Myth, History, and Misinterpretation in Karo Narratives
One of the most common examples can be seen in the legend of Rumah Sipitu Ruang Ajinembah, which is often used as “historical proof” that the ancestors of the Barus clan came from Barus, a well known kingdom in the western part of Sumatra.
However, the original version of the story tells something very different.
The legend actually centers on Sibayak Barusjahe, who was expelled from his village because he was involved in an inappropriate relationship with his own sister, known in Karo as erturang-turang. This element of the story is clearly symbolic and mythological in nature.
When Oral Stories Become Written Narratives
The shift began when oral traditions were turned into written texts. At that point, additional details were inserted, including the idea that Sibayak Barusjahe came from the Kingdom of Barus.
As a result, readers began connecting the story to the historical Barus Kingdom on the west coast of Sumatra. This interpretation likely reflects the writer’s awareness of that kingdom and a desire to link the legend to a known historical entity.
This does not automatically make the claim true.
It is important to clarify that the idea of Barus clan ancestors originating from the Kingdom of Barus has never been scientifically proven in an academic sense. In academic research, especially in structural anthropology, myths and legends are studied as symbolic systems, not as direct historical evidence.
Multiple Versions, Conflicting Origins
There are several versions of the story surrounding Sibayak Barusjahe.
One version describes him as emerging from a butterfly cocoon that hatched in a tree in Kuta Usang, a kampung Pakpak not far from Ajinembah.
Another version tells of a Barus family living in Bukum, now part of Kecamatan Sibolangit in Kabupaten Deliserdang. The family had three sons named Sintua, Sintengah, and Singuda.
Sintua traveled to Patumbak and became Raja Urung Senembah. Singuda went to Gugung and became Sibayak Barusjahe. Sintengah remained in Bukum.
There is also a third version known as Simbelang Pinggel.
These versions clearly contradict one another. And that is not the problem.
The issue arises when mythological stories are treated as historical facts.
Myth Is Not History
For example, the story of Sibayak Barusjahe marrying his own sister should not be taken literally. It can be understood as a symbolic message, possibly representing the beginning of a new lineage within the Barus clan. It is not meant to explain biological origins.
In some cases, archaeologists do use myths as starting points for research.
For instance, John Miksic conducted excavations in Benteng Putri Hijau in Delitua, as well as in Seberaya in Kabupaten Karo and Kota Cina in Hamparan Perak, Medan.
These excavations were inspired by the myth of Putri Hijau, which tells of her origin from Seberaya before becoming a princess in the Kerajaan Haru in Delitua.
The myth suggested a possible trade connection between Seberaya and Delitua within the framework of the Haru Kingdom.
Archaeological findings supported this idea, as similar pottery fragments were discovered in both locations. This indicates that trade relations likely existed.
Historical records written in Portuguese also confirm trade connections between the Haru Kingdom and Malacca.
Importantly, Miksic did not treat the Putri Hijau myth as historical proof. Instead, he used it as an initial clue to guide research.
Interpreting Myth as Symbol
A different approach was taken by W. Middendorp, who analyzed the Putri Hijau story as a metaphor.
He suggested that the two siblings of Putri Hijau, Naga and Mariam, represent the Karo concept of saudara tendi, referring to elements associated with birth such as amniotic fluid and placenta.
This idea is reflected in the traditional mantra
Kakaku si arah lebeku, agingku si arah pudiku
Middendorp also interpreted Putri Hijau as a metaphor for the Portuguese flag, symbolizing international trade protection. In his view, Naga represented the military forces of the Haru Kingdom, while Mariam symbolized its weaponry.
Whether or not these interpretations are correct, the key point is that he treated myth as myth, not as literal history.
Drawing the Line Between Myth and History
This discussion highlights an important distinction. Mythological events and historical events are not the same.
Myths can provide clues that lead to historical discoveries. At the same time, real historical events can sometimes be preserved within myths. But the two should never be treated as identical.
Take for example the story of a war between the Haru Kingdom and Aceh, where it is said that Aceh forces fired coins using cannons, causing chaos among Haru soldiers.
To this day, there is no solid historical evidence confirming that such a war happened in the way the story describes.
Even if coins are found near Benteng Putri Hijau, that does not automatically prove the myth is historically accurate.
Questioning Historical Claims
Another widely repeated narrative claims that Aceh appointed Gocah Pahlawan as Sultan of Deli as a reward for leading the conquest of Haru.
But this raises questions.
If he truly conquered Haru, why would he still be bound by local social structures, such as marrying the daughter of Datuk Sunggal?
In Southeast Asian patterns, such marriages often reflect political alliances rather than conquest.
A similar pattern can be seen in the relationship between Barus Hulu and Barus Hilir on the west coast of Sumatra, where social and territorial boundaries were maintained through cultural systems rather than military domination.
The same applied in Deli, where certain groups could not cross symbolic boundaries, while others, such as Karo communities, had more freedom in trade and movement.
A Call for Critical Thinking
Narratives like these show how easily myths, interpretations, and assumptions can be mixed together and presented as historical facts.
Claiming that Karo people are descendants of Siraja Batak, or labeling Karo Hilir as a conquered territory of the Sultanate of Deli, are examples of oversimplified conclusions that require critical reexamination.
Understanding history requires discipline, evidence, and method.
Without that, myths will continue to be mistaken for facts, and assumptions will shape narratives that may not reflect reality.
