This king is very famous, more than all the royalties of ancient Java combined. And he is believed to be the key figure behind the collapse of Majapahit just before Java entered a new era at the end of the 15th century. Okay, guys, we are still in Indonesia, and we will unveil the mystery of the figure who has aroused spiritual passion in Java for the last three centuries. Is Prabu Brawijaya a historical figure, or just living in a literary work? Come on! ANALYZE REVEAL REFLECT HISTORY In the early 16th century, Sultan Trenggana led Demak troops to crush the former territory of Majapahit one by one. However, Hindu writers in various kadewaguruan were still actively writing lontar, so, the fire of history remains unquenched. However, when Demak occupied Mount Penanggungan, Majapahit's holiest site, the writers and intellectuals fled to Blambangan and Bali. The history was pitch black, and no one knows what happened during that period. Times changed, and we arrived in the 18th century. A poet was ordered by Pakubuwana III of Surakarta Sunanate to write Babad Tanah Jawi (the Chronicle of Tanah Jawi) to fill the historical void during Demak, Pajang, and Islamic Mataram periods. This is where the story of Prabu Brawijaya became legendary among people. Brawijaya's popularity, in my opinion, is built on two major pillars. The first pillar is a literary work, in the form of a chronicle, published roughly two centuries after Majapahit's demise. Despite the fact that there are several literary works about Brawijaya, the three oldest are Serat Kanda, Babad Tanah Jawi, and Serat Darmogandul. The Serat Kanda was written roughly between the 18th and 19th centuries, This literary work, according to JLA Brandes, formed the basis for writing Babad Tanah Jawi. Majapahit, according to Serat Kanda, fell due to the Demak rebellion. then Brawijaya, as the last king of Majapahit, refused to change beliefs and fled to Bali. It is from Serat Kanda that we know the expression "Sirna Ilang Kertaning Bhumi", or the annihilation of the earth's wealth, which was thereafter generally known as the year of Majapahit's collapse, namely 1478 AD. So, what about Babad Tanah Jawi? The oldest manuscript, dated to 1722 AD, records that Brawijaya was the last king of Majapahit who had a governor named Gajah Mada. Babad Tanah Jawi mentions this, not me. According to the chronicle, from his Chinese concubine, Brawijaya had a son named Raden Patah, whom he appointed as duke of Demak and provided him with 10 thousand servants, complete with elephants, stretchers, carts and various other accessories. However, according to the Babad Tanah Jawi, Raden Patah even rebelled and attacked his own father's kingdom. Sad and disappointed, Brawijaya disappeared magically along with the rest of the palace. Now, somewhat differently, Serat Darmogandul, which was written around 1900 by Kalamwadi, stated that Brawijaya had not disappeared magically, but he had run away. One of the Walisongo chased him and managed to persuade the king to change his faith. Sabda Palon, the king's servant, was disappointed and made his famous promise to this day. We have discussed the figure of Sabdo Palon and his promise in the investigation of Cetho Temple, which you can watch later at the link above or in the description. Well, the second pillar of Brawijaya's popularity is the community tradition. Uniquely, each region has its own version and is not connected to one another. For example, there are those who believe that Brawijaya moksha is in Langse Cave, Gunung Kidul, Others believe that the pinnacle of Hargo Dalem on Mount Lawu is the location of moksha. Others believe that Brawijaya did not achieve moksha, but died a normal death and was buried in Tuban. Indeed, there are places in Blitar and Trowulan where villagers claim to be Brawijaya's tomb. The figure of this king is also associated with several temples in Central Java and East Java. For example, Pari and Tawangalun temples in Sidoarjo. Also Cetho Temple in Karanganyar and Dukuh Temple in Semarang Regency. We have investigated some of these temples. Please check later all the links in the description. So, with all his popularity in chronicles and folklore, can Prabu Brawijaya be claimed as a historical figure who became the last king of Majapahit? Let's cross-check with primary sources, namely inscriptions, literary works, and foreign news written around the end of Majapahit period. First, the Waringinpitu Inscription, which was issued by King Wijaya Prakramawardhana Dyah Kertawijaya in 1447 AD. This copper inscription provides a fairly complete picture of the political situation and government structure at the end of Majapahit. Then, the Trowulan III Inscription, which was also issued by Dyah Kertawijaya, but the year number is unknown. There is also the Pamintihan inscription, which was issued by King Suraprabhawa in 1473 AD. Not to forget several inscriptions issued by Dyah Ranawijaya, namely the Ptak inscription, and 4 Jiyu or Trailokyapuri inscriptions which are all dated to 1486 AD. There is also Serat Pararaton, that even considered as secondary sources, This literary work was most likely composed in the 15th century, around the conclusion of Majapahit, according to archaeologist Hasan Djafar. This contains the genealogy of the kings of Majapahit, complete with the underlying conflicts. From these sources, the genealogy of the kings of Majapahit was derived at the end of the period, namely after the Hayam Wuruk period. Historians, on the other hand, are divided over Majapahit's last ruler. The first group believes that Bhre Kertabhumi is the same person as Dyah Ranawijaya. The second group, such as the archaeologist Hasan Djafar, argues that Bhre Kertabhumi and Dyah Ranawijaya are different people. Well, regardless of which opinion is correct, it is a fact that the name Brawijaya is not found in any genealogy. However, some people try to prove the historical character of Brawijaya and do these two things. First, ride the pedigree. The figure of Brawijaya, which is only found in chronicles and folklore, is attached to the original Majapahit genealogy. Someone has attached Brawijaya here. The reason is simple. According to the Babad Tanah Jawi, Brawijaya is married to Princess of Champa who embraces Islam. Well, in Trowulan there is a site that is believed to be the tomb of Princess of Champa and dates to 1448 AD, right during the reign of Kertawijaya. In fact, the existence of the tomb of Princess of Champa is also odd, because according to Epigraph George Coedes, when the Dai Viet invaded the city of Vijaya in Champa in 1471 AD, the kingdom of Champa was still completely Hindu Shiva. Well, there are also those who have attached Brawijaya here. Also here. Or both, if they are considered the same person. The reason is simple. Since Brawijaya is the last king of Majapahit in the Babad Tanah Jawi, His image will be connected to whoever is regarded as Majapahit's last king. Well, there are also those who think that all Majapahit kings are Brawijaya. According to them, Brawijaya is a title that is carried by the descendants of Dyah Wijaya, the founder of Majapahit. Because there are many Brawijaya, they are marked with numbers. Some marked Dyah Wijaya as Brawijaya I, and continued until Kertawijaya as Brawijaya V. But the most popular was Kertawijaya as Brawijaya I, and continued until Bhre Kertabhumi Dyah Ranawijaya became Brawijaya V. When Bhre Kertabhumi and Dyah Ranawijaya were considered different people, the next number comes. Dyah Ranawijaya became Brawijaya VI, and Patih Udara was considered Brawijaya VII. In truth, the Majapahit rulers did not utilize numerals behind their titles. Even the Babad Tanah Jawi only writes one figure of Brawijaya, without the numbers behind it. Well, I suspect that Brawijaya's numbering goes up to these volumes, one of which is to accommodate the following interests. Let's look at the scenario: Bhre Kertabhumi or Brawijaya V, usurping the throne of Majapahit from Suraprabhawa. Suraprabhawa who was eliminated had a son named Dyah Ranawijaya, or Brawijaya VI, who beat Kertabhumi back. Well, Kertabhumi's son, Raden Patah, then avenged his father's defeat by attacking Dyah Ranawijaya, the Brawijaya VI and/or the Patih Udara, the Brawijaya VII. So, with the existence of numbered Brawijaya, Raden Patah did not become an unholy child in the Babad Tanah Jawi. because the he didn't attack his father Brawijaya, but another Brawijaya. So it's clear, it turns out that the figure of Brawijaya can be easily attached here and there according to the goals and interests of the perpetrator. Keep on following, guys. We will investigate further about the figure of Brawijaya and the technique for identifying historical figures to avoid conformity. But before that, don't forget to subscribe, like, and share. Also, click the link above if you want to support us in terms of funding, to develop a channel that will enrich your perspective. Those who believe in Brawijaya as a historical figure usually also use similar names. The name Brawijaya was split into Bra-Wijaya, and Bra was considered an abbreviation of Batara, just as the Majapahit people abbreviated Bhatara ring to Bhre. Despite the fact that the writer of the Babad Tanah Jawi was undoubtedly unfamiliar with this practice, who at that time did not know the Majapahit culture. Actually, in the Babad Tanah Jawi, 'Batara' title also exists, but only for gods, it is not abbreviated, for example, Batara Guru, Batara Vishnu, etc. But, okay, we'll suppose Brawijaya is Batara Wijaya. Next, we'll find the kings with "Wijaya" in his name, which is actually quite a lot. For example, Dyah Ranawijaya, who in the Ptak inscription holds the title cri bhatara prabhu girindrawardhana, garbhopatinama dyah ranawijaya, because of his "bhatara" and "wijaya", Dyah Ranawijaya is also considered Brawijaya. In fact, if the two brothers Dyah Ranawijaya, namely Dyah Wijayakarana and Dyah Wijayakusuma enthroned, these two elements would also be present in their titles. So that everything can be called Brawijaya. Well, then, Tome Pires's book Suma Oriental, which is an eye-opening report on Southeast Asia in the early 16th century, mentions a Javanese king named Batara Vojyaya. Historians believe the word "Vojyaya" is the Portuguese spelling for Wijaya, so this name was translated into Batara Wijaya. However, is Batara Vojyaya in Suma Oriental the same person as the Babad Tanah Jawi version of Brawijaya? Let's put on our historical detective hats and start investigating. A detective, when identifying a disfigured body, for example, will not be satisfied after finding the name on the identity card of the body. He would definitely take a DNA sample to ensure that the identity matched the corpse perfectly. Well, the DNA of historical figures is the persona and historical data that accompanies it. For example, we know that Majapahit and Wilwatikta, despite having different names, were the same kingdom. Why? Because the DNA is the same. Starting from his reign, the names of the kings and their ancestors, to the religious style were the same. Well, there is another, easier example. The name Asisi, a 17++ year old historical content creator living in East Java, clearly refers to my persona. But if in Italy there lived an 80-year-old museum curator named Assisi, would that person be equated with me? Of course not, because having the same name is insufficient! So, is Brawijaya Babad Tanah Jawi the same person as Batara Vojyaya Suma Oriental? Let's look at how their identities differ. Brawijaya Babad Tanah Jawi Version: His Governor (Patih) is Gajah Mada He had a son named Raden Patah, who become the ruler of Demak He was married to Princess Champa and Princess China. He had STD He did not dare to approach Sunan Giri His troops were swarmed by the bee attack. He is weak with regard to his family and vassal territories. He is finally destroyed by his own son, named Raden Patah. Well, here's the persona of Batara Vojyaya according to Suma Oriental: His patih named Amdura He had no family ties to Demak, who was a Moorish nation. He had a kinship with the ruler of Blambangan. He was wealthy, great, and hedonistic. He was brave and courageous. He successfully demolished the Coalition of the Moors on the North Coast, especially Demak. His sailors were reliable. He was revered as a deity across Java. Batara Vojyaya's ancestor is remembered by his people, who formerly dominated the archipelago from east to west. By comparing the two personas, it is clear that Brawijaya Babad Tanah Jawi is not the same as Batara Vojyaya Suma Oriental. How about with the inscriptions I mentioned at the beginning? It is also different! That is why, when identifying historical figures, we should not separate the name from the DNA, or the persona. Persona of Brawijaya is a weak and defeated king. Meanwhile, Batara Vojyaya has a courageous persona, attacking the Moorish coalition led by Demak, similar to the persona of Dyah Ranawijaya, who was able to attack Wilwatikta for his rights and unite the pieces of Majapahit. For me, the conclusion is clear: Dyah Ranawijaya in the Ptak inscription, and Batara Vojyaya in the Suma Oriental, are truly historical figures. However, without reducing respect for those who believe in it, for us the Babad version of Brawijaya, including the Babad Tanah Jawi, is not a historical figure. Our opinion can will definitely change, if in the future primary sources are found contemporaneously confirming Brawijaya as a historical figure. If we traced further, the confusion on the figure of Brawijaya was caused by two things: First, the Demak kingdom itself did not issue any primary historical sources, both inscriptions and historical records. There were only contemporary foreign news in the form of notes by Tome Pires and several other foreign writers. Second, those who insist that Brawijaya is a historical figure have imposed secondary sources, namely the chronicles that I discussed earlier, on primary sources in the form of inscriptions from the late Majapahit era. In fact, in compiling Indonesian history, literary works from later times, as well as myths and legends, are historical sources whose value is far below that of inscriptions and foreign news of the time. We've also discussed source criticism, which you can watch later at the link above or in the description. So, messing with the name Brawijaya from the Babad Tanah Jawi, then forcing it to match primary sources such as inscriptions, is the reverse method, and it is very unfortunate if it is done by those who understand history. Although of course, Brawijaya's popularity as a chronicle and folklore figure is not surprising. For the rulers at the time the chronicle was written, Brawijaya was like an anchor that connected them with the Majapahit breed and gave them legitimacy in ruling Java. Meanwhile, in the eyes of the people, Brawijaya represented the loser and was eliminated, but it also evoked their long-term memories of past glories. However, we still need to separate Brawijaya from the realm of history, and place it in the right realm, namely as a character in a literary work. So that we can appreciate it properly, as a figure who colors the treasures of Javanese spirituality, and enriches our culture. Never stop learning about our history To keep in touch with our roots -Asisi Channel-