Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

A. G. Maisey · 4th September 2007, 01:13 AM

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.

4th September 2007, 01:13 AM	#76
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,988	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.