Daphne P.

Desabelle

1. Differentiate primary source from secondary source. Then give 3 examples each.

A primary source provides direct or firsthand evidence about an event, object, person, or work
of art. Primary sources provide the original materials on which other research is based and
enable students and other researchers to get as close as possible to what actually happened during
a particular event or time period. They are usually the first formal appearance of original research.
Examples include artifacts of all kinds,research data such as census statistics, and audio recordings.
On the other hand, secondary sources are closely related to primary sources and often interpret
them. These sources are documents that relate to information that originated elsewhere. Secondary
sources often use generalizations, analysis, interpretation, and synthesis of primary sources.
Simply, secondary sources provide second-hand information and commentary from other
researchers. Examples of secondary sources include textbooks, articles, and reference books.

2. Differentiate external criticism from internal criticism as two components of historical method.

External criticism is a process by which historians determine whether a source is authentic by

checking the validity of the source. It also refers to determining the authenticity, validity, or
trustworthiness of the source (to see if the source is what it claims to be). On the other hand,
internal criticism looks at the reliability of an authenticated source after it has been subjected to
external criticism and accuracy of the information contained in the source; it is important for
determining what a good interpretation is of the information contained in the source.External
criticism is sometimes called lower criticism while internal criticism is sometimes called higher
criticism.

3. Study also the issue regarding the Code of Kalantiaw. Is the document authentic or not? Why?

The documeny of Code of Kalantiaw and was a supposed legal code in the epic history Maragtas
that is said to have been written in 1433 by Datu Kalantiaw, a chief on the island of Negros in the
Philippines. The code is now believed by many historians to have been a hoax. And also, an
American historian, William Scott debunk the authenticity of the code due to lack of evidence to
prove that the code existed in pre colonial Philippine society and what he discovered and proved
was that a lot of the pre-Spanish history in Filipino school textbooks was based on outdated
theories, wishful thinking and even hoaxes. And the Code of Kalantiaw was not written on
December 8, 1433. Nobody had noticed that the name of Kalantiaw was never mentioned in a
single document written before 1913, either in the Philippines or in any neighbouring country,
until the amateur historian Jose E. Marco “discovered” Kalantiaw in a book he himself had
faked.