PT1: Comparative Analysis Activity Reading

Answers to guide questions:

1. What is the main distinction between primary source and secondary source?
The main distinction between primary and secondary sources is that the primary
sources are those that provides direct and original sources that are more credible as
evidence while the secondary sources are those that offers an analysis or restatement of
primary sources.

2. Why is primary source important in the study of history?

In the study of history, we tend to know the insights of our culture of origin and
understand the past so primary sources are important for studying it because it provides
us the original first-hand source of information that was produced at that particular time in
the past by the people that are directly involved in the topic and it also help students gain
deeper understanding to the events of the past.

3. What is the purpose of secondary sources?

The purpose of the secondary sources is for you to know the approach of other
researchers and their different positions about the primary sources and also collect ideas
from them that can either uphold or may differ from the argument of yours.

4. At present, how do you discriminate between contradicting reports of a single event

from different sources?
At present, I distinguish contradicting reports of a single event from different
sources by the means of criticizing and finding the information that differs between them
and characterizing which is the second source that considered to contradict with the first
source then verifying which are more reliable among them.

5. Why should official records of the government be made accessible to the public?
Official records of the government should be made accessible to the public because
it belongs to the historical events that the citizens have the right to know or understand in
order to guarantee openness in the society.

Activity 1: Comparative Analysis

The two readings that discussed about the findings on the remains of the Tabon
Man, the considered earliest known human remains, has its differences based on the way it
was written and most specially based on the background of the person who wrote it and
the time when the excerpt was written. The excerpt written by Robert Fox has dates way
back 1960’s while the one written by William Henry Scott was dated 1980’s and it was a
revised edition so probably the one that was written by Robert Fox is the primary source of
what William Henry Scott had written.

Upon reading the excerpt that was written by Robert Fox, who is said to be the
anthropologist that discovered the fossilized Pleistocene skull of the oldest man inside the
Tabon caves of Palwan, Quezon Philippines, it is considerably evident because he was the
person that discovered it then, he really is the one involved in that particular discovery or
event in the past. It is comparable to the historian, William Henry Scott, who instructively
expressed the findings of the discovery in his writing and it was like he is imparting
knowledge to the readers of his work. On the other hand, in the case of the writings of
Robert Fox, he was like declaratively stating what happened in the execution of his journey
through the discovery of the remains of the Tabon Man as if he was story-telling the
explorations in the past events. Evaluating those different points between their works, we
could say that Robert Fox was more credible to talk about the topic than William Henry
Scott.

Thus, taking into consideration how the writings of different persons could be
distinguished whether who was more reasonable and has the more reliable source was
seemed to be determined by the author’s background and seen through how their works
were expressing the information and the date it was written that should be at the time or
close enough when the particular historical event had happened. Comparatively speaking,
the written work of William Henry Scott was more like a secondary source of Robert B.
Fox’s writings which was more evident as for being a primary source of the historical event
in the discovery of the remains of the Tabon Man in the Philippines.

Activity 2:

A. Which is the primary source and the secondary source between the two readings?

ANSWER:
The two readings are excerpts that both states the historical account of events that
happened through the discovery of the remains of Tabon Man. On the other hand, it is
observable that the two sources differ in terms of being primary or secondary by the means
of the way it was written and from which of these you could get more credible evidences.
I think the primary source between the two excerpts is probably the one written by
Robert B. Fox. It is noticeable that he had the first-hand or the original source because he
was the one that discovered the remains of the Tabon Man, dated the discovery on 1962.
Several important techniques that he used for the carbon dating was also mentioned as
well as how he directed the excavation. Also, proposed in the writing that scientists then
think that it is necessarily needed to have additional evidences for confirmation of the
fossils if it is new species, so even trying to do thorough analysis and research of his
findings.
The secondary source would probably be the one that was written by William
Henry Scott. It is clearly stated that his writing is a revised edition on 1984, be it the one
that offers a restatement of a past discovery. Noticeably, he seems to write informatively
for the reason that he imparted knowledge about the topic in terms of specific dates and
scientific facts and terms. Also, the way he included at the end of the excerpt the scenario of
dressing the Tabon Man with flesh, shirts and jeans that it will be unnoticed because of
physical similarities, it indicates analysis and interpretation of him from findings he
gathered about the topic.

B. Do a credibility analysis of the sources. Who between the two authors is more credible to
talk about the topic?

ANSWER:
From the point of view of a reader, specially about histories, the one who must be
considered to be more credible was the one that states about the topic in a way that he
originally is involved with the subject being studied.
For that reason, I think that Robert B. Fox is more credible between the two authors
to talk about the topic because his writings possess the characteristics of a primary source
and clearly state that he discovered the Tabon Man. So, he is a direct witness because of the
fact that he is an American anthropologist who studied the origin, nature and destiny of
human beings. His writings explain the happenings on the discovery more thoroughly,
obviously because he was the one who engaged into that research personally at that same
time in the past. He also writes declaratively as if stating the sequences of how were the
events happened then. In that case, the written work of Robert B. Fox was indeed more
valid and reliable compared to the written work of William Henry Scott which was a
historian who compiles facts and writes about historical account of events. Also, the
written work of William Henry Scott is dated on 1984 and I think the way he wrote it was
formal so he’s likely being informative to have a purpose of giving information that is
intended for readers of it to somehow understand.
Whereas, if we are going to differentiate the two authors, regarding from the dates
when they had written the sources, it is observably that the writings of Robert B. Fox were
dated closer to the time the event happened than that of William Henry Scott’s writings.
Accordingly, based on how Robert B. Fox had written his work, I notice that he had written
it like a journal and that adds to the reason why it seemed more creditable.
Activity 2:

Directions:
Look for the sources used by the Philippines and China in their respective claims of
sovereignty over the Scarborough Shoal and identify what are the primary sources. Also
look for the ruling of Permanent Court of Arbitration and explain the reason of its decision.
Present your findings.
ANSWER:
At that time in April 2012 the tension between the two countries, Philippines and
China, began to happen because of their overlapping claims of the Scarborough Shoal or the
so called Bajo De Masinloc in Spanish. It is also known as the Panatag Shoal in Philippine
tagalog. In Mandarin Chinese it is also called Huangyan Dao. According to Ulises Granados’
written work “Scarborough Shoal: Debunking Historical Myths (2019)” the standoff
between them somewhat occured by that time in the past, April 2012, when both nations,
the Philippine and China, started to defend their own jurisdictional and territorial claims in
Scarborough Shoal that rely on historical evidences. Later then, in January 2013, the
Philippines initiated an arbitral against China at the Permanent Court of Arbitration(PCA).
Then, when the decision is made on July 2016 China didn’t accepted it because the result is
favorable to the Philippines and awarded by the arbitral tribunal.
In accordance with another primary source discussing the issue, the written work of
Huy Duong, “The Scarborough Shoal dispute: Legal issues and implications(2012)”, that the
sovereignty evidences included in the claims of the Philippines were the building and
operation of a small lighthouse on 1965, that was also rehabilitated by the Philippine Navy
on 1992, and the planting of a flag pole also in 1965 and also the Scarborough Shoal used as
an impact range stationed at Subic Bay by the US and the Philippine forces. But it is also
stated there that the lighthouse was not operational even at that time so that side of their
argument has it still as weakness then. Consequently, in the written work of Mark E. Rosen,
“Philippine Claims in the South China Sea: A Legal Analysis (2014)”, the Philippines cited
inclusions of the Spanish maps of 1899 and 1734 or the “1734 Murillo Velarde map”. It is
an extremely rare and valuable scientific map of the Philippines. China has not been able to
produce a map showing the Scarborough Shoal in its territory and that is older than that
one that Philippines had. Also, historian Ambeth Ocampo said that it is the most important
map of the 18th century. On the other hand, those maps didn’t show the indications of
whom do the management controls of the areas belonged. As for the claims of China, also
from the source by Huy Duong, it is stated that Scarborough Shoal was listed as part of the
Zhongsha islands in South China Sea reef and shoals based on what the China’s Map
Verification Committee declared about sovereignty in over 132 islands in 1935. Whereas,
what they were claiming was the part over Macclesfield Bank and unfortunately the
Scarborough Shoal is proven internationally as separated area to that part of the Zhongsha
islands in Macclesfield Bank so the responsibility for the mistaken claim was on China. On
the part of another source, also by Mark E. Rosen’s written work, the claims of China were
based on the argument that it acquired sovereignty through terra nullius or the discovered
territory that is unoccupied and maintained a presence there before anyone else. So
comparably, just like the claims of the Philippines, China’s claims have weaknesses also.
Consequently, because of the weaknesses on both claims presented by the
Philippines and China, the temporary solution was to seek for third party arbitration that
would set aside the disputes between both nations about the sovereignty in Scarborough
Shoal. In accordance to Roncevert Ganan Almond (July 2016), “The South China Sea
Ruling”, the Philippines won a decisive victory and with unanimous ruling of the (PCA)
Permanent Court of Arbitration. Even if China wasn’t willing to do it and did not
participated, because of the maritime issues in connection with their claims, the Philippines
crafted its complaint carefully to avoid raising issues. There are reasons why China was less
expected to won and some of the reasons were because of their aggressive approach on the
dispute with the Scarborough Shoal and also the maritime claims under international law
that is considered the weakness of the China’s argument. I found out that the KIG claim by
the Philippines have a little legal weight and it stands the same with the nine-dashed-line
claim of China. As a result, PCA rejected the historic rights and nine-dashed-line claim of
China, for it controlled the purposes of determining maritime entitlements and also in the
resources of South China Sea, PCA stated that China has no control to it, over the seas,
exclusively for the reason that there was no evidence that they practiced it. Notably, the
ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration was also to serve an outspoken message with
concerns to the international order based on the rules for peace and to settle the dispute
regarding Scarborough Shoal for the mean time and not just to bind the claimants, the
China and the Philippines.

Sources: http://www.maritimeissues.com/politics/scarborough-shoal-at-the-turn-of-the-20th-century-
debunking-myths.html

https://www.rsis.edu.sg/rsis-publication/rsis/1764-the-scarborough-shoal-dispute/#.X4q-PdAza1s

https://www.cna.org/cna_files/pdf/iop-2014-u-008435.pdf

https://thediplomat.com/2016/07/interview-the-south-china-sea-ruling/#:~:text=The%20unanimous
%20ruling%20of%20the,in%20the%20South%20China%20Sea