A historian has asked his detractors to prove him wrong in his claim that Hang Tuah and other historical figures never existed. “If you do not agree with me, bring out sources to show that I am wrong. “You cannot simply say that you don’t agree. What is the basis?” Prof Emeritus Tan Sri Dr Khoo Kay Kim asked when met at the Interna-tional Conference on the Global Movement of Moderates here yesterday.
Prof Khoo, who is in a committee which will look into the present History curriculum in schools, said legends like Hang Tuah and Princess Hang Li Po were not real because there were no reliable sources to confirm their existence. On Hang Tuah’s grave in Malacca, Prof Khoo said there was no way of telling it was him unless the grave was dug up and the corpse examined. “I know there is a Hang Tuah well in Malacca too but it was built by the local people and they go there at night to ask for lottery numbers,” he added. Prof Khoo, who is from Universiti Malaya, said it was sad that Malaysians were becoming more ignorant of history but were “good at confrontation”.
Asked on the proposed move to allow undergraduates to participate in politics, Prof Khoo said he was worried that if students were given such opportunities, they would be “used” by politicians and would not have time for their studies. On Monday, Prof Khoo said there was no written record of Hang Li Po, Hang Tuah and Hang Jebat and the stories that have made it into the history books were just myths.
28 comments:
Response :
An archaeologist has defended the existence of Hang Tuah, pointing out that although no specific studies had been done on the matter, he was convinced that the legendary warrior was not a mythical figure.
Malaysian Archaeologists Association president Prof Emeritus Datuk Dr Nik Hassan Shuhaimi Nik Abdul Rahman said studies concerning the warrior and his four peers could still proceed despite the views that Hang Tuah might be a mythical figure. "I believe that he existed but we can't be sure of the era; if we look at the Hang Tuah tales, he existed during the era of a sultanate. The name 'Hang' does indeed exist in the Malay world. "However, further studies on his four peers (Hang Jebat, Hang Kasturi, Hang Lekir and Hang Lekiu) maybe needed. The name 'Hang' exists in Padang Lawas Sumatra, Indonesia." He said that although there had been no specific studies carried out on the matter, indirect ones indicated that the warrior did indeed exist.
"And then there is also the Hang Tuan tomb. We can't deny that it is not. Although there is no specific name written on it, it is from the 15th century," he told reporters at a convention on the Malay cultural roots here Friday. Historian Prof Emeritus Tan Sri Khoo Kay Kim had previously said that Hang Tuah might be mythical and that there were no strong evidence to proof the warrior's existence. Dr Nik Hassan said DNA tests on the remains in the tomb might prove to be difficult due to religious sensitivities. "This is a Muslim tomb. We don't want to disturb this tomb because there may be sensitivities involved in terms of religion. We can perform tests on pre-historic findings," he said. - Bernama
Malaysian Archaeologists Association president Prof Emeritus Datuk Dr Nik Hassan Shuhaimi Nik Abdul Rahman..yg expert @ terpelajar @ berkoyan-koyan ijazah pun tidak dapat memberi kepastian..camner kita ?
yer ler bang ..cam ner nak bagi kepastian ... dia bukan hidup pun zaman hang tuah ...
Maksud gua, buatlah research yg terbaik, buktikan sama ada hamba Allah ini pernah wujud satu ketika dahulu itu aje...
pasal dah buat yang terbaik ler tak dapat nak di tentukan bang ...hahhahahah......jgn marah ek bang ..lama tak gurau ngan abg ...
No hal bro..mmg lama tk jumpa. Citer ni sedikit sebyk ada bersangkut-paut dgn kewujudan negeri Melaka yg telah diisytiharkan was founded way before 140o time Parameswara.."..Penemuan terbaru sekumpulan sembilan penyelidik tempatan bahawa Kesultanan Melayu Melaka diasaskan pada tahun 1262 dan bukannya 1400 adalah muktamad '..(http://kulanzsalleh.com/kesultanan-melayu-melaka-diasaskan-pada-tahun-1262/)
hmmmm....nampaknya sampai kapan2 pun ngga bisa kita menyangkal hujahan prof KKK. Mungkin HT hanya wujud di hati dan minda org melayu......rekod2 asing pula bgmana?
kita masih menunggu bukti2 kewujudan melaka pd 1262, yakni predated kewujudan majapahit.... Tunggukan saresahannya tak lama lagi.....
Masalahnya...rekod asing diragui kesahihannya..nearest logical statement kalau lu refer blog sejarah kedah lama..itupun dokumen org2 dulu..
Kalau tk salah gua, refer to Nagarakretagama, ibu kota Kerajaan Tumapel bernama Kutaraja wujud buat pertama kalinya tahun 1222. Lepas tu diikuti pula pada tahun 1253 apabila Raja Wisnuwardhana mengangkat putranya yang bernama Kertanagara sebagai yuwaraja dan mengganti nama ibu kota menjadi Singhasari.
Lepas tahun itu, Prasasti Mula Malurung atas nama Kertanagara tahun 1255, menyebutkan kalau pendiri Kerajaan Tumapel adalah Bhatara Siwa. Mungkin nama ini adalah gelar anumerta dari Ranggah Rajasa simply because dalam Nagarakretagama arwah pendiri kerajaan Tumapel tersebut dipuja sebagai Siwa. Selain itu, ada Pararaton juga menyebutkan bahwa, sebelum maju perang melawan Kadiri, Ken Arok lebih dulu menggunakan julukan Bhatara Siwa.
Maknanya kewujudan Melaka pada tahun 1262 adalah kalau version Pararaton zaman Ranggawuni @ Wisnuwardhana (1250 - 1272), dan kalau Versi Nagarakretagama Kertanagara (1254 - 1292).
Kalau kertanegara bukankah zaman the Mongol expansion?
bro, majapahit hanya muncul pd tahun 1293 selepas kertarajasa jayawerdana mengalahkan jayakatwang dari kadiri dgn bantuan tentera mongol kubilai khan - yg ini jelas rekodnya. Dan bagi menghadapi serangan balas mongol ke atas majapahit, majapahit meletakkan tentera lautnya di 5 titik utama di nusantara termasuk di kelantan yg digelar jawa kutti - titik jawa. Dimana melaka ketika itu? Kenapa tidak disebut dlm negarakertagama sedangkan bali, pahang dan tumasek disebut? Apakah melaka 1262 itu sebenarnya temasek/singapura???
Betul la! Sebab tu gua kata kalau dia org mengatakan Melaka kononnya wujud pada tahun 1262, itu dah sezaman dengan Kertanagara ie. 1254 until 1292. Reference :- "..Le royaume de Singasari (graphie préférée par les historiens, mais la prononciation est plus proche de singosari) était un royaume situé dans l'est de l'île de Java entre 1222 et 1292..."..
Dan negara2 nusantara yg disebut2 adalah :- '.... Kertanegara, qui a régné de 1254 à 1292. Le Nagarakertagama énumère les "contrées tributaires" de Majapahit qui ont été conquises par ce roi. Outre Bali, Madura et Sunda, la liste va de Pahang sur la péninsule Malaise à "Gurun" dans les Moluques, en passant par Malayu (Jambi) à Sumatra et "Bakulapura" à Bornéo...'
Yg ni '..la péninsule Malaise à "Gurun"...apa maksudnya? then again nama Melaka @ Malacca nggak disebut..kenapa??
Translatekan :-
Kertanegara , who ruled from 1254 to 1292 . The Nagarakertagama lists the "dependent countries" of Majapahit who were conquered by the king. Besides Bali , Madura and Sunda , the list goes Pahang on the Malay Peninsula to "Gurun" in the Moluccas , to Malayu ( Jambi ) in Sumatra and "Bakulapura" in Borneo ..."
Camner lak gan ni :- "...Le Nagarakertagama cite une expédition contre le royaume de Malayu en 1275. On a effectivement retrouvé dans le centre de Sumatra une statue portant une inscription datée de 1286 qui précise que cette statue est un présent de Kertanegara au "peuple de Malayu et son roi". Il faut toutefois prendre avec précaution la liste des conquêtes, rédigée un siècle après l'époque où elles sont censées avoir été réalisées.
translate ke?
The Nagarakertagama cites an expedition against the kingdom of Malayu in 1275 . We actually found in central Sumatra a statue with an inscription dated 1286 which states that this statue is a gift from the Kertanegara "Malayu people and its king." It should be taken with caution list of conquests, written a century after the time they are supposed to have been made.
Still no mention of Malacca !
mungkin too soon panel 9 org tu declare melaka wujud seawal 1262 tanpa terlebih dahulu memberi bukti2 nyata yg dipetik dari rekod2 yg agak reliable.... merujuk kpd sulatus salatin dan sejarah melayu TSL shj tidak mencukupi....
Gua rasa nak cuba dptkan copy dua2 reference ini..walaupun gua tk pandai mana tau sesuatu yg tersirat dapat diketengahkan!
kedua-duanya juga tidak menyatakan tahun atau tarikh semua events yg ditulis
Kalau gitu knplah para juri yg 9 org tu buat decision dgn senang aje?
dia org mengambil kira berapa lama setiap sultan memerintah...kalau setiap sultan memerintah 30 tahun, 7 sultan dah 210 tahun pemerintahan kesultanan melaka. kemudian depa tolakkan 1511 (penaklukan portugis) dgn jumlah tahun tu.....maka dia anjakkan bermulanya melaka 1262...circumstantial evidence
Again senarai pemerintahan Sultan tu confirmed ke ie. historical artifacts @ coins @ tombs ..tu yg masalahnya....istana pun tk de atas alasan habis dibakar Portugis !
dikatakan ada 9 sultan, so 9 sultan x 30 tahun = 360. 1511 - 360 = 1251. lebih kurang gitulah methodology yg digunakan.....nampak cam tak brp akademik je huhuhuhu
kena ditubuhkan satu jawatankuasa mengkaji dan mencari semua fakta dari semua sumber agar dapat disahkan segala galanya
mungkin juga ada sultan yg kurang dari 10 tahun usia menduduki tahta Melaka kan ?
yup...sbb tu sy katakan tadi methodology approach agak kurang akademik. namun sama2 la kita tunggu bukti2 yg dikatakan tersebut
Apa implikasinya kalau betul "Kerajaan Melaka" wujud lebih awal seperti yang dinyatakan?
ekekek....
Post a Comment