Terengganu inscription date corrected – Emeritus Professor
KOTA KINABALU: In schools, history is taught as a set of facts that left little room for interpretation, as the events of time are set in stone sometimes literally.
But what if there was a possibility that what we were taught and what we believed all along was not true, or at least, misinterpreted?
Emeritus Professor Datuk Dr Ahmat Adam is no stranger to contending history as we know it, provided there is a thorough research and evidence to support a claim.
A passionate historian, Ahmat has dedicated years of research compiled in various titles, the most recent of which brought into question the date of the Terengganu inscription.
In his book ‘’The New and Correct Date of the Terengganu Inscription,” Ahmat explained in detail the actual date of the inscription based on his findings, disputing what was initially presented by philosopher Tan Sri Dr Syed Muhammad al Naquib Ali al-Attas.
“I’ve intended to write about the Terengganu inscription since my days as a fellow at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies between 2011 and 2012.
“However, what motivated me even more was a book I read containing eight essays edited by Professor Muhammad Zainiy Uthman.
“The essays discussed the inscription from various angles such as its archaeology, the Islamisation of the Malay Peninsular, its Jawi writings, language and culture, geological research and mathematics.
“There was also an essay ratifying the date of the stone, which was initially presented by Syed Naquib as 4 Rajab 702 Hijrah, equivalent to February 22, 1303 AD,” said Ahmat.
Upon perusing the essays and conducting his own research, Ahmat however came to the conclusion that the correct date of the inscription is 6 Rajab 708 Hijrah or Friday, December 20, 1308.
He affirmed that the date he presented could not be denied as the word ‘lapan’ or ‘eight’ which was connected to the word ‘dua’ or ‘two’ on the inscription, made up the word ‘dualapan’.
The word ‘lapan’ did not exist in the past as it exists today. During that time, the word was known as ‘dualapan’ which has now been shortened to ‘delapan’ meaning ‘lapan’ or ‘eight’.
“It is perhaps due to the carelessness of previous historians in studying the Terengganu inscription that overlooked the word ‘lapan’ written in Jawi and only saw the word ‘dua’ which resulted in the date people had been led to believe. The correct date, however, is 6 Rajab 708 Hijrah and not 4 Rajab 702 Hijrah,” he explained.
Ahmat went on to say the stone was interpreted inaccurately as many people did not read Jawi very well, especially old Jawi. He attributed his years and experience to being more familiar with the language, which resulted in his findings.
“The stone was inscribed in old Jawi, where the letters or words had no vowels or dots as it does today. Because of that, many people made mistakes as it was confusing.
“The date was actually written on the stone but it was overlooked. Previous historians did not see the word ‘lapan’ because the person who inscribed the letters ran out of space and added the word at the side. This means the word was accidentally left out due to limited space on the stone. Unfortunately, this led to the date being misinterpreted,” he said.
Aside from the awkward placement of the word ‘lapan’ on the stone, Ahmat further said the inscription was not properly transliterated as it held various influences reflecting the culture and practices at the time, which were not analysed.
“In history, dating is important - you cannot lie. I approached the subject with philology, the roots of words, which not many people did.
“The stone told of Muslim laws, the Syariah, when it was first introduced in Terengganu. But the terminologies were Buddhist, because Buddhism was still very strong back then and so Islamic teachings were introduced in Buddhist for the people to understand.
“The language of the stone itself was not only Malay, it was old Malay. It was also Sanskrit, old Javanese or Kawi, and many people didn’t realise that there were old Javanese words. They read some words as Malay words, resulting in skewed translations. It was made even more confusing by old Jawi, which had no markings on the letters.
“Moreover, the dating on the stone had to be analysed with regard to the calendrical system used back then. The first native calendar was introduced in Malaysia in Terengganu, based on the Javanese.
“Misinterpretation stemmed from not looking at it from a multifaceted perspective, which involved many cultures and influences, meaning it needed a multifaceted approach in interpreting it.
“You have to know all these cultures because the inscription goes beyond Terengganu - it’s international. Terengganu reflects all sorts of influences and diversification. That is why Malaysia today is a culturally diversified country,” he said.
Of course, not many were happy or could even accept Ahmat’s findings after almost 50 years of the stone being dated. He said it was because it was not easy to “change history” as people had believed one thing for so long.
However, Ahmat said the younger generation was more accepting of his research, especially since he shared his findings actively through Facebook.
“I talk about history and write numerous articles I publish on Facebook, so the younger generation engage with me on that platform.
“As for the older generation, it is more difficult to convince them as it is not easy to change their beliefs.
“But if you are an academic, you should be discussing something from all angles. You should have someone who opposes you and someone who supports you, and then listen to both sides,” he said.