MODULE 2 Flashcards
Reviewer
Q: What are primary sources in historical research?
A: Contemporary accounts of an event, personally written or narrated by individuals who directly experienced or participated in the event.
Q: Give examples of primary sources.
A: Diaries, journal entries, letters, memoirs, speeches, interviews, photographs, voice and video recordings, official records, artworks, and artifacts.
Q: What are secondary sources in historical research?
A: Interpretations or readings of primary sources, often incorporating the author’s personal insights and analyses.
Q: Give examples of secondary sources.
A: Journals, articles, reviews, books, conference papers, and documentaries.
Q: Why are primary sources considered original sources?
A: They directly narrate the details of an event without interpretation or alteration.
Q: How do secondary sources differ from primary sources?
A: Secondary sources provide interpretations or analyses of primary sources, often detaching the original value of the subject being discussed
Q: What is a common use of secondary sources in historical research?
A: To gain different perspectives on a particular topic.
Q: Can secondary sources combine primary and secondary data?
A: Yes, secondary sources can include a combination of primary and secondary information.
Q: Who conducted the initial excavations of the Tabon Cave in 1962?
A: Robert B. Fox.
Q: What significant discovery was made during the excavations of Tabon Cave in 1962?
.
A: Scattered fossil bones of at least three individuals, including a large fragment of a frontal bone and portions of nasal bones
Q: Where were the fossil bones of Tabon Man found in the cave?
A: Towards the rear of the cave along the left wall.
Q: What was initially uncertain about the association of the Tabon Man fossils?
A: The association of the fossil bones with a specific flake assemblage.
Q: What did subsequent excavations suggest about the fossil bones of Tabon Man?
A: The fossil bones were associated with Flake Assemblage II, as only flakes from this assemblage have been found in that area.
Q: What is the estimated age of Tabon Man based on available data?
A: 22,000 to 24,000 years ago.
Q: What needs to be done to determine the exact age of the human fossils from Tabon Cave?
A: Further excavations and chemical analysis of the disturbed and undisturbed levels in the cave.
Q: What type of human fossils were discovered in Tabon Cave?
A: Fossils of Homo sapiens.
Q: What did Scott’s preliminary study suggest about the skull dimensions of Tabon Man?
A: The skull dimensions of Tabon Man were above average when compared to modern Filipinos.
Q: According to Scott’s study, was there any evidence that Tabon Man was less brainy than modern humans?
A: No, there was no evidence suggesting that Tabon Man was less brainy.
Q: What will be included in the final site report for Tabon Cave?
A: A separate study of the fossil bones by a specialist.
Q: Who is the founder of the Anthropology Department at the University of the Philippines?
A: H. Otley Beyer.
A: H. Otley Beyer.
Q: What is the first and widely known theory of the prehistoric peopling of the Philippines?
A: Beyer’s Wave of Migration theory.
Q: According to Beyer, how did the ancestors of the Filipinos first arrive in the Philippines?
A: They first arrived via land bridges during times when the sea level was low, and later by seagoing vessels such as the balangay.
Q: What are the different “waves of migration” proposed by Beyer?
A:
Dawn Man, a cave-man type similar to Java man and Peking Man (250,000 years ago).
The Negritos, an aboriginal pygmy group, arriving between 25,000 and 30,000 years ago.
The Indonesian group, arriving about 5,000 to 6,000 years ago, who were the first to reach the Philippines by sea.
The Malays, a more civilized group who brought Iron Age culture and were the real colonizers in pre-Hispanic Philippines.
Q: What was the main criticism of Beyer’s Wave of Migration theory?
A: It was based on 19th-century scientific methods of progressive evolution and migratory diffusion, which have since been proven to be too simple and unreliable to explain the prehistoric peopling of the Philippines.