Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

A. G. Maisey · 18th May 2010, 08:38 AM

Thanks Sajen, I see what you mean. However, although there is some similarity between your hilt and the ones shown in Ragam Hulu, there are, to my eye, significant differences.

#19 in Ragam Hulu is stylistically Central Jawa, and I'd be happy to accept Surakarta pending evidence, #20 in Ragam Hulu I do not see as stylistically Central Jawa, to my eye, more North Coast/Madura, and I would want some evidence before I'd accept it as Surakarta.

Your hilt is in my opinion, not stylistically Central Jawa, and does bear a number of characteristics that we are accustomed to seeing in Madura/ North Coast hilts. I tend towards a Madura origin for this hilt.

I must admit, I sometimes wonder at the attributions in Ragam Hulu. A lot of them I can agree with beyond question, but others I feel that the author has given the place of acquisition, rather the the place of origin.

For example, hilts # 17, 18, 19 20 are all naga motifs.

#17 I am able to accept as Surakarta beyond question --- I've seen old examples, I've seen drawings in Surakarta pattern books, several tukang jejeran I know recognise this as a Surakarta form.

However, with #18 and #19 the only similar examples I've seen have been very recent Madura. With #20, I have never seen an example, either old or recent.

#18 and #19 I would accept as Surakarta on face value, and then look for evidence, because of the cecekan and the planar form, but #20 has no cecekan, no planar form, and stylistically just cannot be aligned to a Central Javanese form or motif.

What we need to remember is this:- a jejeran does not usually stand alone, it is a part of an ensemble; to mate these jejeran with wrongkos, we need to ask who, when, where, why and what sort of wrongko.

I said "usually".

PBX caused a number of very oddball hilts to be produced as stand-alone works of art. We need to accept these as Surakarta, simply because they were produced to the order of the ruler, but my belief is that only the ruler, whether actual or symbolic, has the prerogative to designate a form as belonging to his kingdom. Freddie Suwanka cannot just produce some unusual hilts in Solo and then call them Surakarta jejeran.

Nope.

Only the boss can do that.

So, if we come across unusual hilts with a designation of Surakarta, I would want to see the original in a royal collection before I'd accept it as Surakarta.

These are my standards, and others may have different standards, to which, they are of course, entitled.

18th May 2010, 08:38 AM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	Thanks Sajen, I see what you mean. However, although there is some similarity between your hilt and the ones shown in Ragam Hulu, there are, to my eye, significant differences. #19 in Ragam Hulu is stylistically Central Jawa, and I'd be happy to accept Surakarta pending evidence, #20 in Ragam Hulu I do not see as stylistically Central Jawa, to my eye, more North Coast/Madura, and I would want some evidence before I'd accept it as Surakarta. Your hilt is in my opinion, not stylistically Central Jawa, and does bear a number of characteristics that we are accustomed to seeing in Madura/ North Coast hilts. I tend towards a Madura origin for this hilt. I must admit, I sometimes wonder at the attributions in Ragam Hulu. A lot of them I can agree with beyond question, but others I feel that the author has given the place of acquisition, rather the the place of origin. For example, hilts # 17, 18, 19 20 are all naga motifs. #17 I am able to accept as Surakarta beyond question --- I've seen old examples, I've seen drawings in Surakarta pattern books, several tukang jejeran I know recognise this as a Surakarta form. However, with #18 and #19 the only similar examples I've seen have been very recent Madura. With #20, I have never seen an example, either old or recent. #18 and #19 I would accept as Surakarta on face value, and then look for evidence, because of the cecekan and the planar form, but #20 has no cecekan, no planar form, and stylistically just cannot be aligned to a Central Javanese form or motif. What we need to remember is this:- a jejeran does not usually stand alone, it is a part of an ensemble; to mate these jejeran with wrongkos, we need to ask who, when, where, why and what sort of wrongko. I said "usually". PBX caused a number of very oddball hilts to be produced as stand-alone works of art. We need to accept these as Surakarta, simply because they were produced to the order of the ruler, but my belief is that only the ruler, whether actual or symbolic, has the prerogative to designate a form as belonging to his kingdom. Freddie Suwanka cannot just produce some unusual hilts in Solo and then call them Surakarta jejeran. Nope. Only the boss can do that. So, if we come across unusual hilts with a designation of Surakarta, I would want to see the original in a royal collection before I'd accept it as Surakarta. These are my standards, and others may have different standards, to which, they are of course, entitled.