Where did Gajah Mada come from? Whose descendants? This historical figure is famous for the politics of unifying the archipelago, more than the Javanese kings. But why is its origin and birth still shrouded in mystery? And why do many regions, including outside Java, claim to be Gajah Mada's hometown? Which one is correct? In this Historical Ghibah, we will reveal the true origins of Gajah Mada according to inscriptions and authentic sources. Come on. Asisi Channel's latest book, Secrets of the Archipelago, is out! This is a historical report and notes from my trip to dozens of Medang temples. Where can you buy it? Check comments or bio. Those who already have it, I'm waiting for the review. And let's move on. Selviya: OK, Mas Asisi. When talking about Gajah Mada, he is a truly phenomenal figure. Mahapatih of the largest empire in ancient Java. The most famous too. It is even famous throughout the archipelago. And it is also famous for the Palapa Oath which unites the archipelago. But for such a big figure, he is actually a figure who is still shrouded in mystery. So mysterious that many myths have emerged. Some say that Gajah Mada was Malay. Born from coconuts. He died in Aceh. Some say he is moksa. Which one is correct? If we talk about history, of course we are talking about written sources, right? Primary, secondary, and so on. How do these sources tell about Gajah Mada? Such as its origin and death. ASISI: It's interesting when we talk about Gajah Mada. He is a historical figure whose name is so big. But as historical figures, we still have to apply historical methodology. We have to explore where the sources that tell about Gajah Mada come from. From primary sources, for example. Primary means it was made at the time the event occurred, not too far later. Well, we find primary sources in several inscriptions that mention the name Gajah Mada. For example, the Gajah Mada Inscription or the Singhasari Inscription. Then there is the Prapancasarapura Inscription. Then the Walandit Inscription. Then there are several inscriptions from the Majapahit period which do mention the name Mpu Mada or Gajah Mada, but do not tell about his birth. This inscription does not tell about his birth and death. Why? Because the inscription is actually the king's decision. So the inscription is not a biography of a historical figure, but rather the king's decision as stated in the inscription. So of course what is conveyed in it is only the ranks of Gajah Mada. Whatever his role, in the inscription he carried out the king's orders as he did. Selviya: So what information about Gajah Mada is in the inscription? AISI: From primary sources, say from inscriptions, the one with the most context about Gajah Mada that we have is the Singhasari Inscription or Gajah Mada Inscription. Because it tells of Gajah Mada's actions to build or, according to historians' analysis, beautify a caitya, which is currently strongly suspected to be the Singosari Temple, for Maharaja Kertanegara. Did Gajah Mada build on his own wishes? No, but on the orders of Sapta Prabu, King Hayam Wuruk's advisory council consisting of seven kings-- seven rulers close to Hayam Wuruk's relatives. Sapta Prabu is headed by Tribhuwana Tunggadewi. Tribhuwana Tunggadewi who represented Sapta Prabu ordered Gajah Mada to make a caitya. Apart from the Singhasari Inscription, Gajah Mada's name is not actually mentioned much. There is but not much mention of his role. Because it was the king's decision. Gajah Mada is only one of the officials mentioned in the inscriptions, for example the Prapancasarapura Inscription. This inscription is quite interesting because it contains the king's decision. But it mentions names that are now quite legendary. There are three names. Namely Hayam Wuruk, then Adityawarman, and especially Gajah Mada. Gajah Mada is mentioned there. Gajah Mada in the inscription is called Mapatih ri Majapahit. Well, the name Majapahit is mentioned. Selviya: So it's not only Wilwatikta who is mentioned in the inscription, huh? AISI: In primary sources, the name Majapahit is already mentioned. For example, I took examples from contemporary foreign sources. In the Chinese Chronicle of the Yuan Dynasty, it was written there. There they wrote the name Majapahit. Selviya: Oh, it means people who say that "The correct name of Majapahit is Wilwatikta. "Majapahit is a literary version" means it's wrong? It turns out that the name Majapahit is also in Chinese inscriptions and chronicles. That means people like that lack literacy, right? OK, back to Gajah Mada, Mas Asisi. ASISI: If you compare it with the Singhasari Inscription, which one is earlier? Earlier Singhasari inscription. So it's early. The Prapancasarapura inscription appeared first, then the Singhasari inscription. In the Prapancasarapura Inscription, Gajah Mada is called Mapatih ri Majapahit. But in the Singhasari Inscription, when he built the caitya, he was called Mapatih ri Yawadwipamandala. So imagine, from Mapatih or Mahapatih who led Majapahit, now it becomes Mapatih or Mahapatih who leads Java Dwipamandala. That includes Java and Madura. Selviya: So it does show the expansion or expansion that has been carried out. ASISI: I think it shows more of Gajah Mada's growing authority. Selviya: What is different is the mention of territory, meaning this is indeed an expansion of power. With increasingly wider areas and greater responsibilities. But the name of the title remains the same, Mapatih. ASISI: What does it mean? There is information about expansion. Expansion of influence from Majapahit itself. Especially Gajah Mada of course. Selviya: And also shows that mandalas are flexible in nature? ASISI: Right. Selviya: At first it was like this, then it could expand, then it could narrow again. So, back to Gajah Mada. ASISI: Well, the next sources—actually there are lots of examples. I'll give you an example because I'm afraid it's boring. But friends, you can check it yourself. There are many inscriptions that mention Gajah Mada. The inscription that I used as an example is the Walandit Inscription. It contains the king's decision on the feud. The feud between the Himat community and the Walandite community. This inscription mentions the name Mpu Mada or Gajah Mada. Selviya: As...? ASISI: As Mapatih too. If friends examine the inscription that mentions Mpu Mada, they all call it Mapatih. All his titles are Mapatih. This is from a primary source. What does it mean? Gajah Mada is a historical figure. Suitable, huh? Obviously, right? Selviya & ASISI: Definitely. ASISI: However, it doesn't tell about the birth. Because the inscription does not tell a biography. The inscription is the king's decision. Selviya: But there is one thing that makes me curious. There are also those who say this, Mas Asisi. “Gajah Mada is not a person's name, but a title. "That's why Gajah Mada in Babad Tanah Java can appear as Mahapatih Brawijaya, even though they lived in different times." Well, one of the apologies is "Gajah Mada is a title, not a person's name". But these inscriptions actually state that Gajah Mada was the name, his title was Mapatih. Is that true? ASISI: Mapatih is his position. His name is Gajah Mada. There was a time when he was called Mpu Mada. Just Mada. Surprisingly, he is actually called Gajah Mada in the Prapancasarapura Inscription. So, in written sources, literary sources, there is something called Negarakertagama. It also mentions Gajah Mada. Selviya: Oh, yes, that means it's a person's name, not a title. ASISI: But look, where animals were thought to have magical powers. So when his name is attached to a person, it could be that the magical powers of those animals appear in that person and become that person's strength, at that time. Well, Dyah Wijaya's loyal soldiers or servants often used animal names. Sora Cow for example. Selviya: Kebo Anabrang. ASISI: Names like that. Selviya: OK, moving on. We discuss a lot of side things. But it doesn't matter, let's return to the focus of the initial topic: Gajah Mada ASISI: Well, that was from the inscription. Now we take from primary sources but from written works, from literature. The most famous are two. Apart from that there is nothing else. Just these two. The most famous is Negarakertagama. Negarakertagama is a primary source because it was written in the 14th century, when Hayam Wuruk and Prapanca were eyewitnesses. And interestingly, Negarakertagama was written a year... (cut off by strong winds) Negarakertagama was written a year after Gajah Mada died. So in 1364, around that time, Gajah Mada died, in 1365 this book was written. Well, in Negarakertagama the name Gajah Mada is mentioned, but it doesn't mention his birth. What is mentioned is the beginning of his assuming responsibility as Mapatih. His birth is not mentioned. OK, let's speed it up again. Another primary source - not actually primary - a secondary but strong source, namely Pararaton which is thought to have been written at the end of the 15th century. We have explained the reasons in another video. The name Gajah Mada is also mentioned there, but again it is the same, his birth is not mentioned. OK, so we collect all the primary sources. From this collection there are inscriptions and literature. No one mentioned his birth. Selviya: What's being told is his actions, right? ASISI: His actions. His position, his actions, and his death. Selviya: And the characters too, right, Mas Asisi? ASISI: Right. Selviya: What we have discussed in the following video, yes, you can watch it. ASISI: It's interesting to talk about the character of Gajah Mada. Selviya: But Mas Asisi, it feels strange. Why wasn't his birth written about such a big figure? Is it because Gajah Mada is not a royal family? Are only kings whose births and deaths are written? What do you think, Mas Asisi? ASISI: So you see, ancient Javanese people apparently tended not to record births. Because never mind Gajah Mada, who is just an ordinary official. Even though he was a high official, he was not from the royal family. Selviya: No. ASISI: Among the kings, only one king whose birth is recorded. Only one king, from the entire period of ancient Java. Who's that? Hayam Wuruk. Hayam Wuruk only recorded the year of his birth and the year of his death so that we can measure how old he was. However, the other king does not have his birth year. We don't even know the year of death for some of these other kings. From the Singhasari to Majapahit period, there were records of kings' deaths, but not their births. Selviya: Why is Hayam Wuruk treated special? ASISI: We don't know why Hayam Wuruk is so special. Because in it, when he was born, it was also told that his birth had signs. So actually it's not because there's been a cultural change. People record their births not because they have to, but to mark an event. When Hayam Wuruk was born, there were natural events, for example Pabanyu moved, then a volcano erupted. Pabanyu moving is actually a term that is still debated. Pabanyu moved is the name of an event or flash flood, banyu (water) that moved. That's still up for debate. But it was a big event, which was then followed by a volcanic eruption. This means that Prapanca considered these events as signs that someone great would be born, the incarnation of Sang Hyang Giri Nata. This means that the aim was to mark the greatness of the king. But even after Hayam Wuruk, the kings who followed did not have their birth years recorded. Selviya: Can it be concluded that the customs or characteristics of that era included not recording births? ASISI: Right. So Gajah Mada's birth was not recorded not because of his position or status, but that was the cultural framework at that time. No one records births. Once that is over, we move on to sources from an even younger era. From sources in the form of traditions, myths, legends, and even historians' analysis. The most famous sources come from several literary works. For example, Kidung Sunda also mentions Gajah Mada but does not mention his birth. There is also the Babad Gajah Mada, originating from Bali. It also comes from a younger period because he used Middle Javanese in prose. This language is a prose style from the Middle Ages, the Middle Ages. The literature even states that Gajah Mada was a descendant of Batara Brahma who impregnated Nari Ratih, the wife of a powerful ascetic or sage. This woman then reported to her husband because she was pregnant by Batara Brahma. Finally they left the place. On the way, in Mada village at the foot of Mount Semeru, the child was born. The child was then left there, and his parents climbed the mountain to meditate. They begged their children to become great people. And when this prayer is granted, he will become a famous person throughout the archipelago. That's the story. Selviya: About Babad Bali, approximately what year was it written? ASISI: We don't know. But if you look at the characteristics, this literature belongs to the Middle Ages. As I said earlier. Selviya: So that means it was written at a time when Gajah Mada succeeded in uniting the archipelago? ASISI: Right. Because there is the word Nusantara. Selviya: That means there is recognition from the Balinese side. Even though it may not be a primary source, there is recognition that Gajah Mada will be a great figure who unites the archipelago. This means that when the Babad was written, it seemed like the archipelago was already united. ASISI: I like Selvi's thoughts. Honestly, I didn't think of it like that myself. So, it is possible that the Babad Gajah Mada was written when the name Gajah Mada was already well known throughout the archipelago, so that expression emerged. That's great. That's called digging from the content of the times or the memories of the times. Then, there are many other sources. Among them is the Hikayat Hang Tuah which mentions Gajah Mada. In the Hikayat Hang Tuah there is no mention of the birth of Gajah Mada. Then the most famous is of course, Babad Tanah Jawi. The literature also mentions Gajah Mada, but does not mention his birth. Then there is also the Kutai Salasilah. Salasilah Kutai is a piece of literature from Kalimantan. The literature also mentions Gajah Mada, but does not mention his birth. There are two unique pieces of literature in Bali. One I mentioned earlier, namely the Chronicle of Gajah Mada. There is another Balinese source which states that Gajah Mada was born from a coconut. So Sang Hyang Narayana, namely Vishnu, descended to a coconut. When the coconut broke, a baby was born from it, namely Gajah Mada. So he was born without a mother and without a father. Selviya: So he's similar to Momotaro. As for Momotaro, he is a baby born when a peach is cut open. Or Princess Kaguya, a baby born when bamboo is split. ASISI: But from there we can understand it. If we compare him with Hayam Wuruk, Hayam Wuruk was such a great king that Prapanca had to note that his birth was miraculous to show his greatness. This means that if this Balinese source notes that Gajah Mada was magical, it is likely that Gajah Mada was already famous when the source was written. So it is clear that this source was written later. It is impossible for this to have been written at a time when Gajah Mada was still alive. Selviya: And actually in that source there is information or guidance, right, Mas Asisi? That the author may not know Gajah Mada's true identity. It is not clear the origins of his parents, or the origins of Gajah Mada himself. So, finally a myth was created to answer that. And because he is a big man, the story automatically has to be grand, magical, great. Is it like that? ASISI: Yes. If we compare it with Hayam Wuruk for example, or with the myth or mythology about Ken Angrok, all these stories are similar. Moreover, Ken Angrok was also born from the God Brahma who impregnated a woman. Similar to the story from Bali about Gajah Mada who was born because God Brahma impregnated a woman. Similar, right? Selviya: I think this story was inspired by Pararaton. Because there is a Pararaton manuscript found in Bali. It could be that during the process of copying the palm print, they thought: "Wow, Ken Angrok's story is like this. What if we made Gajah Mada's story like this?" Let's get back to the original topic. We have looked at primary sources and secondary sources. What about myths, Mas Asisi? ASISI: If we're talking about myths... As I said, myths have been put together. For example, Babad Tanah Jawi has told quite a lot of myths. Selviya: Then let's talk about historians' analysis. In the ranking of historical sources, historians' analyzes rank last. ASISI: Since Gajah Mada's birth was not included in primary sources, historians began to offer analysis. Remember, analyze. was around the Brantas River. So, which one is correct? Selviya: This is around Gunung Kawi, if I'm not mistaken. ASISI: What about archaeologist Agus Aris Munandar? This is very interesting. He offered an analysis several times about the origins of Gajah Mada. The first is that Gajah Mada is a Pandaan person. This relates to the story about Dyah Wijaya, who had many soldiers accompanying him, and was attacked by Jayakatwang's troops. At that time he fled to Pandaan. When he arrived at Pandaan, one of his loyal subordinates was injured, his name was Gajah Pagon. Because he could not continue to accompany him because he was injured, which would hinder the troops, they went to Sumenep or Madura, and Gajah Pagon was left in Pandaan. They said to Tiger Ears, namely the top officials in Pandaan, "Please look after my men. He is very loyal.” So he was taken care of. Maybe because there are similarities between the names Gajah Pagon and Gajah Mada, Mr. Agus Aris Munandar analyzed, maybe Gajah Mada is the son of Gajah Pagon. This opinion does not have any sources, just analysis. The premise is that Gajah Mada's career in the military sector rose very quickly in Majapahit. From Bekel, he rose to become Patih, then rose again to Mapatih. This is certainly a political career that is too fast. This is only possible if we are close to the authorities. Because of this, Agus Aris Munandar then analyzed the possibility that Gajah Mada was the son of Gajah Pagon, because Gajah Pagon was close to Dyah Wijaya. Selviya: But that's not enough, right? Gajah Mada's achievements are extraordinary. He saved, ran away, and put Jayanegara back on the throne. That's such a big accomplishment. He saved the king and saved the country. So it's not surprising that after that his career rose so quickly, until he became Mapatih. In my opinion, it is not enough to just use internal factors or hereditary factors. But more importantly, his achievements are too great to be ignored. OK, let's continue again. So what about the second one? ASISI: Agus Aris Munandar then offered a different analysis. That Gajah Mada was possibly the "son" of King Kertanegara, but from another wife. Unnamed wife. The premise is like this: Gajah Mada was able to build a caitya for King Kertanegara. This Caitya is the one I mentioned earlier, namely Singhasari Temple. In his view, the only people who can build caitya for their ancestors are their descendants. Or, the person who built a caitya for a great king must have been a descendant of that great king. With a premise like that, it is possible that Gajah Mada was a descendant of King Kertanegara. This is the second analysis. Selviya: If I'm not mistaken, you once denied this in the Candi Singhasari video. Friends, you can check it later. Continue, third. ASISI: The third one is the newest. He offered that Gajah Mada probably came not from Pandaan, but from Bedander. When Jayanagara, the Second King of Majapahit, experienced the Ra Kuti Rebellion, he was attacked by Ra Kuti. Then he was rescued by Gajah Mada with Bayangkara troops. Where did King Jayanagara run? To Bedander. So, in a very dire situation, there was no one Gajah Mada could trust, even some of his subordinates who wanted to return to Majapahit were killed by him. Then even when he wanted to report the position of King Jayanagara he had to be careful when he wanted to return to Majapahit. That means no one can be trusted. In conditions like that, logically Gajah Mada would choose the place he could most trust. And the place we can trust the most is our birthplace. A hometown where we can recognize the places, the alleys, we can recognize everything. It is possible that with a premise like that, Gajah Mada is a person from Bedander. But regarding these 3 analyses, including the analysis of Mr Soekmono or others, friends must remember that they are all analyzes or conjectures. There are no hard facts, no hard data, it's just analysis. So because of that, if we now search on the internet, many people are starting to claim it. I began to draw the conclusion that there are many cities or regions in Indonesia that claim to be the place of origin of Gajah Mada. Selviya: Like the case of Gajah Mada, he is Malay. ASISI: Well how is that? Selviya: I once read someone who said that Gajah Mada was Malay, the argument goes like this: First, the name Gajah. Elephants are animals that only exist in Sumatra, even though there are also many Javanese elephants. There are many of them in reliefs and in various sources who called the elephant the mount of the King of Java. Well, apart from that, the premise is that Gajah Mada was the bodyguard who accompanied Dara Petak and Dara Jingga, who were brought from Malay when they were used as offerings for Singhasari, which at that time had collapsed and turned into Majapahit. One of the premises is Mas Asisi, so it is said that at that time he was still young so that later he would grow up and occupy an important position in Majapahit. I thought it was strange too, because it meant he was very old. This means that when he accompanied Tribhuwana he was already very old. Meanwhile, he only became Jayanagara's Bekel when he was still young, so it doesn't make sense chronologically. ASISI: But in my opinion, maybe it's because of Gajah Mada's big name that every region feels the need to claim that Gajah Mada comes from their region. It is clear that the birth of Gajah Mada is not described in primary sources. Selviya: So who is he actually? Malays? If a Malay person would definitely be said to be a Malay person. But it is clear that there is no data or no argument valid enough to call him Malay. But to be honest, there is no data that definitely calls him Javanese. ASISI: Right. Selviya: How? ASISI: But look, in the ranking of sources there is clearly an order. If the primary doesn't tell the story, what about the secondary? If the secondary doesn't tell the story as well, we return to the legend, then to the historian's analysis. Just see which one is closest to logic. In my opinion, the most reasonable of all the analyzes is the one stated from Pandaan, Mr. Agus Aris Munandar's analysis. Even though he's not necessarily the son of Gajah Pagon, if you look at his territory ring, it's definitely around there. Gajah Mada should have been Javanese. Selviya: It should be Javanese, not Balinese, not other people. ASISI: Not someone from anywhere. Selviya: If we think about it too, when Adityawarman is mentioned he is Malay. What is that called? In what literary works is Adityawarman's ethnicity mentioned? ASISI: Adityawarman was not mentioned, but his term was mentioned. Alluded to by Pararaton. It was mentioned but people made the connection, "this must be Adityawarman", but it wasn't clearly stated... Selviya: That he was Malay? ASISI: That he was Malay was not mentioned. Selviya: Does that mean it was the custom of ancient people not to mention ethnicity? If we think about it, that means it's not called ethnicity. Well, like this, for example, if we look at Manjusri's inscription which mentions Adityawarman, but it doesn't say who he was. Selviya: So maybe the person's origin is not that important. But let's say we compare Gajah Mada, the Malay, and Gajah Mada, the Javanese. The Malay one has no valid basis, while the analysis of Gajah Mada, the Javanese, Pandaan, is based at least on Pararaton. So at least there is a basis. Meanwhile, one has no basis at all, only a logical fit. OK, that means we can conclude temporarily that the strongest suspicion is that Gajah Mada was Javanese. ASISI: Strongest guess, yes. Selviya: If we find harder facts, we are open to that change. Now regarding his birth, it is not clear. For Gajah Mada it is not clear, because if he was right, for example, from Bali, when he conquered Bali, he did not need to negotiate until he had to defeat Kebo Iwa. He definitely said, "I am Balinese". But that's just a legend. Selviya: But that's just a legend, don't forget. So what's the conclusion, Mas Asisi? We discuss the origins of Gajah Mada this time. It seems that regarding the place where he died, we will discuss it in a separate video, after this. But let's close the first half first. ASISI: OK, this first round has one conclusion. In understanding history, we must rely on historical sources. Primary, secondary, and so on tertiary, legends, myths, historians' analysis, etc. In primary sources there is no birth of Gajah Mada, why? Because it is a cultural frame, once again I emphasize, the cultural frame in Ancient Java did not record a person's birth. Even if that person is influential, apart from one person, who is it? Hayam Wuruk. Hayam Wuruk was recorded because it marked a natural event that occurred at that time. His birth coincided with a natural event. Meanwhile, let's say there is another person to note, Ranggah Rajasa, namely Ken Angrok. But it's still mythology. Even the Pararaton writer still calls this Katutunira, it's still mythology. Selviya: And from a more advanced era too. Even the author of Pararaton himself is still doubtful. When he wanted to discuss Ken Angrok he started by saying that it was Kathutunira or still said that. Selviya: So if there is a myth about the birth of Gajah Mada here or here, then it can be concluded that it is just a myth. Whether myths created in ancient times or today, we just consider them myths. So once again it is important for us to understand historical methodology. Everything must be seen from what is written. Because of what? There are lots of places that say this is where Gajah Mada came from but it is only based on archaeological finds, namely the phallus, or whatever. Remember, archaeological findings have multiple interpretations. The only thing that makes an interpretation and its interpretation narrow is the written work. If we find archaeological finds, they can vary. Correct? It is important to understand: is there a Gajah Mada source? It turns out that there is no birth of Gajah Mada in Ancient Java or primary sources. Selviya: So I think personally, I learned that Gajah Mada was a great figure. But its origins are not really explained, not really highlighted. Maybe for Ancient Javanese people it didn't matter where you came from, it didn't matter who your parents were, where you were born, what tribe or ethnicity you were from. What is important is your achievements, what is important is your contribution. Maybe that's what's important. ASISI: Right. Selviya: So that when they record, what they record are achievements. Things that Gajah Mada did during his lifetime. ASISI: From me it is quite clear that the most important lesson from Gajah Mada is that we have to really pay attention to what we do today. Our actions today. Why? Because it determines who we will be in the future. The most important lesson from Gajah Mada is that we have to really pay attention to what we do today. Our actions today. Why? Because it determines who we will be in the future. How our names will be remembered by our children and grandchildren, by our next generation. How we fare will be determined today. So, keep studying history so we don't forget our identity.