahit era, and then “madya” (medium old) era of Demak, Pajang, Mataram until Gianti Treaty of 1755. After 1755, then began the “new era” of “nom-noman”. Keris, for me is not just keris. But it bears also the inside value, moral value etc. And those values, changed quite radically for the Javanese community, since the treaty was signed by Nicholaas Hartingh – on behalf of Mataram Surakarta and the European Company VOC – and Pangeran Mangkubumi. The Javanese values were changing so much since…


Ganjawulung