In maragtas story,a Jocano is the researcher that
discovered the inconsistency of the maragtas story as an
historical fact.First was,he made an etymological framework
quite similar to Scott's framework in the code of Kalantiaw.But
Jocano's framework was anthropological in nature that means
all the facts which are presented in his synthesis of the
maragtas code are not directly linked to written historical
facts. Many of the data validity of Jocano are linked to
anthropological and archeological sources which was
contemporary to the period where in the maragtas was at its
prime.But because of it there are different viewpoint on the
validity of facts while the lack of written sources compliment
the foreground.
Through two known sources using external
criticism.First,was being an account of a Fr.Tomas Santaren
written in 1858 but published later in 1902 by a Fr.Angel
Perez.Second,was written in 1901 by a Pedro Monteclaro but
published later in 1907.Fr. Santaren and Fr.Monteclaro's
account was claimed to be a valid sources but there are many
scholars before the maragtas story was disprove as a hoax. A
professor Gregorio Zaide,a well praised scholar in Philippine
Historiography validates the maragtas code in Beyer's
argument for the waves of migration theory.Zaide elaboratedthat the peopling of the Philippines by
Malays came into two
waves.The first wave was unknown since there's nothing
historical record and the second wave which was recounted
the preservation of documents which attest to ten Bornean
datus buying Panay in Negros in the middle of 13th century.It
was in 1914 that the maragtas was cited in the work of a
European scholar Luther Parker in his work , "The early
Bisayan which linked the Philippinestothe maritime Southeast
asian civilization of Srivijaya that it gained The prestige of
being called a historical document,Jocano continues ,that
while Santaren and Monteclaro's account are both valid as
secondary sources as being a manuscripts furnished by the
people of Panay,they never mentioned seeing the document
in it's orginal form . Jocano thus posits that how is it that many
scholars are convinced about the existence of a such a
document when in fact the etymologies from where the
documents have been retrieved from are questionable.That
neither Monteclaro not Santaren have seen the Maragtas in
the ancient Philippine script and that such a act of no mention
be contested as a fault of omission or missing link Since in
Jocano's etymological framework and external criticism are
inconsistent they look into the internal criticism.in the internal
criticism they superfluously look the content of the document
in order to grasp the a deeper understanding of the
context.This was crucial because both internal and external
criticisms have passed value judgement thus ensuring the
truth of the document.
The first inconsistency in internal part was the date or the
year of origin.There are several person claimed it's date .
Beyer suggests the year to 1225 AD ,Zaide and Oredain c .
1250 AD,and Soncuya making reference to the Chinesebecause there's no supporting evidence and
because Santaren
and Monteclaro's accounts said that are valid account it would
have happened from 16th to 19th century.
The second inconsistency ,was the Santaren's identify of
the natives.It was said that the natives before was a follower
of Mohamet but he is wrong.He uses his European centric
world view against the moral view point that all pre- colonial
Filipino natives were moros.Also Jocano identifies that Datu
Puti did not own Arabic names.
The third inconsistency ,was the validity of the foreign
scholar John Carroll that claimed,Datu Bulkeiah the cheiftein
whose spread the Maragtas story ,was still ruling Brunei when
the survivors of the Magellan expedition reached in 1521.They
said it's impossible because there's no sources that would
prove Carroll's claim.
The fourth was the used of terms.Santaren presented the
term "Ati" to mean negritos but the inconsistentcy was found
in the etymology of the word itself because it was a Spanish
introduction.
dynasties would say 1212 AD.Their posits was uselessBecause of of several missing link and
inconsistency on the
validity of historical, anthropological and archeological data
have been used to prove and disprove the accuracy the
Maragtas and Code of Kalantiaw . Because of Scott and
Jocano's etymological framework in order to find where did
came from the meaning s of accounts.Bothof them have beenproved that maragtas and code of
Kalantiaw is are just folk
history or folklore not an true history.It was considered as folk
histories because there no such basis in defining the truth in
historical data but it's still exist but not a historically .Jocano
reflects that maragtas story embodies the culture,norms and
social reality.It may not be proven in the historical
methodology in the paradigm of the history but it can be
accepted in paradigm of ethnography & anthropology.
