Thank you very much for your clarification Kai.
None of this can be regarded as "sidetrack". When we look at early reports it is the language used in those reports that gives an indication as to their authenticity and reliability.
Sometimes later editions of a report will include words that were not in common usage at the time the original report was written; sometimes a European will use a word that although it would have existed at the time of the report, was not in use in the area covered by the report, or was not used in the way in which the European used it.
These are the clues that permit verification.
Incidentally, this method of verification is not exclusive to early reports dealing with old S.E.Asia, it is a method that is applied to the analysis of reports from anywhere and any time, and is a tool that I have used in my profession for many years.
To understand how reliable any report may be it is essential that the language in that report must be analysed. It can never be taken at face value.
Yes, I agree that the work of G.E. Rumphius must be given some weight. I further agree that in this respect his reports are similar to those of the Ying Yai Sheng Lan. My apologies for my misunderstanding of your original comment.
The truly interesting response you have provided is the information that the Dutch were referring to Amangkurat as "susuhunan".
This is so interesting that it forced me back to some reference books to refresh my memory, which would seem to be at fault.
What I found was this:-
the Javanese word "susuhunan" appears to have first been used in a royal title by the second ruler of the second kingdom of Mataram, Raden Mas Jolang --- Sri Susuhunan Adi Prabu Hanyakrawati Senapati-ing-Ngalaga Mataram --- the son of Panembahan Senopati, the first ruler of Mataram. This would have been very early in the 17th century.
The appearance of the word in royal titles after this is very inconsistent and in fact gives the impression that the titles varied according to who wrote the book or report.
Susuhunan does not appear to be known by Zoetmulder, so it can probably be taken not to have existed in Old Javanese. The rulers of Mataram are acknowledged as one of the prime moving forces in the emergence of Modern Javanese, so it is likely that the second ruler of Mataram originated the word, or at least, one of his court poets did, at his command.
Pakubuwana II was the last ruler of Kartasura and the first ruler of Surakarta. It seems that he began to use the word "susuhunan" as a part of his title after the shift to Surakarta.
"Susuhunan" has continued in use as a part of the title of the rulers of Surakarta.
The word "sinuhun" is sometimes taken as a synonym, or a derivative of "susuhunan" This is erroneous. "Sinuhun" must be understood as "lord", and is a part of the royal title of the rulers of Surakarta, it is used colloquially to refer to these rulers.
"State and Statecraft in Old Java" --- Soemarsaid Moertono is an accepted reference for politics in Mataram. Moertono claims that "susuhunan" is a Javanese word that is the result of changing a root word, "sunan", by interpolation of the infixes to create a word inferring religious authority, thus "sunan" is the original short form, "susuhunan" is the later Javanese form. However, he then goes on to claim that "sunan" has the word "suwun" as its root, which he gives as "to bow one's head". Regrettably Moertono's interpretations are at odds with current lexicographers. This tends to cast doubt on his opinions in this matter, in spite of the fact that he is Javanese.
However, De Graaf accepts the title as having religious implications, and this opinion must be taken seriously.
The word "sunan" was used by the walis as a part of their title, the walis were the apostles of Islam in Jawa, by inclusion of this word in a royal title it inferred that the ruler was also a religious leader. However, lexicographers do not accept "sunan" as a short form, or abbreviation of "susuhunan" , they regard "sunan" as having an Islamic association, and "susuhunan" as having a Javanese association, in fact, two separate words.
If we accept Moertono the developmental progression could be :-
suwun > sunan > susuhunan
even though I'm not certain we can accept this, it certainly does look like a nice neat solution to the matter.
Which brings us back to the use of "susuhunan" in the Rumphius publication.
It would appear that Europeans at that time were in the habit of referring to the rulers of Mataram as the "susuhunan", whether or not that word formed a part of the official title. If this is indeed the case, the appearance of "susuhunan" in Rumphius' work is not surprising.
|