Noong Hunyo, 1913, unang lumitaw ang salitang Kalantiaw sa isang sanaysay na

pinamagatang Civilización prehispana na nailathala sa Renacimiento Filipino.

Binanggit sa pitak ang 16 na batas na pinairal ni Datu Kalantiaw noong 1433. Ang lathalain
na ito ay isinulat ni Manuel Artigas, na isang taon bago isinulat ang pitak ay siya ring
may-akda ng mga paliwanag sa isang mahinang uring sanaysay na sinulat ni José Marco,
ang Reseña historica de la Isla de Negros.

Hinggil dito, mayroong mga kamaliang nadiskubre patungkol sa Kodigo ng Kalantiaw.

natuklasan umano ni José Marco. Isinalin ng di-umano'y may-akda ng Leyendes, si José

María Pavón, ang Kodigo ni Kalantiaw at lima pang sulating pre-Hispanic, ngunit hindi niya
ipinaliwanag kung paano niya kinalkula ang mga petsa ng mga ito. Isinaad pa niya na hindi
itinala ng mga sinaunang tao sa Bisayas ang paglipas ng mga taon. Subalit ang kaniyang
"eksaktong" pagsasalin ng isang kasulatan na sinulat umano sa taong 1489, ilang dekada
bago nagsimula ang pakikipag-ugnayan sa Filipinas at kanluran, ay bumanggit ng "unang
Biyernes ng taon" at ng mga taon na may "tatlong bilang na magkakatulad gaya ng 1777".
Binanggit din dito ang salapi na may larawan ng Haring Carlos V ng Espanya kahit wala pa
noon ang hari na saka lamang ipinanganak nang dumating ang taong 1500.

Mapapansin ang mga kamalian sa petsa. Ito ay hindi lamang matatagpuan sa mga
sinaunang kasulatan. Maging si Pavón ay litung-lito rin kahit sa kaniyang sariling panahon.
Nang matapos ang kaniyang obra-maestra, inihandog ni Pavón ang Leyendes sa hari ng
Espanya sa unang araw ng Agosto, 1839. Subalit walang hari ang Espanya noong panahong
iyon; ang batang reynang si Isabella II na walong taong gulang pa lamang noon, ay
nakalukluk sa trono mula pa noong 1833 sa ilalim ng pamamahala ng kaniyang inang si
Maria Christina. Hindi nagkaroon muli ng hari sa Espanya hanggang 1874.

V B. External Criticism

The document came to provenance through two known sources. The first being an
account by a Fr. Tomas Santaren written in 1858 but published later in 1902 by a Fr. Angel
Perez and the second was written in 1901 by a Pedro Monteclaro
but published later in 1907. Many 9scholars before the Maragtas Code
was debunked as a hoax widely cited the document as an “account of
Panay history”. Professor Gregorio Zaide, a well praised scholar in Philippine
historiography, manifested the Maragtas Code in Beyer’s argument for the waves of
migration theory. Zaide elaborated that the peopling of the Philippines by
Malays came in two waves. The first wave, which is unknown since
nothing is historically recorded and the second, which recounts the
preservation of documents which attest to ten Bornean datus buying Panay in the
middle of the 13th century. The account was widely cited through popular use in texts
because 10of the reason that no scholar beforehand found the
document contestable and objectionable in the historical record. It was
in 1914 that the Maragtas was cited in the work of European scholar
Luther Parker in his work, The Early Bisayan, which linked the Philippines to the maritime
Southeast Asian civilization of Srivijaya that it gained the prestige of being called a historical
9 Felipe Landa Jocano. Filipino Prehistory: Rediscovering Precolonial Heritage. (Quezon:
Punlad Research House, 1998), 66. 10 Ibid., 67.
FORONDA, Luis Bienvenido N. 11730706 HISTOME Source Criticism: Maragtas and
Kalantiaw Codes document. Jocano continues, that while Santaren and Monteclaro’s
accounts are both valid as 11secondary sources as being manuscripts
furnished by the people of Panay, they never mentioned seeing the
document in its original form. Jocano thus posits that how is it that many scholars are
convinced about the existence of 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 an act of no mention may be contested as a
fault of omission