Talk:Mataram Sultanate

earlier unsigned comment

Beware putting simply westernised dates against such a thing as javanese rulers dates, or the wrath of some very good javanese historians will no doubt wrip through the edit with sacred kris in hand! anyone can copy out a list of dates - there is a lot more to it even in wiki sense.

Also the complete absence of the palaces and locations may read like a good thematic introduction to issues, but no mention at all is in denial! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JarrahTree (talk • contribs) 06:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

List of Rulers

I'm going to remove the "List of Rulers" section, and the commentary in the text about it, which really belonged here, as follows:

Such a list in itself is not adequately explained by the text in this article, and careful attention must be paid to the issues that arise from using western dates for Javanese events; the specific arguments used by rulers and their tendency to rebuild palaces after theirs have been affected by the various conflicts.

Basically, the List of Rulers duplicates the text, which gives the (western, yes) dates of each king's rule, placed in proper historical context. That said, it wouldn't hurt to wikilink the rulers names within the text; I should have done that when I wrote the article, so I'll do it now. I'm going to suggest using the naming scheme described in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). CDC (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I think the deletion should have been discussed before it was done. The dates are attested from Mataram epigraphy, contemporary Javanese documents, and reports of travellers in the region. The later rulers' datings derive from VOC records in their dealings with Mataram. They are not unreliable. Calling them 'Western' is essentially meaningless. All Wikipedia dates are Western in that sense. Should we delete every date in Wikpedia for cultural bias? This calls for discussion, not precipitate action. Alan 03:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Excellent point, it clearly needs discussion. as for the litany of possible potential for misinterpretation of dates and occurrences in the palaces, clearly we have read all the carey, remmelink and ricklefs to come to that? some javanists would smile benignly at "they are not unreliable". find me one textual reference to the canals of kota gede before 1980 (sic), and you must be alan feinstein.User:SatuSuro 09:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC) Oh well. I'll leave it you guys.User:SatuSuro 09:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd aso urge people. before deleting an entire section, tosign their comments. It's more than faintly amusing, after the fulmination abut Westernisation, that I compiled the list from the Indoensian Wikipedia and hen checked it against a number of secondary sources. Of course articles on the individual rulers are preferable. Let us, then, write tem. Alan 09:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Greetings Alan, I never delete other peoples items. I fully agree that indiv ruller entries would be good idea.as for lists from *any* source youve done a good job, my argument is probably beyond wiki level and similar to kota gedes canals, too obscure. bestwishesUser:SatuSuro 01:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it's allright to use Western dates in an article on Javanese history like this. Speaking of Westernization, even the use of personal title like "Amangkurat" instead of Javanese evasive reverent style of "The King" (Sri Narendra, Sri Bupati, Sang Aji, etc.) is already a case of "Westernization" (but understandable I think). In order to avoid "Westernization", I think one should introduce a short paragraph or two about Javanese own ideas about kingship, and its impact on how they see their relationship with the Dutch. User:akhmad santoso 16 November 2005

New Addition

Hey I think we should encourage the latest contributor to sign in, as there are quite a few items that we could discuss about if anyone's keeping up with this art!User:SatuSuro 09:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I really like the wonderful polishing on the first paragraphs. I am already signed in. Here I add more materials up to the division in 1755. Looking forward for the discussion plus a few things I disagree with Ricklefs. Please check them, I think they're worth discussing. akhmad santoso. 11:44 18 November 2005.

Akhmad - Welcome, and thanks so much for your fantastic additions to this article! I'm really pleased to see it get good attention from someone who obviously knows a whole lot about the subject; I'm very impressed. I hope you'll stick around.

One potentially important comment - it's a fundamental policy of Wikipedia that our writing must be neutral and thoroughly based in outside sources - we only report what others have said. There's a few places where the text you've added makes specific judgements, usually about which scholar is correct on a certain point. Three examples:

Modern historians' judgement on Babad’s statement that the Dutch paid tribute to Mataram as “falsely motivated” (like what de Graaf (2000) did) can be made only by a naïve presumption that Javanese rulers in 17th century used Western perpective to understand what happened in Batavia in 1628-29

Ricklefs' misleading interpretation was made possible by imputing Western idea of legitimacy into Javanese history. It would be more consistent with other facts of Mataram history to interpret Mangkubumi’s protest as a challenge to his brother’s position as king.

Therefore, Houben’s argument that this transfer of power was valid in only de facto and not de jure sense and Ricklefs’ argument that it is valid de jure but not de facto simply missed the point from Javanese perspective, though not from VOC’s.

I'm not contesting the accuracy of these statements; in particular, I personally strongly favor giving Javanese sources at least equal - perhaps even more prominent - treatment to foreign ones (though I'm sadly not familiar with the Javanese sources, which explains why earlier versions of this article, which I initiated, were based so heavily on Ricklefs and a few others). However, the statements I've quoted above as examples do end up with Wikipedia's voice calling certain accounts "naive" or "misleading" - that's not neutral. Instead, the encyclopedia article should evenly describe a conflict or difference of interpretation, by citing sources on each side, but it must avoid making judgements about which side is correct. Can we cite either the older Javanese sources, or recent published critiques of de Graaf, Ricklefs, etc that draw on these Javanese sources? I think doing this would greatly strengthen the article, and make it fit smoothly as a Wikipedia article. I look forward to your comments.

By the way, details on the Wikipedia policies I'm referring to are at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Original research. CDC (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think these non-neutral words can be deleted without detracting from the emphasis that Javanese point of view should be given a space in Javanese history. Akhmad santoso. 1:18 19 November 2005.

I have deleted some passages about the interpretation of events because the article becomes too long and I intend to move them to new articles entitled "Siege of Batavia" and "Amangkurat I" Akhmad santoso. 12:41 14 December 2005

Images and maps

Any thoughts on sources for some images to go along with this article? Does anyone have easy access to some Dutch or Javanese primary sources that might have drawings of rulers - or some suggestions where I might find some (I have access to a reasonable academic library). Of course, anything we use needs to be public domain or freely-licensed (per Wikipedia:Copyright). I could also do a map at some point - I have access to good cartography software - though it might be several weeks at least. I think a map might really help a reader unfamiliar with Java's history and geography to figure out where all the places referred to in the text are in relation to each other. Any suggestions on this? Sources, formatting, etc? CDC (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge

I found other article: Yogyakarta Sultanate. As far as I know, Yogyakarta Sultanate is just the follow-up from Mataram Sultanate, isn't it? So, how about moving the other article's content here? Who's agree? — Indon (reply) — 15:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The Yogyakarta Sultanate is the successor of the Mataram state, but it still exists under the new name and has been around for 250 years. Furthermore, this article is already quite long (>40K) without dealing with what happened after the split between Yogyakarta and Surakarta. Now, much of the content on the Sultanate of Yogyakarta (everything before 1755) duplicates what is here, and could be removed, with a relevant link here. And that article needs much more information about how the sultanate functioned under the Dutch colonial period, and independence. But then there are already a few divisions that are blank; perhaps someone will add them. If someone adds them they will then need to be split again. The Indonesian Wikipedia has separate articles as well, id:Kesultanan Mataram and id:Kasultanan Ngayogyakarta Hadiningrat. Rigadoun (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case, then the problem is actually in the Yogyakarta Sultanate article, which has too many unrelated information before 1755. Good, then I will remove the tag and update the Yogyakarta Sultanate article. Thanks for your reply. — Indon (reply) — 04:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Problem with Paragraph about Rebellion Against Arya Pangiri

Saya dapat berbahasa Indonesia dan pernah tinggal di sana. Boleh pakai bahasa INA. I'm going through the article and correcting spelling and grammar, as well as adding a few translations of words used as titles. The paragraph detailing the rebellion of Benowo and Sutawija's rebellion against Arya is confusing to me. 1. It is not clear if Arya was and/or became the king of Pajang, Mataram and/or Demak, first of all, after deposing Benowo. At one point, it says he's the Pajang Sultan, but that was Senopati, wasn't it? 2. If Benowo and Sutawijaya defeated Arya, why does the next sentence say that Benowo bowed down to Senopati and submitted, but it says that Pajang became subordinate to Mataram, which rose to power? Senopati was the King/Sultan of Pajang, right, and Benowo didn't want to fight him, so it doesn't really make sense to me that Pajang bowed down to Mataram if Benowo submitted to Senopati. 3. I already altered that last sentence about Pajang becoming subordinate to Mataram because it was poorly written. Someone please clarify so I can correct the text. Terima kasih/maturnuwun!ReveurGAM (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Sunanate or Sultanate

Based on history, the rulers of Mataram from the beginning never had the title of Sultan. The first ruler had the title Panembahan, followed by his successor with the title Susuhunan.

Susuhunan, abbreviated as Sunan, is a title in Old Javanese which means leader (king). Meanwhile, the title of Sultan was only used by one ruler, namely Anyakrakusuma in a certain period (1641-1645) or lasted for five years during his reign. However, previously he still used the title Susuhunan.

The use of the title Susuhunan shows its importance. Because most of the titles of Mataram rulers are Susuhunan. This title was then continued by the next ruler of Mataram.

So Mataram does not seem worthy of being called a "Sultanate" but rather a "Sunanate". Because this is contrary to existing reality. Mosmota (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree it does seem to be more correct technically but Wikipedia article titles are looking for the most Wikipedia:COMMONNAME that an uninformed user would be likely to search for. Fact is there are 0 google results either for books or websites for Mataram Sunanate. Dan Carkner (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe at first glance in a Google search the name "Mataram Sunanate" seems foreign. This may be because the name "Mataram Sultanate" which appears on Wikipedia is often used as a reference by various online media. So that name became a popular start.

However, this does not mean that this is used as justification, as if the ruler of Mataram appears with the title of Sultan. On the other hand, the name "Mataram Sunanate" if searched using the Indonesian keyword "Kasunanan Mataram" will produce mixed results. Even by adding certain keywords such as journals, books and other scientific works.

Scholars who studied archives from the Netherlands reported that in his time the ruler of Mataram was called "Sousouhounang Mataram", which means "Susuhunan Mataram". An example of an archive that I took is the collection of the National Archives of the Republic of Indonesia (ANRI) which can be accessed via the official website: https://sejarah-nusantara.anri.go.id/marginalia_search/?asian_name=Sousouhounang%20Mataram&q=

This indicates that scholars and publishers have begun to properly examine the origins of the name Mataram. Mosmota (talk) 06:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree that it's logically a better name. But for Wikipedia article titles we are also bound to follow the most common usage and a phrasing that appears in 0 books in English is unfortunately not that. Dan Carkner (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)