Talk:Madja-as

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://akeanon.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=2. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. -- — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Source claims this topic cannot be verified and is historically dubious.

A source claims the work that is the basis for information on this topic is dubious. Lambanog (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I am going to agree with Lambanog on this one. Many of the sources cited are primary sources which do not even mention "Madja-as" in the first place. Also, many of the claims are mostly original research. This page requires a major clean-up. Stricnina (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

William Henry Scott had debunked the "Maragtas" and the "Code of Kalantiaw" as early as 1968. The details are in Scott's Prehispanic Source Materials for the Study of Philippine History, revised edition, Quezon City: New Day Publishers, 1984, pp. 91-103, and 132-134. These were summarized in the Halili book cited above by "Lambanog" 112.200.252.170 (talk)dnong —Preceding undated comment added 11:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

But taking into consideration that after the Spanish colonization, local literary achievements in culture and government in the former territories of the Confederation of Madya-as were eclipsed by the emphasis of the Spanish colonial regime on Catholic Christian faith, and the fact that Ilonggo litearary heritage was primarily orally passed from one generation to another, as in the case of the oldest and longest epic in Hiligaynon Hinilawod that survive in the Sulod society in the hinterlands of Panay, the local beliefs inherited by the Ilonggos from their ancestors cannot be just be hastily dismissed as fabricated. In fact, Ilongo literary works like Maragtas and the Code of Kalantiaw are something that serious historians have to study more carefully. What Walter Scott failed to consider in his judgement is the nature of the transmission of Ilonggo local literature. He just limited himself to evaluating a relatively recent attempt to put into writing what Ilonggos have bequeathed to their descendants through generations by means of oral tradition, discrediting Monteclaro as fabricating the story. What was judged was Maragtas (book) - the printed work authored by Monteclaro. The essence of Maragtas per se was not given due treatment.

Another thing that Scott failed to consider is the fact that Monteclaro is not a professional historian who writes according to the standards of scientific research. Scott was not able to see the perspective of Monteclaro - the Ilonggo, who transmits to the next Ilonggo generations what has been passed on from the previous ages, of which he had more ample knowledge.

The third aspect that Walter Scott failed to give due consideration is the fact that Maragtas is also at the same time a literary piece. As such, facts in the story are sometimes mixed with attempts to make the narration attractive. Therefore, literary criticism has to be applied in this case, to distinguish which part is historical and which part is not.

To understand Maragtas better, one needs an appropriate method of research in order to have a thorough study of Ilonggo culture, mentality, and the remnants of their very ancient civilization. Otherwise, one will be left with a very superficial judgement of the issue. --Sulbud (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

We are only supposed to include informations here from reputable sources compiled by reputable scholars, not including speculations (like whether Scott is right or wrong) and original research that hasn't passed the scrutiny of academic rigor. Please refrain from adding speculations without sources. Stricnina (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Sections that need editing and further reference materials

The following sections, which have multiples issues are temporarily transferred here at the talk page, for discussions and for improvement. Please help improve these sections, before placing them back to the main part of the article. Thank you.--Sulbud (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

War with neighboring states

Asides from waging wars against the Chinese empire's navy and the Hinduized states among their immediate neighbors, Madja-as was also in a state of intermittent conflict with the Kingdom of Tondo in Luzon and the Sultanate of Sulu in Mindanao. Sulu and Tondo considered Madja-as a formidable nation that, after some time, a certain Timway Orangkaya Su'il was mentioned by the second page of tarsila (of the Sulu Sultanate), that he received four Bisaya slaves (People from the Confederation of Madja-as) from Manila (presumably Dynasty of Tondo) as a sign of friendship between the two countries. Evidently, both the Kingdom of Tondo and the Sulu Sultanate formed a coalition to wage war upon belligerent Madja-as which they punished by conducting numerous slave raids into. Nevertheless, Madja-as has always been a naval power back when their predecessor state, Pannai defended and policed the conflict-ridden strait of Malacca (Where 50% of maritime world trade passes through) or their current incarnation as the Confederation of Madja-as which was almost always in a state a war with most of its neighbors and had reciprocated the kidnapping and enslaving of its people by disrupting the inter-island commerce of its enemies. However, despite all the warlike exploits of Visayans, they are also known to be soft, graceful and noble in mien and speech. Subsequently, Visayan participation in Spanish colonization which supplied the bulk of the auxiliary and mercenary forces affixed to the Spaniards that conquered Manila which was then ruled by Sultan Bolkiah of Brunei, was crucial in hispanizing the Philippine archipelago, since both Luzon and Mindanao where already enemies of Madja-as already. In a way, the hispanization of the whole Philippine archipelago was a triumph for the Visayans against their age-old enemies, the states in Luzon and Mindanao.

References

War with the Bruneian Empire

(The formal territory of the Bruneian Empire), the empire was already encroaching upon, and trapping the Visayans in a pincer movement by the time the Spanish arrived and the combined Visayan and Spanish army defeated the Bruneian Empire

According to the Boxer Codex. The remnant Visayans who did not follow their Kings (Datus, or Co-equal paramount rulers in Malayo-Polynesian) to the re-established Kedatuan of Panay (After they severed themselves from the unjust ruler of Rajah Makatunao) and had remained content with the rule of Rajah Makatunao, bore witness to the supplanting of the rule under a Rajah with the rule of a Sultan.

“… It begins three hundred years (ago), a little more or less, when from the parts and provinces of the Malaya language which lie toward Meca (came) a lord of a city called Cauin. The name of this one was Sultan Yuso (Arabic Yusof), who according to what they say was king of that said city of Cauin, and he and his subjects departed from his kingdom and land bringing with him a great quantity of people in many ships, discovering many lands, and calling himself always king and lord of all the people he brought and calling them slaves. Following his voyage he arrived at the island of Borney on which they had some battles with the native Uisayas (Bisayas) so that they occupied them [the lands]; and having succeeded them (the Uisayas) well, he was settled some days in which he took a tongue of land and the fruits of it and found camphor, which is now to exist in other parts except this kingdom.

“… At the end of some days, he made port in the land of China: and asking permission in order to go ashore, he disembarked and went to see the king of China, whom he recognised as a superior king; and the said king of China conferred in him the title of king and gave him the insignia and royal (coat of) arms which nowadays the said king of Borney has; And seeing that the said Sultan Yuso was a bachelor, he married him to a Chinese woman. Accordingly it appears that the reason he persevered in the said kingdom of (Borney) was that she was a relative of the king of China. The said Chinese woman was lord of a city which was called Namtay in the kingdom of China, and the said Sultan Yuso made this marriage. He bade (farewell) to the king of China; and bringing his wife and the people with him, he returned to Borney, leaving in the said city of Namtay (one) who had charge of the rent as and property of his wife; and so (it is) nowadays although the natives of Namtay do not come with anything (for) the kings of Borney, not because the lords of the said city of Namtay have quit holding them (the rents), and they say the current rents are being held guarded for when some king of Borney might go there for it, the legacy.

“The said Sultan Yuso went to Borney. He settled there with his said slaves or vassals that he brought, and he put the native Uisayas (into) subjection, making them pay tribute. He had sons with the said (Chinese) wife. He died very old: and when he died, he left a tablet of gold. According to what they say it would be a fathom square and thin, on which he left mandates and they inscribed and wrote the kings of descended from him; and so they inscribed this said tablet which the same king kept and by his hand he inscribed his name. This tablet was lost when Doctor Fransisco de Sande, the governor who went from (these) Philippine islands, sacked Borney. It is understood that the old king, father of this one in whose possession it was, buried it or threw into the sea; and since the said king died at that time, he left no clarity (clear information) about what he did with the tablet.”

It was thus, the enslavement of the remnant Visayans that were left in Islamic Nanyang (South China Sea) and Nusantara (Insular Southeast Asia), which caused the Visayans (Now Hiligaynons) who settled at Madj-as to ally with the Christian Spaniards (As well as some Butuanons, Warays and Cebuanos) in campaigns against the Bruneian Empire.

And at this point, as an ethnic group, as-a-whole, Visayans in the Visayas as contrast to the Visayans in former Srivijaya, became the high-bred sons and daughters of their Datus (Kings) who had refused to bow to the unjust rule of oppressive foreigners and were more loyal to the original Malayo-Polynesian culture, than the ones in the west, who had heaped on high-sounding Hindu or Islamic regnal titles upon themselves.

However, at that period, the Bruneian Empire had already territoriality surrounded the Visayans in an encircling pincer-movement and they (The Bruneians) were backed by the Islamic Caliphate and the Chinese Empire, of which, their respective Empires' dynasties were all inter-woven and had supported Brunei in the war against the Visayans. Furthermore, the Muslims already controlled most of the island-group of Luzon to the North and most of the island group of Mindanao to the south (Except the portions facing the Pacific Ocean). The Christianized Datus, had, when the Spanish arrived, then accepted baptism and gave great value to the even humbler honorific of merely being called "Dons" and "Doñas" in Spanish, rather than a full-on-King (Datu) in their native-language, as they formed part of the new Principalia.

They then supplied half of the troops used to punish the Warlords, (Maha)rajahs, Huangs, Sultans and puppet-Datus that accepted higher foreign ranks. And thereafter, the Visayans and Spanish forces came upon Islamic Manila, raided it and converted it. Then fought the Castille War against the Bruneian Empire. Afterwards the Visayans soldiers and their Spanish captains, burned down Brunei's capital and destroyed their legendary 5-tiered floating Mosque and left.

Thereafter, they decided not to invade and incorporate Brunei into the Philippines and was just content with exchanging and maintaining ties with a more amiable Sultan that thereafter rose to the throne.

Probably, in repentance to the sacking of their old edifices: in modern-times, the Philippine-owned Ayala corporation even built a grander Palace-Complex for the Sultanate of Brunei, the Istana Nurul Iman. When it was completed, the Istana Nurul Iman, became the largest residential palace in the world and the largest single family residence ever built. Coincidentally, it was designed by the Visayas-born Leandro Locsin.

Actually according to the book ANG GABAY SA KATOTOHANAN (1999-2000) by ABDULKHALIQ S. SARIPADA, the Brunei/Sulu established a sultanate in Panay. Kasumi-genx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes there were already Muslims in Panay then but only 1 recorded Muslim person is in the island which was recorded when the Spanish arrived and chronicled it and therefore any Sultanate was transitory or temporary, can there be a Sultanate of one man? I don't think so, beware of some Muslims they practice "Taqiyya" islamic duplicity, but be also considerate of their views since they are our brothers too.

My sources of this informaiton are: "Beyond Humabon's Moor" by David Gowey from Arizona State University

(https://www.academia.edu/37808753/Beyond_Humabons_Moor_An_Exploration_of_Islamic_Presence_in_the_Visayas)

and

"An Exploration of Islamic Presence in the Visayas", Elsa Clavé of Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main in her work: "Islamic Epigraphy and Ancient Chinese Trade in the Philippine Archipelago"

(https://www.academia.edu/38846300/_Islamic_Epigraphy_and_Ancient_Chinese_Trade_in_the_Philippine_Archipelago_)

And also I think I agree with our brother Muslim that there was a Sultanate and it's real but judging by historical events it was temporary since those who came afterwards accepted Christianity, the Sultan was probably chased off by a powerful Datu of the Madja-as Kedatuan.Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Madja-as. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5s8suti6f?url=http://journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/pssr/article/viewFile/1274/1630 to http://journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/pssr/article/viewFile/1274/1630
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304201139/http://ilongo.weebly.com/iloilo-history-part-1.html to http://ilongo.weebly.com/iloilo-history-part-1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Madja-as. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141009183141/http://ilongo.weebly.com/iloilo-history-part-2.html to http://ilongo.weebly.com/iloilo-history-part-2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The article MISERABLY FAILS to distinguish Madja-as and Visayas or Madja-as and Pisheya

Every source should be checked whether the Madja-as = Visayas equation applied. For example, quoting Scott when Scott himself didn't even make any Madja-as = Visayas equation should be avoided at all costs. The article has become excessively detailed because of the addition of irrelevant facts about Visayas, when there are better pages for topics regarding the irrelevant sections. For example, the whole "Religion of Madja-as" section is actually about the religion of the precolonial Visayas, which should belong to a separate section.

Also, the "Chinese accounts of Madja-as" are actually the accounts regarding Pisheya, and PiSHEYA != MADJA-AS unless you can provide me a reliable source that EXPLICITLY mentions that they are the same. According to the edit history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madja-as&diff=next&oldid=324235614

...the one who added the PISHEYA = MADJA-AS connection is Rene Bascos Sarabias Jr.. Please explain yourself and provide the source that EXPLICITLY mentions that PISHEYA = MADJA-AS. Stricnina (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Originally it was the Spanish who said that people from Madja-as are simply Visayan however the term was expanded to people from Bohol or Cebu or other who are now Visayan speakers including some Tao of the Sug because they are "Allied" languages, they are the one's who STUD-ied and SERVICED that when in another time in Chinese records Piseya referred to raiders from the South of Taiwan or Southwards of Taiwan... It's complicated, here's a quote: "According to H. Otley Beyer and other anthropologists, the term Visayan (Spanish: bisayo) was first applied only to the people of Panay and to their settlements eastward in the island of Negros, and northward in the smaller islands, which now compose the province of Romblon. In fact, at the early part of Spanish colonialization of the Philippines, the Spaniards used the term Visayan only for these areas,[4] while the people of Cebu, Bohol, and western Leyte were for a long time known only as Pintados.[5] The name Visayan was later extended to them around the beginning of 1800s because, as several of the early writers state (especially in the writings of the Jesuit Lorenzo Hervás y Panduro published in 1801),[6] albeit erroneously, their languages are closely allied to the Visayan "dialect" of Panay. The impression of these similarities was in fact carefully analyzed by David Zorc, who, while able to linguistically classify the Austronesian subfamily termed Visayan languages, noticed their overall connections as one dialect continuum. These should not, however, be confused as dialects, given the lack of mutual intelligibility.[7]" So depending on the author, Scott or Beyer, there is a contention of knowledge, you decide, girls are great in the golden mean and in balancing that's why the Virgin is the one holding the scales of measurement. God Bless you Stricnina!Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr., what you are doing is original research and that is unacceptable. The quote you have provided didn't explicitly state that the Chinese "Pisheya" is the Panay Madja-as (note the lack of the keywords "Madja-as" and "Chinese" in your quote). This is important because you are again extrapolating that the Chinese are using the Pisheya to refer to the people of Panay. But are the Chinese using the term Pisheya to refer to the people of Panay? That is my question.

Why is this important? Because according to W.H. Scott in his book Barangay: 16th century Philippine Culture and Society, the word "Bisaya" is also applied to the people in Eastern Mindanao, probably in the Davao area. Relevant quote:

The Spaniards reported three Mindanao chiefdoms strong enough to dominate their neighbors in the middle of the sixteenth century - Maguindanao, Butuan and Bisaya. Butuan was considered the wealthiest because of its gold, while Bisaya was considered the least of the three, though it is not clear where this Bisaya was. Earlier expeditions had called the east coast by this name (Vizaya), but Villalobos thought it was Davao Gulf - perhaps an ally or vassal of Buayan in the interior.

— W.H. Scott, Barangay: Sixteenth Century Philippine Culture and Society

This means that Bisaya, Visaya and Pisheya can mean many number of things according to different people in different eras. You can't just claim the Pisheya of the Chinese automatically refers to the people of Madja-as when Bisaya can mean many number of things according to different people. The connection Pisheya = Madja-as is false unless you can quote me a source that EXPLICITLY states that the Chinese "Pisheya" is exactly the Madja-as of this article. Do not make connection between Pisheya and Madja-as without proper source, because that constitutes original research and that is prohibited. You are not allowed to make that Pisheya = Madja-as connection OR the Bisaya = Madja-as connection without citing a source that EXPLICITLY says Pisheya is Madja-as. Stricnina (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

If you still can't understand what I am saying, please re-read your quote again. Read the keywords there like the Spaniards used the term Visayan only for these areas. The problem is that what Spaniards say are irrelevant in this discussion. I want you to provide me an article that states the CHINESE use the term PISHEYA for the inhabitants of MADJA-AS. Both the keywords MADJA-AS and PISHEYA should be side-by-side in one source. We need one historian making the connection between PISHEYA and MADJA-AS by EXPLICITLY saying they are the same thing. Otherwise it is original research and that is absolutely not acceptable. Stricnina (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Well it's explicitly stated in these sources: http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=PH2000101410 and https://www.jstor.org/stable/29792550?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents go check them out! I heard about Lando Jocano the author who proposed a Barangaynic phase in the Philippines history, he is the historian who said that and it's written in his book but I don't have direct acess to his works yet, can you do it for me? Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, according the University of the Philippines "Pangayaw" means to seasonally migrate or fish according to this source: http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=PH2000101410, it is an Illongo-Visayan word but according Efren B. Isorena of Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society Vol. 32, No. 2 (June 2004), pp. 73-95, Pangayaw means to raid or sail into battle. Mostly against China or larger states or other states.(https://www.jstor.org/stable/29792550?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents). You decide on this. Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Citations

Thanks, Stricnina, for scrupulously evaluating the use of reference materials in this article. I have checked two of these.

1.) Regarding the use of A History of the Orient (authored by the anthropologists G. Nye Steiger, H. Otley Beyer, Conrado Benitez, published in Oxford in 1929), I have a copy of the book and I can attest to you that the part of this article on the Datus from Borneo is almost copied verbatim, except for the spelling of certain terms, which had different forms a century ago (e.g., "Datu" instead of "Dato" in the book). In fact I placed a quote from the book, as you requested (cf. footnote n. 3) to attest to you that indeed the data were taken from existing printed material authored by well-known anthropologis, which specialized on Philippine studies. It's probably difficult to find a copy this book not in the Philippines. But you might be able to acquire a reprint online.

Dear TLS MMM, to avoid copyright problems, please avoid copying verbatim the source. Re-word your statements and provide the quotation in the citation formatting, and also add the page of the quote provided. Also, in order to avoid possible biases from this source that appears outdated and from 1929 and to achieve a more neutral point of view, please provide other sources that support whatever claims were present in the Beyer source. Stricnina (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

2.) As to this reference material: Gaspar de San Agustin, O.S.A., Conquistas de las Islas Filipinas (1565-1615), Manuel Merino, O.S.A., ed., Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas: Madrid 1975, the primary author of the data in the book is Gaspar de San Agustin, who lived during the early years of Spanish colonization in the Philippines. However, as you can see in the details of this reference material, the book is already a product of scientific use of the primary data by an editor, who obviously worked on this printed research material in collaboration with the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas or the Spanish National Research Council. So, you can be sure that it is not just a collection of raw materials.

Anyway, I'll try to help check the other reference materials on my free time. The article is of importance to Philippine history and to the local History of Panay. Let's help develop it. --TLS MMM (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear TLS MMM, the source "Conquista de las Islas Filipinas (1565-1615) is still a primary source. A reliable secondary source that uses this primary source for the development of his/her own argumentations must be provided in order to ensure that the statements included in Wikipedia aren't a product of original research (Wikipedia doesn't allow original research). While referencing a primary source by itself isn't a problem, it is more appropriate to provide reliable secondary sources from academic institutions to achieve neutral point of view of this Wiki entry. Stricnina (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Who are the Pi-she-ya of the Chinese accounts? They would not have been the people of Madja-as or Panay

Dear Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr., I have read the source named "The Visayan Raiders of the China Coast, 1174-1190 AD" by Efren B. Isorena. Thank you for providing a source that is relevant to the discussion regarding who are the "Pisheya" of the Chinese accounts. It appears that my doubts regarding Pisheya != Madja-as aren't doubts anymore, we now have a source that explicitly states that the Pisheya would not have come from Panay and Cebu. From pp. 77-78:

If the Pi-sho-ye were from the Visayas, they would not have come from Panay or Cebu. Considering further that if a northward route to Formosa was to be made, with the South China Sea closed for pangayaw, the Pacific was the only logical alternate route going north. Of the Pintados islands, those oriented to the eastern Philippine Sea were Leyte, Samar, and Bicolandia.

— Efren B. Isorena

And on page 87, the author of the article arrives at the conclusion that the Pi-sho-ye comes from eastern Samar, which was called Ibabao during precolonial times:

Perhaps, then, the Pi-sho-ye were from Ibabao. Ibabao was the prehispanic Waray name for Samar's entire eastern coast and a portion of Samar's northern coast; the western coast was always known as Samar (Tramp 1995: 201). If Alcina's informants in seventeenth century Ibabao are to be believed, some families in that time claimed to remember the times when they launched maritime raids against the coastal villages of Bicolandia and they even remembered old stories about expeditions to China (Alcina cited in Scott 1982: 22). The people of Ibabao were noted to resort easily to raids for the slightest of reasons, such as to make an impression on a woman (Alcina in Scott 1982: 22). One important aspect of the pangayaw of Ibabao was that it was performed by people from "among the more influential and more powerful" (Alcina 2002: 77). This indicates that it was socially and politically, as well as economically, motivated.

— Efren B. Isorena

The source makes it clear that Madja-as has nothing to do with the Pi-she-ya raids. I am now allowed to delete information regarding Pi-she-ya raids in a Wiki entry about Madja-as as the two are not related whatsoever according to this academic source that we have. Stricnina (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok I trust your judgment, also it might be related to the article "Kedatuan of Dapitan" since that state was founded by a Datu who married a beautiful Boholana princess who he proved his worth with, by raiding China.Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

An update! The term "Mangayaw", or "to raid" is not exclusive to Leyte people or Bisakol Vis"a"yans, M"a"dja-as also employ them too, it's just that people constantly seasonally migrate so words take on new meanings sometimes, Scott studied this Visayan phenomenon in his book, "Barangay: Sixteenth-Century Philippine Culture and Society (1994): https://www.manilatimes.net/evidence-of-pre-colonial-filipino-martial-arts-2/99117/".--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

You are also wrong in stating that Madja-as Visayans has nothing to do with Bisaya raiders since according to linguists; both the Waray (Leyte) [Of the Dapitan Kedatuan] and Hiligaynon (Panay) [Of the Madja-as Kedatuan] their languages belong to one dialect continuum, Bisaya is a very expansive language clade.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 05:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr., the topic is the PI-SHE-YA raiders of Chinese accounts, not the VISAYAN RAIDERS. If you have any problems regarding the identification of the Pi-she-ya raiders (again, PI-SHE-YA raiders, NOT VISAYAN PANGAYAW RAIDERS) as the Ibabao of Samar, please publish your results somewhere else, as Wikipedia does NOT ALLOW ORIGINAL RESEARCH! Stricnina (talk) 08:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Sulbud, I have removed your additions regarding the supposed "Chinese accounts of the Confederation". In fact, I myself have deleted that section a long time ago and it seems you have only restored the section which I have disputed here in previous discussions. You also used Efren B. Isorena's research which has dispelled any connection between Panay and Pi-she-ya (and by proxy between Pi-she-ya and Madya-as). This article needs a makeover and I suggest to refrain from undesired contributions with sources that do NOT mention the keyword Madya-as. Stricnina (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Stricnina

Cf. F. Landa Jocano, Filipino Prehistory: Rediscovering Precolonial Heritage, Manila: 2000, p. 75.

If you are looking for literal reference in ancient text, contributors may not have found what you have in mind. But use interpolation and read carefully the article with more open mind. While current contributions might be wanting in what exactly you want, they are useful in leading those engaging in continuous search for reference on the subject for improving the article.

A more collaborative attitude might be useful, instead of an arrogant stance. Until now, I still have to see your concrete contribution so that we will see how you make scientific research. All that you have been doing is deleting.

I suggest that you stop deleting reference materials and sections of the article that could help contributors in searching for better options. There are better ways of expressing that although such citations and ideas are not convincing to some researchers, yet they are also subscribed to by others. The impression that you present in your edits and comments say that you beleive that you have the monopoly of knowledge. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. --Sulbud (talk) 06:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear Sulbud, if you think I am not making scientific research, it is because Wikipedia policy explicitly forbids so. It is stated under the no original research policy. What you call "interpolation" and what you call "scientific research" are not allowed in Wikipedia. Every contributions that rely on primary sources (such as the "Maragtas" book itself, or one of Blair and Robertson's volumes of Philippine history) count as original research, and those are forbidden under the primary source usage policy that explicitly forbids personal analysis, evaluation, interpretation of primary source materials without referring to a reliable secondary source. So yes, we Wikipedia editors are not allowed to do "interpolations" and "scientific research" and if you insist on doing so, then I'll be forced to ask intervention of administrators or moderators. In the meantime, read the Wikipedia policies on what you are allowed to do as a Wikipedia editor. We editors are NOT historians, stop "interpolating" primary source materials.

Also, I am inviting you to read Efren B. Isorena's article before adding the "Chinese accounts of the Confederation" section. The paper made excellent arguments pointing the origin of Pi-she-ya to the inhabitants of Samar and Leyte, using historical sources and knowledge of the winds present in the Pacific side of the Philippines. Unlike you, Sulbud, and I, Efren B. Isorena is a scholar and our primary job is to share his findings, not to contradict him without relying to another secondary source material. And by "secondary source material", I am not talking about the original or translated book of the "Maragtas", because the book itself is a primary source material. Stricnina (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

This page confuses Madja-as and Precolonial Panay

Many of the provide sources, like the first-hand accounts of Miguel de Loarca and Gaspar de San Agustin and the outdated works written by Isabelo de los Reyes and H. Otley Beyer, failed to mention the connection between Madja-as and many of the claims written in the page. For example, most of what is written about the Religion of Precolonial Panay is included in this page, despite the fact that none of the sources provided explicitly mentioned that the beliefs of the Madja-as of the Maragtas and the historical Precolonial Panay encountered by the Spaniards overlap. The connection being made is only implicit and without a scholarly source that attests that the religion of Madja-as coincides with the religion of the people of Panay in the dawn of the Spanish colonization, many of the claims written in the page will be considered as original research, which Wikipedia specifically does not allow.

Other possible statements that constitute original research or outright speculation are the following:

• Madja-as being treated as still existent when the Spaniards arrived in the Philippines during the late 1500s. This is the claim of the section named "Integration of parts of the Confederation to the Spanish Empire". However, the sources provided, especially the Volume 03 of Blair and Robertson's "The Philippine Islands", don't even explicitly mention the key word "Madja-as", which should be deemed important by editors. However, the editors failed to acknowledge the importance of finding sources that explicitly mentions the keyword "Madja-as" to support the numerous claims written in the article.

• Madja-as being treated as a pre-colonial Indianized Kingdom coming from a certain Pannai. The legend of Maragtas on the other hand claimed that the ten datus who established Madja-as came from Borneo instead. However, the section "Indication of Sumatran Roots" suggest otherwise while failing to provide sufficient sources to prove many of its extravagant claims. There is a cited source, however it was the account of a certain P. Francisco Colin, S.J. Reading the Spanish version of the book, the reader immediately realizes that the "Sumatran origins" is relevant to the "Visayan" people, not necessarily the "Madja-as" since the book itself didn't mention the very important keyword "Madja-as". I insist on this request: provide sources that refers to Madja-as instead of generic "precolonial Panay", which should have been an important distinction that the editors here failed to address and take into consideration.

I can keep on and on, however there are just too many of these claims without sufficient supporting scholarly references. I want everyone who contributed in this Wiki page to sufficiently address these issues and stop confounding precolonial Panay and the Madja-as of Maragtas: TLS MMM, Sulbud, Darwgon0801, PulauKakatua19, Yann, Mild Bill Hiccup, Jasper0070, etc. Stricnina (talk) 11:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Update: I have read the scholar Paul Morrow's take on the "Confederation of Madya-as". According to him:

In Maragtas, Monteclaro also told the story of the creation of the Confederation of Madya-as in Panay under the rule of Datu Sumakwel and he gave the details of its constitution. In spite of the importance that should be placed on such an early constitution and his detailed description of it, Monteclaro gave no source for his information. Also, it appears that the Confederation of Madya-as is unique to Monteclaro's book. It has never been documented anywhere else nor is it among the legends of the unhispanized tribes of Panay. (emphasis mine)

— Paul Morrow, "The Maragtas Legend", [[1]]

The quote is self-explanatory. According to him, the so-called "Madja-as" has no other significant mentions outside of Monteclaro's book. Therefore, the whole Wikipedia article is built upon speculations and original research regarding the existence of a confederation with a very dubious historicity. It is time to separate fact and fiction: the "Madja-as" page should address the legend of the Confederation of Madja-as and the rest of the irrelevant content such as the religion and society of the pre-colonial Panay should be migrated in a separate section. The page should focus on what the Confederation of Madja-as meant to Monteclaro's book, the historians' take on the very existence of Madya-as, and avoid as much as possible any irrelevant content that doesn't address Madja-as directly. In the meantime, I will later delete the supposed Sumatran origins of the Madja-as people as it has no basis in facts. Stricnina (talk) 13:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Do not dismiss a local account as totally unhistorical, just because it was not written by a western historian. The current methods used by contemporary historians might be unfairly dismissive of how local historians in the past record oral traditions. Monteclaro was not a professional historian in the contemporary standard.

In assessing his work, literary criticism has to be employed to identify vestiges of historical facts from literary embellishments. Too much rigidity would unfairly dismiss and errase knowledge of ancient history.

Here is his work, still preserved in one of the libraries in the U.S. Read, including how this man obtained data through oral tradition, which was lost through the hispanization of the Island. You can find out on page two the reference to Madja-as (spelled as Maydias) as the former name of Panay:

Pedro Alcantara Monteclaro, Maragtas. Janiuay: 1854 (translated in English by Esther Abiera, et al., and currently in the Library of the University of Michigan).

It is not true that traces of what Monteclaro mentioned in Maragtas could not be found in legends or literary treasures (also oral) of Panay. For example. Paubari and Labaodungon, who are among the main characters of Hinilawod (the longest and oldest epic of Panay, chanted by the binucots of the hintherland tribes called "Bukidnons") are also mentioned in "Maragtas" as descendants of the datus from Borneo. However, they are not presented by Monteclaro as mythical demigods (as Hinilawod presents them). So, there is a resonance between the oldest epic of Panay with that of "Maragtas". Although the Filipino anthropologist F. Landa Jocano already discovered the Hinilawod in 1955, it seemd that William Henry Scott, who wrote his thesis in the University of Santo Tomas in 1968, was not cognisant of this cultural treasure of the Island. Thus, probably finding nothing that confirms the presence of traces of elements common to Hinilawod and Maragtas. I doubt your Paul Morrow is either aware of this.

Monteclaro's style of writing history might not be like how Scott or Morrow does it. It is clear from the text that he wrote his own annotations, too. He was not just copying. This explains the presence of Spanish terms. Whatever written text he claimed to have used as basis for his work, appears to be old notes that were attempts to write oral tradition.

I observe that his account of the Datus exploration and colonization of the Island of Maydias contains old names of towns, or names of barangays that are now parts of towns with different names. This is again some proof of the antiquity of the account.

The exact data of locations of rivers in places (old names or names of certain barangays that are now parts of towns established during the Spanish regime) in the islands of Panay (referred to as Madyias in the Maragtas) and Negros (referred to as the island of Buglas) cannot be expected from somebody who only studied the caton and some ability to count, and whose work experience was limited only to being a sacristan in Villa (Arevalo) and Janiuay. How could he invent all those precise data? Was he travelling in the mid 1800s, when the probable means of transport around the two islands of Panay and Negros was the batil? How could a sacristan have such a luxury to travel for exploration?

How was he able to know the names of months used during the pre-colonial times, whose traces can only be found from unschooled old farmers and fishermen (even now), and were almost forgotten by the learned during his time?

Or probably, was it Fr. Santaren's invention? But how could a Spaniard obtain such precise data about the geography and old names of towns, barangays, islands and rivers?

Such precision of data seems to have been from a person or persons, who were able to explore the two islands prior to Spanish colonialization. That ancient writer is the primary author, and the nature of his work (written or oral) cannot be determined because what Monteclaro wrote already has his annotations and personal narrative. Certainly, because of Monteclaro's claim to have based his account on certain old manuscripts of Maragtas, attempts were made to put the story into writing. Unlike Hinilawod, what was written in Maragtas appears to be an attempt to write history - the indigenous style as nmanifested in the writer's knowledge of the geography and culture of ancient Panay. Though, not as fantasy-laden as Hinilawod, Maragtas is not lacking of mythical accounts, e.g., appearance of mermaid and mythical crocodile which brought Kapinangan, wife of Datu Sumakwel to the island of Dipologan. That is why, textual and literary criticism is needed to identify, which are elements of factual history, from literary embellishment, which was not uncommon during the pre-colonial times.

Reading the Maragtas, without paying attention to how it was written by Monteclaro, to the author's background, and to the culture and geography of Panay and Negros is a huge error for historians.

Historians should re-evaluate their outlook toward this text. More attentive textual criticism and knowledge of the actual territory and its culture is needed.

H. Otley Beyer, who made pioneering research on Philippine anthropology, cannot just be dismissed as outdated. Perhaps there were things he discovered that contemporary anthropologists and historians overlooked.

Some filipino historians accuse the Spaniards of errasing traces of pre-colonial history and culture. I think, some contemporary historians, both local and foreign, are collaborating toward this purpose. They are actually making this succeed.

Check this:

"... los arayas que es una cierta Parcialidad de pueblos se van a una sierra muy Alta se llama mayas que esta en la ysla de Panay..." Miguel de Loarca, Relacion de las Yslas Filipinas (Arevalo, June 1582) in Blair, Emma Helen & Robertson, James Alexander, eds. (1903). The Philippine Islands, 1493–1803. Volume 05 of 55 (1582–1583). Historical introduction and additional notes by Edward Gaylord Bourne. Cleveland, Ohio: Arthur H. Clark Company. ISBN 978-0554259598. OCLC 769945704. Read pages 128 and 130.

That is probably the most that you could have about Madja-as from what was written by foreigners, if all you want is something according to the standard of foreign historians. Dismiss this and classify the article as legend, and you will make what Spaniards probably wished in colonizing and christianizing Panay. Congratulations! --Sulbud (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear Sulbud, you should know that as a Wikipedia editor, it is literally not part of your primary job description to save whatever you think is the true history of Panay from the Spanish colonizers, that is explicitly forbidden under the Wikipedia policy of no original research. Saving precolonial history from the clutches of evil Spanish colonizers should be a side-effect of quoting actual historians with published academic works, not the main task of Wikipedia editors like you and me. You should know that directly analyzing the Maragtas book itself or one of the numerous volumes of history compiled by Blair and Robertson constitutes original research. Meaning you are allowed to say, for example, that "mayas" is a "sierra" located in the island of Panay, but you are explicitly NOT ALLOWED to "interpolate" or interpret it as having to do with Madja-as, without the benefit of a reliable secondary source explicitly saying that it is indeed Madya-as or Maydias or whatever its name. Remember, every contestable claim you are going to add in the Madja-as article should be supported by a reliable secondary source. Failure to abide to this rule will result to either the addition of proper inline tags to doubtful claims, or outright deletion.

Please refrain from acting like a historian in Wikipedia. Everything you add must be traceable to a reliable secondary source, written by an actual historian. We Wikipedia editors are not historians. Once you learn from this mistake and start quoting reliable secondary source materials while avoiding personal analysis and "interpolation" of primary sources, then you're free to add meaningful contributions in the article. Stricnina (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Clean up of the other pages mentioning Madja-as

I'm systemically editing/removing/changing many of the pages that mention Madja-as and Maragtas that present both as historical facts. I will not be removing them entirely in some instances but I will mention the legendary status of Madja-as and that Maragtas is not based on historical facts backed up by verifiable evidence. I will be linking to this talk page in those articles' various talk pages. If anyone wants to help me, feel free. I already did some edits for Iloilo#History. Chicbicyclist (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chicbicyclist: I want to express my support for the cleanup. I can help although it will be limited due to personal life-related reasons. If you see mentions of "kedatuan", please immediately remove it as it is not used in academic circles when it comes to topics related to Philippine polities before the Spanish era. Stricnina (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I was wondering where kedatuan came from and could not find any other outside sources that mention it. I erred on the conservative side and left those mentions for now in my earlier edits bit I will go back and get those removed sometime in the immediate future. Still trying to figure out the best way to tackle this clean up as it seems like this type of original research with regards to the subjects I have mentioned has crept up everywhere that has any sort of connection to the prehispanic history of the Philippines. Chicbicyclist (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Mass cleanup of the page

First and foremost, the 1569 date for the disestablishment of Madja-as was removed. It is due to the fact that there are no sources that state that Madja-as was disestablished at the advent of Spanish colonialism in 1565. On the contrary, Spanish sources only mentioned individual settlements that they have encountered, and not a unified confederate entity, not even the word Madja-as. So it is very assuming to say that Madja-as was disestablished at 1569. We simply do not know when it was disestablished, hence "unknown". This is also the reason why the "Integration to the Spanish East Indies" section were moved to the Panay page. It doesn't go to waste as it is still valuable information. However the "early accounts" section from the Madja-as page was already there. In fact, I would assume that previous edits copypasted information from the Panay page into the Madja-as page. Just my guess.

Second, we know that "The Philippine Islands, 1493–1803, Volume 05 of 55 (1582–1583)" did not mention Leyte nor even Bohol as pintados according to this statement: "and because I know them better, I shall start with the island of Cebu and those adjacent to it, the Pintados. Thus I may speak more at length on matters pertaining to this island of Luzon and its neighboring islands....". There are no mentions of Leyte at all. They only mentioned Cebu and "nearby areas", which is too vague of a phrase to consider that they are referring to all of Leyte. It could only be western Leyte, but not all of Leyte. Previous edits claim that Leyte was mentioned, which constitutes original research. They make it clear that Cebuanos were at often times not called "Bisaya" by the Spaniards, but "Pintados". What the Spaniards called "Bisaya" were the people of Panay and the Warays. One proof of this are the dictionaries that they wrote for Hiligaynon and Waray

- Vocabulario de la lengua Bisaya Hiligueyna y Haraia de la Isla de Panai y Sugbu (1637) by Alonso de Mentrida - A dictionary about the languages of the "Karay-a (Haraya) of Panay, of Cebu and "Hiligaynon Visayan" (Bisaya Hiligueyna)

- Vocabulario de la lengua Bisaya (1711) by Matheo Sánchez - A Waray dictionary written in Spanish

From these dictionaries, the Spanish made it clear that Cebuanos and Karay-as were not called Bisaya but their own respective ethnicities, even dating up to the early 18th century. This means that Cebuanos only began being called Visayans or the "main Visayan" in the early modern period.

Third, Madja-as wasn't officially called the "Confederation of Madja-as". Not even the Maragtas says this. It is very assuming to say that they used this name as an official state name. It is also very assuming to use a native version of said name. We have to be very careful with the information that we are placing to avoid as much misconceptions as possible. Supra-baranganic is also a weird term, perhaps it can be described as a confederacy (adjective).

Fourth, the "Invasion by Brunei and rebellion" section does not mention Madja-as at all. Why is it there? It doesn't make any sense to put it bluntly.

Fifth, the "Religion" section. The fact that it is there is unreasonable because the Maragtas did not clearly document the religion. The religion section talks about the general religion of the precolonial Visayans. It does not talk about the specific religion of Maragtas. I believe that if this page will ever have a religion section, that it should be simplified to avoid any unwanted misconceptions due to excess detail. To give an example, a "diwata" from Mt. Canlaon. Mt. Canlaon has nothing to do with Madja-as. These are details that have barely anything to do with Madja-as. All excess information. Therefore it was best to move the information in the Visayans page, in order that the references and information don't go to waste.

Lastly, the ridiculous claims of Madja-as being linked to a polity in Sumatra called Pannai. This is original research, and we can see that by observing an old discussion in this talk page, discussing how his edits are original research and did not come from a professional historian. We cannot do this in Wikipedia!

Hopefully the reasonings for the mass cleanup are clear. If there are any concerns about this then let us discuss it here, but I believe that this cleanup is very necessary to make the reading experience as convenient as possible, as well as to avoid any unwanted confusion. Thank you for reading! Delirium333 (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)