Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Arsindo Buku
Arsindo Buku
ABSTRACT: Mataram mosque has its own uniqueness compared with other traditional
mosque in Nusantara, especially in Java. They have their own rooms
arrangement that consider the activity and the needs of the ummah at that time.
From five Mataram’s heritage mosque, we are comparing three mosque, there
are Surakarta Great Mosque, Yogyakarta Great Mosque, and Kotagede Mosque.
The aims of this research is to find out similarities of the spatial arrangement of
Mataram Kingdom mosque along with its function at that time and nowadays.
Method used in this research were a qualitative method and by analyzing the
similarities and differences between Surakarta Great Mosque, Yogyakarta Great
Mosque, and Kotagede mosque by observation and interviewing people. From
the research, can conclude that all the Mataram heritage mosque has similar
main plan design and function at that time, but nowadays many of the function
of the rooms has changes following the needs and current situation. Each
mosque has different changes each other, it is also depend on the needs on each
location.
INTRODUCTION
Mataram Kingdom’s central government located at mentaok, East Yogyakarta then had
been moved at Kotagede. Then its collapsed because of the Trunajaya rebellion in 1677.
The Capital City, Sunan Amral was moved in Kartasura. But, It was also invaded the
Chinese rebellion during the Sunan Pakubuwana II was holding the rebellion at 1742. The
Kartasura Palace building which was destroyed. Sunan Pakubuwana II then ordered
Tumenggung Honggowongso to find the location of a new capital. It was built 20 km to the
southeast of Kartasura, in 1745, precisely in the village of Sala on the banks of the
Bengawan Solo.
The name "Surakarta" was given as a name for the new government center. The
construction of the palace is based on records using teak wood from the Alas Kethu area,
the forest near Wonogiri and its wood is washed through Bengawan Solo. Officially, the
palace began to be occupied on February 17, 1745 .
Because of the Giyanti Agreement (February 13, 1755) caused Surakarta to become the
administrative center of the Surakarta Kingdom, with its king Pakubuwana III. Yogyakarta
became the center of government of the Sultanate of Yogyakarta, with its king, Sultan
Hamengkubuwana I.
Surakarta Hadiningrat Kingdom (Surakarta Hadiningrat Kingdom) located at Central
Java which was found on 1755. Surakarta Kingdom generally not considered as a
substitute for the Mataram Kingdom, but its a separated, although the king is still a
descendant of the king of Mataram. The king of the Surakarta Kasunanan has a sunan title,
while the king of the Yogyakarta Sultanate is sultan.
1
The Great Mosque of Surakarta (Masjid Ageng Keraton Surakarta) is the great mosque of
Surakarta Kingdom. Its function not only for pray, but also the center of Islamic Syi’ar. It
was built by Sunan Pakubuwono III in 1763 and was completed in 1768. This mosque is a
mosque with a jami category, which is can be used for prayers in large sizes of makmum
(eg Friday prayers and Eid prayer). With its status as a royal mosque, this mosque also
functions to support all royal needs related to religion, such as Grebeg and the Sekaten
festival. The King (Sunan) of Surakarta functions as panatagama (regulator of religious
affairs)
The Kotagede Mosque has an inscription that said this mosque has been built on 2 stages.
Which the first time by Sultan Agung and the second one by Pakubuwono X. Sultan Agung’s
designed is only a small mosque called langgar then it has added the steel collumns by
Pakubuwono X. This mosque is merged between hindu and budhist and also islam.
Designed originally by Sultan Agung, the reason is for tolerance.
Due the Mataram Kingdom being separated, then the Yogyakarta Sultanate built the
Kauman Great Mosque at 1773. In other hand the sunan Pakubuwono II renovated the
Kotagede Mosque becoming more wider. Those three mosques has same lines with
mataram kind of spatial programs.
This paper is attend to study similarities……….
Dk ching divuat paragraf
OBSERVATION METHOD
The method used in this research was qualitative and by analyzing the similarities
and differences between Surakarta Great Mosque, Yogyakarta Great Mosque, and
Kotagede mosque by observation and interviewing people. The interview was
conducted with the people who know the history of the mosque on those three
hile in
different areas. In Kotagede mosque, we did interview the takmir masjid. W
the Surakarta great mosque we have interviews with the royal descent of the
surakarta’s kingdom itself named “Kanjeng Dani”.
2
Figures and contrasting background form a unity of opposites, just as the
elements of form and space together form the reality of architecture. The
form and enclosure of each space in a building either determines, or is
determined by, the form of the spaces around it.
- D.K. Ching
2. Organization
Various configurations of form could be manipulated to define a solitary
field or volume of space, and how their patterns of solids and voids affected
the visual qualities of the defined space...They are normally composed of a
number of spaces which are related to one another by function, proximity,
or a path of movement.
- D.K. Ching
Y
I. YOGYAKARTA GREAT
MOSQUE The construction was initiated by Sri
Sultan Hamengkubuwono I and also Kiai
Faqih Ibrahim Diponingrat, but the
construction was delivered by the Kyai
Wiryokusumo. The main ceremonial
gateway located on the east and north
side. It has a typical religious Javanese
architecture with triple-tiered roof, no
minaret, and front hall (serambi) .
Facade of the Yogyakarta Great Mosque
3
II. KOTAGEDE GREAT MOSQUE III. SURAKARTA GREAT MOSQUE
4
The porch of Surakarta Great Mosque
1. SIMILARITIES
a. Space Arrangement
1. Kotagede Great Mosque Plan 2. Kauman Great Mosque Plan
Source images :
5
3. Surakarta Great Mosque boundaries, aside from having wall
all-around.
2. Kotagede Mosque
b. Space Analysis
i. Gate and Court
1. Yogyakarta Great Mosque
7
Gutter in Yogyakarta Great Mosque, Yogyakarta Great Mosque have a
Kotagede Mosque and Surakarta luxurious interior with the use of
Great Mosque have the same white paint. and rich of ornaments.
purpose, which was for washing the The flooring use ceramic tiles.
people feet before entering the
mosque. At that time they didn’t Surakarta Great Mosque have the
wear any footwear, but to enter the combination of simplicity and
mosque their feet must be clean so elegance. They used 2 main colors,
they made this gutter. This function which are blue and white. Woods
is still preserved in Surakarta Great were given varnish and there were
Mosque. less decorations. The flooring use
ceramic tiles with various patterns.
For Yogyakarta and Kotagede Kotagede Mosque is more plain and
Mosque, the gutter main function has less ornament. They show
has shifted to fish pond, because honesty in material with showing
nowadays people already use the wood as it is. The flooring only
footwear thus they only need to using concrete.
take off their shoes before entering
the mosque. We can still see the old 3. Corridor
construction for washing feet in
Kotagede mosque.
2. Porch
9
upper side and the other is the
same level with the ablution area.
5. Ablution Area
6. Mimbar Stage
7. Maksura
11
8. Mihrab
2. DIFFERENCES
KESIMPULAN
Menggarisbawahi temuan penelitian, kontribusi penelitian, dan rekomendasi untuk
penelitian berikutnya
DAFTAR PUSTAKA
Penulis harus secara jujur mencantumkan referensi pada setiap pernyataan yang disitasi dari
sumber lain. Pernyataan dari sumber lain yang tidak disebutkan sumbernya dapat
dikategorikan sebagai tindakan plagiat yang melanggar norma dan kode etik peneliti.
Daftar Pustaka sebaiknya menggunakan referensi terbaru, maksimal penerbitan 5 (lima) tahun
terakhir, kecuali untuk handbook yang belum ada cetakan revisi/terbaru.
13
Daftar pustaka ditulis sesuai contoh sebagai berikut :
Buku (monograf)
Kourik, E. 1998. The lavender garden: beautiful varieties to grow and gather. San Francisco:
Chronicle Books.
Artikel Jurnal
Terborgh, J.1974. Preservation of natural diversity: The problem of extinction-prone
species. Bioscience 24:715-22.
Situs Web
Thomas, Trevor M. 1956. Wales: Land of Mines and Quaries. Geographical Review 46, No.
1:59-81. http://www.jstor.org/ (accessed June 30, 2015).
14