40) Kupas Tuntas Dyah Lembu Tal, Leluhur Raja-Raja Majapahit

Summary

This video delves into the historical complexities surrounding the founding of the Majapahit Empire, focusing on Raden Wijaya's parentage and the discrepancies in ancient texts like the *Prasasti Kudadu*, *Negarakertagama*, and *Pararaton*. The speaker clarifies that Raden Wijaya was the grandson of Narasinghamurti and explores the confusion caused by later sources, such as the *Babad Tanah Jawi*, which introduced myths about his Sundanese lineage. The video emphasizes the importance of relying on reliable, historical evidence rather than folklore, urging caution in interpreting historical facts.

Takeaways

• 😀 The confusion between Raden Wijaya and Harsawijaya exists due to mistaken identity in historical texts like the *Pararaton*.
• 😀 Raden Wijaya is actually the grandson of Narasinghamurti, not his son, as some texts have suggested.
• 😀 The *Prasasti Kudadu* (1294) is the oldest known Majapahit inscription and it refers to Raden Wijaya as *Nararya Sanggramawijaya* and *Narasinghamurti Sutaatmadja*.
• 😀 There is a debate over the interpretation of 'sutaatmadja' in the *Prasasti Kudadu*, with some scholars arguing it means 'son of an adopted daughter' and others interpreting it as 'son of a son'.
• 😀 The correct interpretation of 'sutaatmadja' implies that Raden Wijaya is the son of Narasinghamurti's son, rather than the son of a female descendant.
• 😀 The *Kertanegara* inscription supports the idea that Raden Wijaya’s lineage is through male ancestors, and not through a female (Dyah Lembu Tal).
• 😀 The *Pararaton* and later historical texts distorted the original story of Raden Wijaya, incorrectly portraying him as a descendant of Sundanese royalty.
• 😀 In later versions like the *Babad Tanah Jawi*, Dyah Lembu Tal was erroneously portrayed as a woman, which contradicts earlier, more reliable sources.
• 😀 The name of Raden Wijaya's father was overlooked in the *Prasasti Kudadu* in favor of highlighting his grandfather's royal lineage as a means of legitimizing his rule.
• 😀 Modern interpretations of Majapahit history, including those from the *Naskah Wangsakerta*, are considered weak due to the lack of valid archaeological evidence supporting claims like Raden Wijaya being of Sundanese descent.

Q & A

Who is Raden Wijaya, and what is his significance in Majapahit history?

Raden Wijaya is the founder of the Majapahit Empire. He played a crucial role in establishing the empire after successfully overcoming both internal and external challenges. His legitimacy as a ruler is solidified through his connection to the Rajasa Dynasty and his royal ancestry.

Why does the Kudadu inscription only mention Raden Wijaya's grandfather, not his father?

The Kudadu inscription emphasizes Raden Wijaya's grandfather, Narasingamurti, because he was a king, whereas his father was not. This was a deliberate choice to highlight Wijaya's royal heritage and solidify his right to rule, as his grandfather's royal status provided stronger legitimacy.

What does the term 'Narasingamurti Sutaatmadja' mean, and why is it important?

The term 'Narasingamurti Sutaatmadja' is a title given to Raden Wijaya in the Kudadu inscription. It has been interpreted in different ways, either as Wijaya being the son of a daughter of Narasingamurti or the son of Narasingamurti's son. This title is important because it relates to his lineage and the royal connections that legitimized his rule.

What is the significance of the Negarakertagama in understanding Raden Wijaya's lineage?

The Negarakertagama, written in 1365, provides key insights into Raden Wijaya's parentage, specifically identifying his father as Dyah Lembu Tal. This text is considered more reliable than later works like the Pararaton, which contain discrepancies regarding Raden Wijaya’s lineage.

How does the Pararaton differ from the Negarakertagama regarding Raden Wijaya's lineage?

The Pararaton, written centuries after Majapahit’s fall, mistakenly conflates Raden Wijaya with Harsawijaya, suggesting they are the same person. In contrast, the Negarakertagama provides a clearer and more accurate account of Raden Wijaya’s parentage and his royal background.

What does the term 'Kertanegara duhita' mean, and how does it help clarify the parentage of Raden Wijaya?

The term 'Kertanegara duhita' means 'the daughter of Kertanegara.' This clarifies that Raden Wijaya’s mother was an offspring of King Kertanegara, which supports the argument that he was the son of a royal lineage. The use of 'duhita' eliminates confusion about his mother’s gender.

Why is there a dispute about whether Dyah Lembu Tal was male or female?

There is confusion because of the misinterpretation of historical texts. Some sources, like the Babad Tanah Jawi and Naskah Wangsakerta, suggest Dyah Lembu Tal was female, but this view is based on weak sources. The speaker rejects this theory, asserting that Dyah Lembu Tal was likely male, as indicated by more reliable inscriptions and texts.

How does the Babad Tanah Jawi contribute to the confusion regarding Raden Wijaya's ancestry?

The Babad Tanah Jawi, written during the 17th-18th centuries, distorts the original history of Majapahit by claiming Raden Wijaya was of Sundanese descent, which contradicts earlier historical records. This work is not considered reliable by modern historians, leading to confusion about Raden Wijaya's true lineage.

What is the stance of modern historians regarding the claim that Raden Wijaya was of Sundanese descent?

Modern historians reject the claim that Raden Wijaya was of Sundanese descent, as it is based on weak sources like the Babad Tanah Jawi. They argue that there is no solid evidence to support this, and without concrete historical documentation, the claim cannot be considered valid.

Why does the speaker emphasize the importance of using valid historical sources?

The speaker stresses the need for valid sources to avoid spreading inaccurate historical narratives. They argue that it is better to wait for solid evidence rather than relying on unreliable documents, which could lead to misinterpretations and historical fabrications.