Was Melaka founded in 1262?

“A Note for Malaysian History Students”

(Was Melaka founded in 1262?)

By Ahmat Adam

In writing this note this writer has been placed in an extremely difficult and awkward position. It is indeed terribly embarrassing to openly criticize one's own friends, nay colleagues in fact, even if it is upon the call of academic duty. But considering that the issue has gone too far and other colleagues or fellows of the profession seem to keep quite as though they are oblivious to what is going on which this writer thinks rightly or wrongly questions the integrity of Malaysian historiography, this writer is forced to break the ice by speaking out in order that others will realize the folly of distorting the nation’s history.

If one were to visit the Museum Sejarah dan Etnografi in Melaka, as this writer did some time last year (2016), one would be shocked to find that the founding date of the “kerajaan Melaka” is given as 1262. In the 2013 seminar on “400 years of the Sulalat al-Salatin or Sejarah Melayu”, organized by the Dewan Bahasa & Pustaka, there was a paper that this writer thinks needs to be highlighted -- not because of any extraordinary contribution to academia but more so because of its simplistic and naïve, yet persuasive, historical approach to the unsuspecting Malaysians especially the youths and the student populace pertaining to the history of early Melaka. We call it simplistic and yet persuasive because there are sectors within Malaysian society who, for whatever reason, might be easily seduced by an interpretation of the kind of history that appeals to ethno-nationalistic sentiments even though that history is merely based on a source rich in myths and without logical soundness of its dates.

For those who cherish quality writings on the correct and honest history of Malaysia, to say that the founding date of the Melaka sultanate is 1262 is certainly a scandalous claim. The co-author of a book published by IKSEP that claims the fake date of the founding the Melaka “kerajaan” is 1262 is no less than a professor of Malaysian history but it is unfortunate that he appears to have succumbed to the will of some politicians who, for reasons only privy to themselves, have made a nationwide announcement by erecting billboards in several parts of Malaka that the state was "founded in 1262". This writer is of course referring to the claim made by a former political leader of the state of Malaka that Melaka is historically already more than seven hundred years old. It is indeed a pity that some other like-minded professors had conveniently connived in pandering to the wishes of certain politicians who crave for publicity to push back the date of the founding of Malaka by more than a century.

It all began when the state government under the leadership of a certain prominent politician set up a committee of fifteen members, headed by the former rector of the Kolej Universiti Islam Melaka, in 2009 to determine the date of the founding of historic Melaka. With an undisclosed sum of money from the state government, members of the research project (which appeared to have been proposed by the research committee) had travelled to several places in Indonesia to "collect" historical "evidence" from sources perceived by them as historically reliable. The head of so-called research project was undertaken by a professor of the History Department of a local university. We really do not know why these "academics" pander to the will and fancies of politicians in making naïve (and also fake) historical interpretations. An earlier statement to the press by the said political leader of the state, apparently touched on the so-called findings that Melaka had begun as a political entity known as the Malay sultanate in 1278.

As reported by the media then, the said politician confirmed that the "discovery" had already been conveyed to the governor of Malaka on 16th April 2010. But this writer is unaware about the shift in the date from 1278 to 1262. As to why there was a change, no one but the research committee knows the real reason. But the point made by the former political leader of the Melaka state is immaterial whether it was 1278 or 1262; the important thing was, to declare it publicly, as the political leader did, that the said committee had rejected the date 1400 as the founding year of the Melaka "kerajaan" because "it was merely based on the consensus of “Western” scholars, and not on historical “facts" of the matter” (as quoted from the press).

As a Malaysian, and more so as a historian, this writer had, on learning about the attempt to distort Malaysian history, hoped that the new date of the founding of Melaka was just a gimmick to promote tourism just as another former prominent politician of Melaka had done over several decades ago when he enrolled the services of a local history graduate to undertake "research" in order to announce to the unsuspecting Malaysians that the tombs of Hang Tuah [sic] and his four other comrades had been discovered. It is with much regret that this writer has to drag this issue of historical importance yet again, that a similar attempt to distort history was made by using uncorroborated evidence. Every respected historian knows that one of the principal methods in history writing is to demythologize history.

Historians are supposed to separate myths from facts. While the “Sejarah Melayu” or the Malay Annals is a much respected piece of literary work and thus can also be a very useful historical material for historians when critical evaluation of the narratives are carried out, it nevertheless cannot be said to be a full-pledged historical work. In other words it is not a book of history.

As conveyed accurately by its probable original author of the said work, who used the Arabic words Sulalat al-Salatin for its main title, and the sub-title "yakni “petuturan” [sic] segala raja-raja", (“petuturan” being the corrupt form of the Old Javanese (and Sundanese) word, “pituturan” which is derived from "tutur" to mean history, genealogy, memoir, recollection, to raise awareness, advice or counsel. When fully translated into Malay the whole title of the work would therefore be: "Salasilah raja-raja, yakni peringatan segala raja-raja", or in English: "The Genealogy of Kings, that is, the recollections of all the [Malay] rajas". Although considered a "karya agung" or great work of literature by the Malay people it cannot however be categorized as a full-pledged historical work with historical accuracy as its main strength. Yes, it is certainly a literary work that falls under the realm of traditional historiography, but definitely not a work of history. The Malay Annals had been copied several times, thus the reason for its several versions or recensions produced even during the seventeenth century and after. Let us not fall into the trap of recognizing myth or what Ibn Khaldun termed "untrue gossip by people who had thought up or freely invented as well as false discredited reports which they had made up or embellished"

(Rosenthal, translator of Muqaddimah, 1958: 6) as genuine historical fact.

Although the Raffles MS. No. 18 has often been described as the copy of the oldest version of all the existing texts of the Malay Annals, it is still subject to serious scrutiny and debate. In this short note it is not possible to discuss the issue with much elaboration, but nevertheless suffice to point out to the readers that those who claim that the number of years of any particular sultan’s reign given by whichever versions of the Malay Annals are impeccably correct, must be relying on "untrue gossip". What the author or authors of the date of 1262 or, for that matter, the date of 1278, had done since the last several years was to pander to the politicians who have indeed appeared to be playing politics with Malaysian history! What was claimed as "research" by these historians cannot be taken seriously at all.

To determine the date of the founding of a Melaka "kerajaan" (to use Milner's terminology) these so-called historians had naively, and in such simplistic stroke of art, calculated backwards the number of years of each ruler's reign, just as Rev. Francois Valentyn (1666-1727), the Dutch Calvinist Minister and author of Oud en Nieuw Oost-Indien had done. The only difference is that while Valentyn had used another version of the Sulalat u's-Salatin that has since been deemed lost, and had calculated the years of accession of the Melaka rulers from the time of Seri Tri Buana until the reigns of successive Malay rulers, based on the solar calendar, an earlier attempt at guessing the date of founding the Melaka “kerajaan” by calculating its rulers' reigns backwards was similarly undertaken by van der Vorm who based his calculations on the lunar (Hijri) calendar. Both attempts by the said scholars to determine the date of Melaka’s founding had, however, been proven incorrect. Yet this is exactly what the so-called "discoverers" of the new date for the founding of Melaka had done, that is by emulating Valentyn and van der Vorm. As a concerned historian this writer is surprised over their gullibility of the dates given in the Raffles MS. No. 18.

While Valentyn had proposed the year 1160 AD as the founding date of Melaka, and his predecessor van der Vorm, had given the Hijrah date of 573 or 1177 AD as the likely date, some of our local historians too seem unperturbed over the reliability of their one and only source, that is the Raffles MS. No. 18 of the Malay Annals, even though the dates given by this text do not exactly appear to be congruent with the dates given by the “king list” manuscript (ceritera asal raja-raja Melayu punya keturunan, Cod. Or. 3199 (3), part 4), now kept in the Netherlands which could possibly be the basis for the dating of the Melaka rulers' reigns.

It appears that by presuming that the Raffles MS. No. 18 is the oldest version of the Sulalat al-Salatin these "researchers" had not least bothered to compare the number of years of each ruler's reign in the different versions of the Malay Annals. For example, the claim by these historians that Sultan Muzafar Syah ruled for 40 years as opposed to the 42 years given by the Krusenstern's MS. and 39 years by the "king list" is certainly an indication that not enough research has been done. It never occurred to them to question the discrepancy in the figures. Nor do they bother to question how infallible is their source, a vital element in the method of history writing that a credible historian needs to adhere to. They also seem to blatantly ignore the Chinese sources.

How could they say for certain that Sultan Mansur Syah ruled for seventy three years when in the Ming-Shi-lu, it is stated that Mansur Syah was supposed to have ascended the throne in 1458/59 and died in 1477 --- a period of not more than 19 years? Don’t these ‘historians’ realize that even the date of Mansur Syah’s death can be ascertained by studying his tombstone that was discovered a very long time ago?

It is not just the Chinese sources that these historians had conveniently ignored, they also never even bothered to consult the famous work of Mpu Prapanca (the author's pen-name), Nagarakretagama which made no mention at all about the existence of a "kerajaan" called Melaka in the fourteenth century, let alone the thirteenth. The Nagarakretagama, a Javanese work that was completed by its author at the end of September 1365 had listed in Cantos 13 and 14 of the text the names of several "islands and lesser islands coming under the territory of the Malay lands". Included in the list are unrecognizable names such as Medini, and Saimwang, Kanjapiniran, as well as recognizable ones namely "

Hujung Medini (Hujung Tanah) Langkasuka, as well as Kelantan and Tranggano [sic], Johor, Paka, Muar, Dungun, Tumasik and Sang Hyang Hujung, Kelang, Kedah, and Jerai. (Robson 1995: 33-34; Slametmulyana, 1979: 280). But not a line in any of the cantos was the name Melaka ever mentioned. Did this not arouse even a little bit of curiosity among the so-called researchers? Or did they miss to consult such an important historical work? In fact, one just marvels at the expediency of some members of the committee that had decided on 1262 as being the date of the founding of the Malaka "kerajaan" and their boldness in asserting their so-called findings as valid on the web as well as speaking of their "discovery" to the press and, now (2016), even to the extent of publishing a book entitled Penemuan Tarikh Baru Pengasasan Empayar Kerajaan Melayu Melaka 1262 (The discovery of a new date for the establishment of the Melaka Malay Kerajaan Empire (sic!) 1262). What is more worrying for this writer is that in August 2016 the Chairman of IKSEP (Institute for the study of history and patriotism) privately expressed his determination to this writer to galvanize support (presumably among the gullible) for the recognition of the date 1262 as the founding date of the Melaka kerajaan. If the fake date (1262) is still being displayed prominently in the Historical and Ethnographic Museum, we wonder whether his determination will not come to fruition.

C&P: 9 MARCH 2021 @ 26 REJAB 1442H: 11.33 PM