Republic of the Philippines MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY Marawi City Criticism of William Henry Scott to the work of Monteclaro entitled “Maragtas” Submitted to: Raihan A. Yusoph Instructor, GEC105 section Xx5 GEC105 Readings in the Philippine History Submitted by: Samira Lumabao Sittie Asminah Malaco Norlainie Macaraub Norjanah Maguidala Anna Razzan Magantor Anasalmah Maliksaif Group 4 1. What have you learned about William Henry Scott historical examination/criticism on Maragtas and other manuscripts? Many scholars consider writing to be one of the most important indicators of civilization. Thus, we discover proof of an established civilization in writing, which has well-formed the foundation of excess goods, resulting in the proliferation of trade, arts, and science. While writing appears to be the stand that raises the bar of a civilization's posterity, different writings might give off varied impressions based on the value judgment and implicit moral viewpoint of the writers who compose such tales. Writing might entail advancing in the world of knowledge or presenting arcane and exotic activities that are only known to a select few. The preliminary basis of how Scott applied his source criticism towards the legitimacy of the Code of Kalantiaw should be reflected in his framework, as I learnt about William Henry Scott historical criticism on Maragtas. Scott employs an etymological framework with the goal of tracing the origins of a document's provenance back to its source. The manuscript known as the Code of Kalantiaw was formerly considered as a historical work, despite the fact that it could not be widely speculated upon. We also discovered that Jose Marco wrote all of the facts about Kalantiaw and that it can be traced back to him. The Kalantiaw Code, we discovered, is a hypothetical or mythical set of regulations that is said to have been authored by Datu Kalantiaw. When Scott was writing his thesis in 1965, Mauro Garcia suggested that he focus on pre-colonial Philippine events. During his study, he came upon the Kalantiaw code and began to question Jose Marco's creation's credibility. He looked through archives, interviewed colleagues historians and Marcos' acquaintances for their opinions, and looked through the references in his college texts as part of his investigation. He determined that Jose Marco wrote all of the information regarding the kalantiaw, not someone in the early 1400s. Scott deduced that the Kalantiaw code is a forgery based on this evidence. Without inquiry and critique, the Maragtas and Code of Kalantiaw would be easily taken as accurate representations of previous Philippine civilizations and hierarchies prior to Spanish colonization. This is the essence of both internal and external criticism of historical artifacts. Some of these records may be authentic, while others may point to a distinct or incorrect past. It's critical that we cross-examine every piece of evidence in order to build clear and visible lines around our history. Erroneous facts, if not questioned and readily accepted as true, might lead to an incorrect history of genesis and reflection of that history. Jose Marco, in our opinion, is also a complete phony. He is the personification of legend's trickster hero. Any writer can't help but adore his phony Povedano Map of Negros Island, and his legend of the Code of Kalantiaw, for example, is excellent fakery that many people still believe in today. Both the Pavon and the Povedano manuscripts feature numerous and obvious anomalies and discrepancies, making it difficult to authenticate the papers' legitimacy. Jose Marco's entire fictitious history, which he had spent a lifetime fabricating, was comprehensively disproved within a few years after his death, but his greatest lie remained. We also discovered that the Maragtas is a unique work based on written and oral sources for which no copy has survived. The author does not claim that the work includes a transcription of any specific Pre-Hispanic writings. We have also realized that studying Philippine history is vital since you need to understand and know what happened in the past to respect the country's future and current status. As we have read also the criticism of William Henry Scott, the first thing that we have learned is about the time when Spaniards arrived in the Philippines. From this source, we have learned about the two manuscripts. The first one was the manuscript that was given by an 82-year-old man who happened to be the first teacher in the old town. The manuscript was almost impossible to handle because it was written in a black dye and smeared with sap. The other manuscript was found in a bamboo tube where his father kept his old papers. Both of the manuscripts were old. That's why it was impossible to read all the things that were written in it. We have learned that the maragtas was about the ten datus, or chiefs, who escaped the tyranny of Datu Makatunaw of Borneo and immigrated to the island of Panay. There they bought the lowland plains of the island from Marikudo, the leader of the indigenous Aytas. The datus and their wives' names are Datu Puti | Pinangpangan, Datu Sumakwel | Kapinangan, Datu Bangkaya | Katurong, Datu Paiborong | Pabilaan,Datu Paduhinogan | Tibongsapay, Datu Dumangsol, Datu Libay, Datu Dumangsil, Datu Domalogdog, Datu Balensuela. It was mentioned in the article that I read that William Henry Scott proved that Maragtas was not an actual ancient document from long ago but only a legend that was collected. We have learned that you need to be kind in your dominion for you to be loved as their leader. Respect the girls as you respect your mother and sisters, as well as your wife. Be helpful and obedient. Always help others and be kind, because you don’t have any idea what they have been through in life. We have also learned that, for you to be loved by your dominion, you need to prove yourself. You must show them that you are dedicated, willing, strong, capable, and motivated to be their leader. That, you're not only good at speaking but as well as in your actions. Because we believe that, action speaks louder than words. In addition, the Maragtas is contrary to popular assumption, it is not a major source of the narrative. As well as the other mentioned manuscripts in the reading where secondary source at great. The secondary source is defined as works that analyze, assess, or interpret a historical event, era, or phenomenon, generally utilizing primary sources to do so. Secondary sources often offer a review or a critique. Secondary sources can include books, journal articles, speeches, reviews, research reports, and more. 2. Cite examples of his criticism. The genesis of the Code of Kalantiaw is traced by William Henry Scott to an account by Jose Maria Pavon, a parish priest of Himamaylan, which was handed to the National Library in 1914 by a Jose Marco. Nothing was known about the Code of Kalantiaw and the Pavon texts prior to the external criticism. It wasn't until 1954 when Jose marco brought up the narrative of its provenance, which claimed that the manuscripts were salvaged by a convent chef after the convent was burned down in 1899. While this may be considered the document's provenance, it is always important to cross-reference known evidence with other sources of information. External criticism's convictions pass value judgment in the form of looking at the source itself and how it came to be, yet this is insufficient conviction to reject a document in the light of Gottschalk's historical approach. Scott also noticed that the typescript copies appeared to have a 19th century manuscript's style and syntax. Scott theorized that such an oddity in the spelling can be traced back to the printing of multiple editions of the same work. Scott also discusses other anomalies he discovered in the Pavon text, the majority of which are not period-appropriate. Scott eventually published his findings in his book Philippine Source Materials for the Study of Philippine History, which debunked the code. Later on, Filipino historians erased the code from subsequent works on the country's past. Povedano and Pavòn are the manuscripts where he felt regret because he wasn’t able to acknowledge his gratitude to the man himself while he was alive. 3. What is your stand with the issue on whether that historical manuscript is a fact or a myth? Explain and defend your argument. Whether the historical manuscript is fact or myth, we have taken away a valuable lesson from it. If this is the case, we can conclude that William Henry Scott was mistaken when he claimed that the Maragtas were a genuine ancient document. This is a horrible and arbitrary argument if the historical manuscript is correct. To begin with, no one has claimed that the Maragtas were written by them. There is such a thing as oral literature or oral tradition, after all. That is precisely what the Maragtas are. It's a literary or oral tradition passed down through the generations. It's only logical to presume it's not written because it's oral. According to our reading, the Maragtas were later written down in 1853 by a Spanish Friar named Tomas Santaren. It was composed in the kinaray-a language and then translated into Spanish. It became Written Literature as soon as it was written, in addition to the Oral Literature that it was originally. They have no evidence to declare it a myth. Its significance to our people is being denied outright simply because a Spanish Friar, a Catholic, is credited with saving it. There is no reason to question that his legend maintains the memory of a real event, but it is impossible to date the event or determines which aspects are historic facts and which are embellishments of oral transmission generation. This narrative contains almost sixty names, all of which are quite difficult to come up with. The names of the 10 datus, their wives, children, houses, and subordinate leaders were all included. If Maragtas is fiction, why did the storyteller bother to give so many names? But on the other hand, we believed that the historical manuscript was a myth, a legend told since it lacked a reputable source that could verify that it was a true manuscript. We can't say it was a fact document because there aren't any documents that we can examine that verify this incident happened, which is why I consider it a myth rather than a historical text. As Scott explains, the historical manuscript is a myth; it is not an original work, but rather a transcript of older works that were later widely circulated by numerous academics. The Maragtas, according to Scott, was an original work by Pedro Alcantara Monteclaro. A myth is a traditional story, usually featuring supernatural creatures or occurrences, which tells about the early history of a people or explains some or all societal phenomena. Another description is that it is a traditional narrative. Some are based on true events, while others are entirely made up. Myths, on the other hand, are more than just stories; they have a deeper meaning in both ancient and modern societies. Myths are holy stories that explain the world and the major events in one's life. We believe the manuscript is authentic, despite the fact that there is no historical evidence that it is an ancient text. Monteclaro stated that he utilized two antique documents as references, although neither document had any dates printed on it. One belongs to his grandfather, and the other to the grandfather of the 82-year-old man he met in his hometown of Miag-ao, he added. There wasn't a single witness or piece of proof to back up his claims. Monteclaro also claimed that he was able to copy the documents despite the fact that they were fully eligible, which is further questionable given that he did not provide the paperwork to establish that they existed. Also, because much of what we know about the pre-Hispanic era comes from legends, it is a modern myth. These are oral histories that were passed down from generation to generation without being written down. Many legends are just stories concerning the origins of the planet, the first man and woman, and other such events. It's clear that these aren't supposed to be taken seriously. Although some tales may be based on true occurrences, they are not accurate historical records because stories alter with each telling. A person's recollection can be faulty or incorrect, and the teller may even embellish the story by adding or removing details. And, just like the legends of old, this one has been “spiced up” too. In this case, however, the legends have become confused with history. And, as we shall see, when history and legend are mixed, the stories often sound better but the truth always suffers. It is a myth; how can we call it a fact if there is no tangible evidence in that piece and no compelling evidence?
