CARUBAN NAGARI and CIREBON

A. G. Maisey · 22nd June 2009, 08:49 AM

Then of course we need to consider the Chinese question.

Scratch below the surface and just about all these early shakers and movers in that area of Jawa were Chinese.

Then there are the Portugese and Chinese records.

And maybe there were a couple of Faletahans --- at least one of whom was Chinese.

But when you get right down to the nitty gritty, the first Sultan of Cirebon is recognised as Gunung Jati, and he is recorded as dead in 1570.

As to when he was born --- well, that's another question, but we cannot question his death:- the evidence is right there.

Who was Gunung Jati?

Well, I'm no professor of history, I just repeat what professors of history write, and if you read the ones who have researched in this area, they all seem to have varying opinions.

The simple fact of the matter is that the history of Jawa in many respects is exceedingly muddled. One believes what one will, and it is perhaps best to treat these beliefs as if they were religious ones, and not engage in debate.

ganjawulung · 23rd June 2009, 04:49 PM

Identity and activities of Sunan Gunungjati, according to Australian historian MC Ricklefs, many parts of them known from semi-tales and many of uncertainties. (A History of Modern Indonesia Since c. 1200, Palgrave 1981, Third Edition 2001)

According to Ricklefs, Tagaril or Faletehan (Portuguese version) or probably known too as Fadhillah Khan or Fatahillah, often confused with Gunungjati in some stories. One text called "Purwaka Caruban Nagari" (as quoted by Ricklefs) had differed between Gunungjati and Fadhillah. This text, according to Ricklefs, was made in the year of 1720 -- although the originality is still in question.

Prof Dr Slamet Muljana -- another historian, drew his conclusion that Sunan Gunungjati was also Fatahillah or Faletehan. Prof Muljana even wrote that Sunan Gunungjati or Fatahillah was once an army commander of Demak kingdom, an Islam chinese commander named Toh A Bo... (Runtuhnya Kerajaan Hindu-Jawa dan Timbulnya Negara-negara Islam di Nusantara -- The Fall of Javanese Hindu Kingdom and the Rise of Islam States in Nusantara, 1969 reprinted LKiS 2005).

Yes, Prof Muljana did mention in this book that the ageing first Sultan of Cirebon married to a daughter of Haji Tan Eng Hoat as if she was coming from Tiongkok (Chinese) emperor from Ming Dynasty...

Still in question. Who was really Sunan Gunungjati?

GANJAWULUNG

A. G. Maisey · 24th June 2009, 01:11 AM

And there Pak Ganja, you have identified our problems beautifully.

Gather together any number of academics with expertise in early Javanese history, and you will probably finish up with more than one opinion from each academic in respect of any question.

The whole fabric of history, not just Javanese history, is riddled with doubt.

As they say:- victors write the history books.

Then there is the input from popular belief, legend and myth.

Look at current era history:- we even have multiple versions of events that occurred within the last year. Go back 50 years and who knows what really happened? Go back to the 15th century? Good luck!!

My position in respect of early Javanese history is that all the stories are interesting, many probably have a kernel of truth, but none should be accepted as absolute, iron clad fact. However, if we look at all the versions, we can usually get a feel for the overall situation of the society at that time, and that is where history is useful.

23rd June 2009, 04:49 PM	#2
ganjawulung Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: J a k a r t a Posts: 991	Fatahillah/Faletehan and Sunan Gunungjati Identity and activities of Sunan Gunungjati, according to Australian historian MC Ricklefs, many parts of them known from semi-tales and many of uncertainties. (A History of Modern Indonesia Since c. 1200, Palgrave 1981, Third Edition 2001) According to Ricklefs, Tagaril or Faletehan (Portuguese version) or probably known too as Fadhillah Khan or Fatahillah, often confused with Gunungjati in some stories. One text called "Purwaka Caruban Nagari" (as quoted by Ricklefs) had differed between Gunungjati and Fadhillah. This text, according to Ricklefs, was made in the year of 1720 -- although the originality is still in question. Prof Dr Slamet Muljana -- another historian, drew his conclusion that Sunan Gunungjati was also Fatahillah or Faletehan. Prof Muljana even wrote that Sunan Gunungjati or Fatahillah was once an army commander of Demak kingdom, an Islam chinese commander named Toh A Bo... (Runtuhnya Kerajaan Hindu-Jawa dan Timbulnya Negara-negara Islam di Nusantara -- The Fall of Javanese Hindu Kingdom and the Rise of Islam States in Nusantara, 1969 reprinted LKiS 2005). Yes, Prof Muljana did mention in this book that the ageing first Sultan of Cirebon married to a daughter of Haji Tan Eng Hoat as if she was coming from Tiongkok (Chinese) emperor from Ming Dynasty... Still in question. Who was really Sunan Gunungjati? GANJAWULUNG Last edited by ganjawulung; 23rd June 2009 at 11:40 PM. Reason: Mispelled word

22nd June 2009, 08:49 AM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,019	Then of course we need to consider the Chinese question. Scratch below the surface and just about all these early shakers and movers in that area of Jawa were Chinese. Then there are the Portugese and Chinese records. And maybe there were a couple of Faletahans --- at least one of whom was Chinese. But when you get right down to the nitty gritty, the first Sultan of Cirebon is recognised as Gunung Jati, and he is recorded as dead in 1570. As to when he was born --- well, that's another question, but we cannot question his death:- the evidence is right there. Who was Gunung Jati? Well, I'm no professor of history, I just repeat what professors of history write, and if you read the ones who have researched in this area, they all seem to have varying opinions. The simple fact of the matter is that the history of Jawa in many respects is exceedingly muddled. One believes what one will, and it is perhaps best to treat these beliefs as if they were religious ones, and not engage in debate.

24th June 2009, 01:11 AM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,019	And there Pak Ganja, you have identified our problems beautifully. Gather together any number of academics with expertise in early Javanese history, and you will probably finish up with more than one opinion from each academic in respect of any question. The whole fabric of history, not just Javanese history, is riddled with doubt. As they say:- victors write the history books. Then there is the input from popular belief, legend and myth. Look at current era history:- we even have multiple versions of events that occurred within the last year. Go back 50 years and who knows what really happened? Go back to the 15th century? Good luck!! My position in respect of early Javanese history is that all the stories are interesting, many probably have a kernel of truth, but none should be accepted as absolute, iron clad fact. However, if we look at all the versions, we can usually get a feel for the overall situation of the society at that time, and that is where history is useful.