Comparative Analysis

The primary source between the two readings about the earliest known human remains in
the Philippines - Tabon Man, would be the one written by Robert B. Fox. Due to the interval
between the dates (1970 and 1984) of the two readings, it is clearly stated that Fox discovered
Tabon Man himself; he is basically an eyewitness to the said event. He was present during the
discovery, and his work is considered a first-hand account of the happenings. He provided a date
based on his observations with no bias. It seems like Robert was describing the happenings that
he witnessed firsthand and writing about them in his personal journal. The secondary source is
the one written by William Henry Scott. Why? It is because Henry Scott wrote as it transmits
opinions, reviews, and commentaries about the discovery of the 'tabon man.' His work becomes
more informative than Robert Fox because he included interpretations from other anthropologists
regarding the discovery of the tabon man. His work can be considered a secondary source since
he reviewed other primary sources to explain what happened and draw conclusions. It appeared
to be more of an interpretation and study of each fact and discovery he had made on their topic.

The findings were official, informative, and, in a certain way, meant for others to read
and understand better, according to my analysis of primary and secondary sources. In my
opinion, Robert B. Fox is more credible because he is an eyewitness. Robert B. Fox discovered
the Tabon man himself and wrote his work based on his fair views at the time. Robert Fox was
an anthropologist and leading historian of the pre-Hispanic Philippines, and one of the main
goals of anthropologists is to understand the diversity and complexity of human cultures across
different time periods and geographical locations. The fact that he is an anthropologist who
studies various aspects of humans within past and present societies makes his writing more
reliable and valid. Meanwhile, William Henry Scott was a historian of the Gran Cordillera
Central and Pre-Hispanic Philippines. Since historians focus on specific events, people, places,
or things that have historical significance, this comparison is also an added factor, as Robert is
more well-grounded and valid. Scott's work, although informative, focused more on
commentaries and reviews about the said 'tabon man' discoveries and seemed more like an
interpretation and analysis of the facts he gathered.
Have a comparative analysis between secondary and primary sources. (Antonio Pigafetta’s
work about Magellan’s Voyage Around the World)

Antonio Pigafetta was an Italian scholar and explorer who accompanied Ferdinand
Magellan on his voyage around the world. His work, “The First Voyage Around the World,” is
one of the most important primary sources in the study of precolonial Philippines. A primary
source is a document or physical object that was created during the time under study, while a
secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally
presented elsewhere. In this case, Pigafetta’s work is a primary source because it was written by
someone who was present during the events described.
A comparative analysis between primary and secondary sources would involve examining how
different authors have interpreted and presented information about the same event. In this case,
we could compare Pigafetta’s account of Magellan’s voyage with other secondary sources that
discuss the same topic. This could help us identify differences in perspective, bias, and accuracy
between primary and secondary sources.
 Comparative Analysis

1. Have a comparative analysis between secondary and primary sources.

The main source of information about the first humans found in the Philippines is a man
named Robert B. Fox. He was the one who found them and studied them for a long time.
Because he was there when it happened, his account is very reliable and true. His
observations helped figure out how old the remains are, and it is like reading someone's
diary because it is so personal. But William Henry Scott's work is not as important in this
situation. Scott writes about what other people think about the discovery of Tabon Man.
He includes different opinions and reviews from other experts, which makes his writing
more complete than Fox's. Scott's work is like a helpful extra source because he looks at
information from many different places and tries to understand it all. He studies and
explains the facts and discoveries very carefully.

2. Do a credibility analysis between the authors. (Robert Fox & William Henry Scott)

Robert B. Fox was a very important scientist who studied people in the Philippines a long
time ago. He did a lot of digging in a special cave and found the remains of a person
called Tabon man. He wrote about what he found and taught other people about it too.
Scientists like him study how people live, behave, and have different cultures. They
travel to different places, watch people, and compare things to learn about their customs
and traditions. They think it's important to understand how different groups of people live
without judging them. Both Robert B. Fox and William Henry Scott are very respected in
their fields. Fox's work is seen as very reliable because he did the research himself and
found the things he wrote about. Scott's work is also good, but it relies more on what
other people said. Personally, I think Fox is more trustworthy because he saw and
experienced things himself, instead of just reading about them. Another person named
William Henry Scott studied the history of a mountain area in the Philippines a long time
ago. He wrote about what he learned from other people's writings and things he found.
He wrote a book about Tabon man too, but it was more like giving his opinions and
thoughts about the facts. Historians are people who study the past by reading old writings
and looking at old things. They try to piece together what happened in the past and
understand the people who lived before us.
Which articles or books is the primary source in Magellan Expedition?

Antonio Pigafetta's work, "Excerpts from Magellan's Voyage Around the World," offers a
valuable historical lens into his journey alongside Magellan. Born in Italy around 1490,
Pigafetta meticulously chronicled their expedition in his journal, providing an in-depth
and firsthand narrative of their travels, interactions with native populations, trials faced,
and significant events that unfolded. Pigafetta initially joined the entourage of Monsignor
Francesco Chieregati, who was appointed Papal Nuncio to Spain in 1519. Fascinated by
the promise of the lucrative spice trade and Magellan's upcoming expedition, Pigafetta
decided to embark on this adventure, driven by a combination of wanderlust and a desire
for military advancement. He even survived the Battle of Mactan and dutifully recorded
the episode in his journal.

Pigafetta's account is further enriched with maps, glossaries, and crucial geographical
insights. There are several compelling reasons why it stands out as a primary source when
compared to other articles or books. Notably, it was eventually compiled and published as
"The First Voyage Around the World" after Pigafetta's return from the expedition. This
transformation into a book solidifies its status as a primary source, given that it was
penned by Pigafetta himself, who bore witness to the entire voyage. Among the four
primary sources known about the Magellan expedition, Pigafetta's account stands as the
most extensive and comprehensive record available.