The historical events of Indonesia, especially the Majapahit Kingdom, has always been interesting to explore. Not only because it contains famous figures, but also epic stories that continue to inspire each generation until today. Unfortunately, while digging the data of the past, we often find falsification attempts or historical hoax. Now, we will take you to learn how to break historical falsification, which is no less exciting than the historical event itself. Come! For the convenience in watching our videos press this button to bring up Indonesian and English subtitles. To avoid missing any information, please watch this video without skipping. Majapahit was definitely a great kingdom in ancient Indonesia. We can find traces of its greatness not only in historical relics, but also in the hoaxes that have emerged around the discussion of this kingdom. For example, some time ago it went viral that Gajah Mada's name was actually Gaj Ahmada (a moslem name). There are also those who say that Majapahit was actually a sultanate. And much more. Weird statements about Majapahit do not only appear in the present, but also in the past. For example, the Chronicle of Java (Babad Tanah Jawi) mentions that Gajah Mada lived at the same time as Raden Patah. Or, that the last king of Majapahit had the title of Brawijaya and had married a giant. This king was then defeated by his own son, Raden Patah, and this incident became the point of Majapahit's destruction. And so forth. We have presented several excerpts from the Chronicle of Java in our previous video about Tawangalun Temple, that you can watch at the link above or in the description. When we broadcasted it, the audience of this channel reacted to it because they thought we were the ones who created those statements, even though we only wanted to present what was written in the Chronicle of Java and compare it with the historical timeline widely known. We ourselves don't think the Chronicle of Java is a proper source for Majapahit history. And here's why. Let's learn about source criticism. History is built on valid sources. Therefore, when we talk about a historical event, the first thing we have to ask is its source. Historical sources are divided into several groups. The most prominent are two groups: namely primary sources, or the main sources and secondary sources, or supporting sources. Historical sources written directly by historical actors, or eyewitnesses of a historical event, are called primary sources, which are powerful. For example, if I was to write an autobiography Or, if my wife who lives with me wrote my biography even though I've died, they would be very powerful and reliable primary sources. Even if they live contemporary with the event, if the writer is neither the perpetrator nor an eyewitness, s/he is categorized as a less powerful primary source, sometimes it's only called a contemporary source. For example, if my wife's bestfriend, a Dutchman who lives in Jakarta, wrote a biography about me, but he never met me in person in East Java, and wrote it solely based on my wife's stories, his writing would be classified as a less powerful primary source or contemporary. Next, the historical sources written by neither the perpetrators nor eyewitnesses, and not contemporaries, fall in the category of secondary sources, which are only supportive. For example, 200 years after I died, someone writes a biography about me. The secondary level sometimes is also based on the gap in time, geography, as well as cultural and linguistic differences. The farther the differences, the more it must be rejected. Secondary sources cannot be the main reference as their validity is doubtful and they're only supporting sources. If the primary sources are exhaustive enough, then the secondary sources may be ignored. When it comes to the history of the Majapahit kingdom, included in the primary sources are inscriptions it's because inscriptions are written sources issued by kings or high officials during their lifetime. For example, the Sukamerta Inscription dated 1296 AD during the reign of King Sanggramawijaya, the first king of Majapahit, which became the document that established Sukamerta village to be sima, or tax-free. The second is the Negarakertagama Book, because the author of this book, namely Mpu Prapanca, was an eyewitness to the golden age of Majapahit since he had served as a Buddhist religious leader in the palace. Prapanca itself is an alias signed by the author at the end of the manuscript. This book was completed in 1365 AD, during the reign of King Hayam Wuruk (1334–1389 AD). The Negarakertagama book contains eye view reports about the royal family and their genealogy, life inside and outside of the palace, Majapahit's territory division, the cities visited by King Hayam Wuruk, religious life, to various sacred buildings at that time. So it's clear that the primary sources for the history of Majapahit are the inscriptions and the Negarakertagama book. Let's check what the secondary or supporting sources are. In the context of Majapahit history, one example of a secondary source is Pararaton Book, which was written around 1481 AD, during the reign of King Girindrawardhana (1474–1498 AD). That is about 116 years after the golden age of Majapahit. Pararaton is probably written in a Hindu-Buddhist environment in East Java, so it has not been separated from the geographical, cultural, and linguistic links of Majapahit. It contains the genealogy of the kings of Singhasari to the last king of Majapahit, complete with the year and events that accompany them. As a secondary source, you may ignore Pararaton if primary sources such as the inscriptions and Negarakertagama are sufficiently exhaustive to explain an event or a historical figure of Majapahit. You could say that Pararaton is supplementary. So, what about the Chronicle of Java, which also tries to tell a story about Majapahit? The Chronicle of Java was written about 250 years, or two and a half centuries after Majapahit completely disappeared, when the Javanese people had changed their beliefs. Who the author of Chronicle of Java is still a matter of debate, but what is clear is that this writer: First, grew up in a non-Hindu-Buddhist environment, Second, did not apply the same language and culture as the Majapahit people, And third, lived far from East Java. Chronicle of Java contains events and genealogies of Javanese kings, starting with Prophet Adam who brought forth Hindu gods, to Mahabharata figures to the Panji story characters in Kediri era, then Pajajaran, Majapahit, Demak, Pajang, up until the Mataram Sultanate. According to the historian de Graaf, Chronicle of Java is a primary & valid historical source for historical events from the Pajang to Kartasura period (1580 AD to the 18th century). However, for things before 1580 AD, this manuscript cannot be used as a historical source because it is mixed with myths and legends. So when it comes to the history of the Majapahit kingdom (1293-1527 AD), Chronicle of Java is a very weak secondary source. This is where Brawijaya was first mentioned as the last king of Majapahit. It also tells the story of Raden Patah who defeated Brawijaya, his own father, and destroyed Majapahit. For us, these stories must be rejected. In addition, contemporary sources written during Raden Patah's lifetime, namely the Suma Oriental report book, written by Tomé Pires, actually illustrates the opposite, that the ancestors of the Demak kingdom's founder were not Majapahit nobles. In your opinion, which source is more reliable? Suma Oriental, which was written when Raden Patah was still alive, or Chronicle of Java, which was only written about 200 years after Lord Patah died? Keep on following, friends, I will teach you a technique to recognize historical hoaxes. But before that, don't forget to subscribe, like, and share. A small thing to do, but has a big impact to our work, in developing a channel that enriches your perspective. There is one technique that is usually used by fellow investigators or journalists to dig up information, namely the 5 W + 1 H technique. WHAT, WHO, WHEN, WHERE, WHY, and HOW. We can use this technique to explore the validity of a historical source. WHAT, or in WHAT form is the source? There are three groups for the source form, namely in the form of objects, oral sources, or written sources. For example, historical sources in written form can be explored further, whether it is in the form of inscriptions, genealogies, chronicles, books, and so on. Next up, WHO. WHO is the creator or the writer? WHEN. WHEN was it created or written? WHERE. WHERE was it created or written? WHY. FOR WHAT PURPOSE was it created or written? And to top it off, HOW. HOW the historical source is used. For example, inscriptions are used by carving them into stones in an area so that they can be read together. Meanwhile, lontar mantras are read in certain rituals. So, when we hear a historical event from anyone, the first thing we need to ask is: "where did it come from?" If you already know the source, we can apply the 5W+1H. From there, we can categorize the historical source into the criteria of primary source, contemporary source, secondary source, or source that must be rejected. The real history is built not only on piles of stories or news from various sources, but also on the content of these sources, because the spirit of the age is recorded in every historical source, which we can see in the bonds of culture and time. E.g., Prapanca recorded the death of a king using "returning to Siwabudaloka", showing his clear attachment to Hindu-Buddhist culture. We can use this theory of cultural and time bonds to further assess the authenticity and validity of various historical sources we previously studied. First, the authenticity of an inscription as a primary source. Majapahit era inscriptions mostly contain sapatha, curse for those breaching the contents of the inscription. To the people at that time, sapatha was so frightening, it was unlikely that they would dare to forge an inscription. For example, the sima inscriptions, or the inscriptions on the establishment of a tax-free area. Second, the Negarakertagama Book's validity as a primary source. At that time, the teachings of Tantrayana thrived in Majapahit community. In the teachings of Tantra, humans can achieve perfection by purification through reading reliefs or reading/writing literature. In this tantric yoga sastra cultural bond Mpu Prapanca wrote the Negarakertagama Book. He chose to write a pujasastra for King Hayam Wuruk, whom he believed to be the incarnation of God Girinatha, for the perfection of Prapanca's own way of death. In fact, this script is actually made not to be shown to the public, even to King Hayam Wuruk himself. Thus Negarakertagama's intentions was arguably far from political, which could be used by the state or by the authors themselves. So it is unlikely that Mpu Prapanca lied, especially when he wrote the pujasastra which he believed was a ritual to reach perfection in his afterlife. Third, let's talk further about the validity of the Chronicle of Java. Now, the tantric yoga sastra culture as I explained earlier is no longer used by people of Mataram Sultanate era, including the Chronicle of Java's author. So when the author tried to link the genealogy of Demak kings with Majapahit, as well as glorify the kings of the Mataram sultanate, the content became very politicals. And politics, of course, is hard to be neutral. This is where we see the difference. The inscription is tied to sapatha culture, whose people's fear reaches a level that is hard for us to imagine. It's nearly impossible to fake this source. Negarakertagama and Pararaton are also tied to a yoga sastra culture. While Chronicle of Java is thick with political intents. The political purpose of a literature may not be stated, but we can see it when we compare it with other literature. Let's try it by comparing Chronicle of Java... with Negarakertagama as they are both pujasastra. First, Negarakertagama describes Majapahit as a brilliant kingdom, with the entire Indonesia as its territory. While the Chronicle of Java describes Majapahit as a gloomy kingdom, with a small territory covering East Java and Palembang. Second, Negarakertagama depicts the kings of Majapahit as great and powerful. Meanwhile, the Chronicle of Java tells how the king of Majapahit had STD. Third, Negarakertagama depicts how Majapahit kings were focused on expansion, capable of managing large empires, and feared and loved by all his people. While the Chronicle of Java describes how Majapahit kings were focused on his wives, and weak in facing disobedience from his vassal territories. And so on. So from here we can see the writing purpose of these two books. Negarakertagama aims to glorify its king, namely the king of Majapahit. However, this goal was not achieved by dwarfing the predecessor kingdoms, such as Medang, Janggala, and Tumapel or Singhasari. This is different from the writing purpose of the Chronicle of Java, where on one hand it seems to be trying to downplay Majapahit, while on the other it tries to retcon its own kings as descendants of Majapahit. This is a paradox, which may record how people at that time viewed Majapahit which has long passed. Though the study of source criticism is more complex than what we convey in this short video, you can still use it as a base. At least now you can become a historical detective. Through ASISI Channel, namely Analyze, Simplify, and especially our theme today, Signify Indonesian History, I invite you all to be critical on histories told by anyone, including this channel itself. Let's teach 5W+1H to those closest to us. So that together we can recognize and reject historical hoaxes, both those that are ingrained, currently popular, and those that will come.