Uploaded by Anna Razzan Magantor

GROUP 4 Quiz 2 GEC105 Xx5

advertisement
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?
Download