2. Make a comparative analysis of the 2 sources by making a table showing.
Robert B. Fox. The Tabon Caves: William Henry Scott. Prehispanic
Archeological Explorations and
Excavations on Palawan Island,
Philippines (Manila, 1970) p. 40
a. Primary Source
b. earthenware, jade ornaments and
jewelry, as well as primitive stone
tools, animal bones, and human
fossils dating back to 47,000 years
ago, the earliest human remains
found in the Philippines.
c. Fox was a renowned American
anthropologist who through his work
in research, writing, education, and
public service made significant and
long-lasting contributions to
Philippine anthropology. Fox served
as the Philippine National Museum's
chief anthropologist for a long time.
d. The Tabon Caves, also referred to as the
"Cradle of Philippine Civilization,"
are home to priceless artifacts that
provide a glimpse into the lives of the
first people to set foot in Palawan. These
include wooden tools, burial jars, and
inscriptions on the cave walls.
e. Tabon Man refers to remains discovered
in the Tabon Caves in Lipuun Point in
Quezon, Palawan in the Philippines.
They were discovered by Robert B. Fox,
an American anthropologist of the
Source materials for the Study of
Philippine History (Revised Edition)
(Quezon City, 1984), pp.14-15
Secondary Source
Prehispanic Source Materials
Scott, William Henry 1921- Critical study
of the prehispanic source materials for the
study of Philippine history.
William Henry Scott's Prehispanic Source
Materials provides a critical overview of
the information that is truly available
regarding the Filipino people prior to the
start of Spanish records in 1521.
The source materials come from a variety
of scholarly disciplines - anthropology,
archaeology, geology, history, linguistics,
and palaeography.
William Henry Scott. Prehispanic Source
materials for the Study of Philippine
History (Revised Edition) (Quezon City,
1984), pp.14-15
 National Museum of the Philippines, on
May 28, 1962.

3. After making the table discuss in the form of an essay, why you chose
which is the primary source and secondary source. Also discuss who
between the 2 authors is more credible to talk about the topic, and why?

The primary source among the two readings is the one authored by
Robert B. Fox, while the secondary source is the one authored by William
Henry Scott. Robert B. Fox's book serves as the primary source, with William
Henry Scott's work serving as the secondary source. It is evident from the
time discrepancy between the two readings that Fox authored the first draft
and Scott the second. Robert highlighted his specific observations and went
into great depth about the data. He also said that the readings and the months
and years of excavation have been entirely focused on the characteristics and
importance of the "taboon man" they have uncovered. Robert seems to be
recording events in his notebook that he personally experienced.

William Henry Scott's book is a secondary source that offers reviews

and commentary on the discovery of the "taboon man" as well as an example
and his thoughts on what a well-groomed "tab on guy" may look like. His
papers seem to be more valuable because he utilized anthropologists' data and
discoveries while failing to properly credit them. It appeared to be more of a
study and synthesis of all the information he had accumulated on the subject.

My research shows that Robert B. Fox is a more credible speaker on

the issue than William Henry Scott. Clearly, Robert wrote before William,
which is still more sign of Robert's reliability. Robert was an expert in
pre-Hispanic culture in the Philippines and a historian. At the time, William
Henry Scott was a pre-Hispanic Philippine historian who specialized in the
Great Central Cordillera. Anthropologists are more fascinated by numerous
facets of people in both historical and contemporary society. Although
historians may be more interested in certain historical occurrences, figures,
locales, or objects, this comparison also serves to anchor and validate Robert.
Robert is better qualified to talk on the matter, in my opinion, because of the
manner in which he authored the texts and the fact that he was the one who
discovered Tabon Man. While Scott's work was useful, it was more focused
on commenting and criticizing the "Tabon Man" results and felt more like an
interpretation and analysis of the information he had obtained. He looked to
be narrating occurrences he had personally experienced and recording them
in his journal.