Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Boedhi Adhitya · 28th May 2007, 07:58 PM

Dear David,
In Jogjakarta, ‘uwer’ is the ‘krama’ form (‘higher language’, a more polite form) of mendhak. As Alan said, it is not widely use. In fact, I met only several peoples (no more than 5) who use this word, all are court’s families. Stick to ‘mendhak’ when you dealing with ‘ordinary’ peoples or dealers. ‘Kandhelan’ is the krama form of ‘pendhok’ and ‘sekar’ (bloom/flower) is for ‘pamor’.

Sugeng enjang, Mas Hidayat,

Thank you very much for the pictures. It seems we have a different approach to define Surakarta’s or Jogjakarta’s mendhak. You used the ‘small triangle’ as the indicator (Jasper & Pirngadie refered it as ‘ri pandan’/pandanus torn, see pg. 200, but please remind, I don’t speak Dutch), while I used the ‘ungkat-ungkatan’ form (the cone-shaped metal between the balls/stones. The balls/stone called ‘widheng’ by Jasper& Pirngadie)..

By studying the pictures you and Mas Ganjawulung have posted, we could see that the Surakarta’s mendhaks have a tall, thin and fang-like ungkat-ungkatan (no. 5,4,3,9 and unumbered silver mendhak pic, also the first pic by Ganjawulung) while Jogjakarta’s have a shorter, thicker, cone-shaped ungkat-ungkatan, resembling ‘tumpeng’/rice cones (pic. No. 1,2 and unumbered gold mendhak, 2nd pic by Ganjawulung but slightly too tall.Recent?). However, by using the same pictures, it’s also proven that Mas Hidayat approach also true.

If we look carefully at Marco’s 2nd pic, we could see, based on the pictures only, that the ungkat-ungkatan of Marco’s mendhak is much taller and slighly thinner than it should for Jogjakarta’s style. So I conclude, it’s Surakarta’s. I can not see any ‘ri pandan’, but if you see it (or even if you don’t), I would like to propose an explanation for this unusual mendhak : It is widely known (especially by experienced collectors) that some dealers used to ‘reassembly’ a mendhak from several broken old mendhaks. They may pick an intact parts, sometimes without caring of what style it was, and reassemble them into one ‘useable’ (or saleable) mendhak. Some parts may match, but many don’t. This would also explain why the ungkat-ungkatan doesn’t fit exactly between the widheng (the widheng is not between the cones, but go ‘behind’ it), and why the mendhak’s overall posture looks too ‘short’ (the widheng is too small). If it is the case, then it is useless to define the style, as it might be ‘mix-up’. Some call this mix-up style as ‘Klaten style’, just for a joke and not seriously (Klaten is a small city between Jogja and Solo). But I believe it’s worth to discuss it. It’s also worth to note that Jasper&Pirngadie included the ri pandan as part of ‘mendhak tjara Solo’ (page 202).

Dear Mas Ganjawulung,
I wish I really have knowledge of a dictionary

I must admit that I was guessing when I classify Marco’s as ‘bejen’ mainly because I don’t have an opportunity to ‘play’ with many Surakartas’, but I wasn’t guessing when classifiying it as Surakarta’s, or more exactly, as non-Jogjakarta’s. Regardless of what Guritno wrote, I would call your 2nd mendhak as ‘mendhak lugas’. I’ve never heard ‘bejen’ in Jogjakarta’s style, and the classification I’ve already posted is the classification used by Jogjakarta Court to make their Pusaka’s Inventory. Considering the vast varieties of Surakarta’s styles, Jogjakarta’s is very limited. Regarding this, I would like to quote MC Ricklefs in ‘Yogjakarta Di Bawah Sultan Mangkubumi 1749 – 1792 ; Sejarah Pembagian Jawa’ (Jogjakarta under Sultan Mangkubumi 1749 – 1792 ; A History of The Division of Java ) :

‘..Berbeda dengan Surakarta, Yogyakarta adalah kota yang kurang bersedia menerima dominasi Eropa dan lebih siap beradaptasi dengan peluang-peluang yang dibawa oleh perubahan zaman. Namun, dalam kehidupan kulturalnya, Yogyakarta dengan sadar melestarikan bentuk-bentuk tradisional, menganggap keseniannya lebih “autentik” ketimbang kesenian Surakarta, sementara yang terakhir ini menganggapnya lebih “kuno”..”

“..Unlike Surakarta, Yogyakarta is a city which was less willing to accept European domination and more ready to adapt to opportunities which is brought by the change of time. But in cultural life, Yogyakarta consciously retains the traditional form, and see their art as more ‘authentic’ than Surakarta, while the later see it as ‘old-fashioned’..” (page 671).

According to some elders, when Java divided into 2 Courts, (1755, Giyanti Treaty), Sultan Hamengkubuwono I (Mangkubumi) inherited all the Mataram’s art, while Surakarta made a ‘new style’. Some said it is written in Babad Giyanti / Babad Palihan Negari, but I haven’t confirm this.

I do apologize for this exhausting post.

Best regards,

Boedhi Adhitya

28th May 2007, 07:58 PM	#22
Boedhi Adhitya Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 103	Dear David, In Jogjakarta, ‘uwer’ is the ‘krama’ form (‘higher language’, a more polite form) of mendhak. As Alan said, it is not widely use. In fact, I met only several peoples (no more than 5) who use this word, all are court’s families. Stick to ‘mendhak’ when you dealing with ‘ordinary’ peoples or dealers. ‘Kandhelan’ is the krama form of ‘pendhok’ and ‘sekar’ (bloom/flower) is for ‘pamor’. Sugeng enjang, Mas Hidayat, Thank you very much for the pictures. It seems we have a different approach to define Surakarta’s or Jogjakarta’s mendhak. You used the ‘small triangle’ as the indicator (Jasper & Pirngadie refered it as ‘ri pandan’/pandanus torn, see pg. 200, but please remind, I don’t speak Dutch), while I used the ‘ungkat-ungkatan’ form (the cone-shaped metal between the balls/stones. The balls/stone called ‘widheng’ by Jasper& Pirngadie).. By studying the pictures you and Mas Ganjawulung have posted, we could see that the Surakarta’s mendhaks have a tall, thin and fang-like ungkat-ungkatan (no. 5,4,3,9 and unumbered silver mendhak pic, also the first pic by Ganjawulung) while Jogjakarta’s have a shorter, thicker, cone-shaped ungkat-ungkatan, resembling ‘tumpeng’/rice cones (pic. No. 1,2 and unumbered gold mendhak, 2nd pic by Ganjawulung but slightly too tall.Recent?). However, by using the same pictures, it’s also proven that Mas Hidayat approach also true. If we look carefully at Marco’s 2nd pic, we could see, based on the pictures only, that the ungkat-ungkatan of Marco’s mendhak is much taller and slighly thinner than it should for Jogjakarta’s style. So I conclude, it’s Surakarta’s. I can not see any ‘ri pandan’, but if you see it (or even if you don’t), I would like to propose an explanation for this unusual mendhak : It is widely known (especially by experienced collectors) that some dealers used to ‘reassembly’ a mendhak from several broken old mendhaks. They may pick an intact parts, sometimes without caring of what style it was, and reassemble them into one ‘useable’ (or saleable) mendhak. Some parts may match, but many don’t. This would also explain why the ungkat-ungkatan doesn’t fit exactly between the widheng (the widheng is not between the cones, but go ‘behind’ it), and why the mendhak’s overall posture looks too ‘short’ (the widheng is too small). If it is the case, then it is useless to define the style, as it might be ‘mix-up’. Some call this mix-up style as ‘Klaten style’, just for a joke and not seriously (Klaten is a small city between Jogja and Solo). But I believe it’s worth to discuss it. It’s also worth to note that Jasper&Pirngadie included the ri pandan as part of ‘mendhak tjara Solo’ (page 202). Dear Mas Ganjawulung, I wish I really have knowledge of a dictionary I must admit that I was guessing when I classify Marco’s as ‘bejen’ mainly because I don’t have an opportunity to ‘play’ with many Surakartas’, but I wasn’t guessing when classifiying it as Surakarta’s, or more exactly, as non-Jogjakarta’s. Regardless of what Guritno wrote, I would call your 2nd mendhak as ‘mendhak lugas’. I’ve never heard ‘bejen’ in Jogjakarta’s style, and the classification I’ve already posted is the classification used by Jogjakarta Court to make their Pusaka’s Inventory. Considering the vast varieties of Surakarta’s styles, Jogjakarta’s is very limited. Regarding this, I would like to quote MC Ricklefs in ‘Yogjakarta Di Bawah Sultan Mangkubumi 1749 – 1792 ; Sejarah Pembagian Jawa’ (Jogjakarta under Sultan Mangkubumi 1749 – 1792 ; A History of The Division of Java ) : ‘..Berbeda dengan Surakarta, Yogyakarta adalah kota yang kurang bersedia menerima dominasi Eropa dan lebih siap beradaptasi dengan peluang-peluang yang dibawa oleh perubahan zaman. Namun, dalam kehidupan kulturalnya, Yogyakarta dengan sadar melestarikan bentuk-bentuk tradisional, menganggap keseniannya lebih “autentik” ketimbang kesenian Surakarta, sementara yang terakhir ini menganggapnya lebih “kuno”..” “..Unlike Surakarta, Yogyakarta is a city which was less willing to accept European domination and more ready to adapt to opportunities which is brought by the change of time. But in cultural life, Yogyakarta consciously retains the traditional form, and see their art as more ‘authentic’ than Surakarta, while the later see it as ‘old-fashioned’..” (page 671). According to some elders, when Java divided into 2 Courts, (1755, Giyanti Treaty), Sultan Hamengkubuwono I (Mangkubumi) inherited all the Mataram’s art, while Surakarta made a ‘new style’. Some said it is written in Babad Giyanti / Babad Palihan Negari, but I haven’t confirm this. I do apologize for this exhausting post. Best regards, Boedhi Adhitya Last edited by Boedhi Adhitya; 29th May 2007 at 04:15 AM.