Lapu-Lapu: Documentary Analysis PDF

Preview

Summary

Analyzed paper from the documentary in youtube that is about Lapu-lapu...

Description

1. What were the different primary and secondary sources that were featured in the documentary? Were the credibility, reliability and authenticity of these sources established? - There were various sources presented in the documentary. First, in the National Historical Commission of the Philippines, books written by Magellan’s companions are kept. One of these is Antonio Pigafetta’s Chronicles. Pigafetta is an Italian scholar who is said to be the official chronicler of Magellan and an eyewitness to the Battle of Mactan. Thus, people believed what was written in his Chronicles. However, as Pigafetta’s Chronicles was originally written in another language, it is possible that there could have been mistranslations of the text. Some would defend, though, that several translators have tried to translate it and the error would have been corrected had there been any. Again, it does not change the fact that it is still prone to mistranslation and misinterpretation as translators differ in their own understanding of the text. This is the most cited source when it comes to Lapu-Lapu’s existence, as this is also the earliest account to ever exist. Pigafetta’s credibility and reliability was established, him being the assistant of Magellan during the expedition. However, authenticity of his Chronicles is hard to prove as there had been no other accounts to support it. Or at least not mentioned in the documentary. -

Another source presented are the various shrines and statues built in Mactan Cebu. These shrines are statues, however, are just depictions and possibly romanticized versions of Lapu-Lapu as there had been no one who was able to describe him perfectly. Even Pigafetta wasn’t able to see him in person since he witnessed the battle only from afar. In my opinion, it would have been impossible for him even if he was close enough due to the number of people fighting against each other. People could have scattered in the area and it would be impossible to check each other’s features. Normally, if you were in a battle, you don’t check the opponent’s features but your

focus would rather be on winning the fight. These statues and shrines are clearly questionable in terms of credibility, reliability, and authenticity. These were made out of pure imagination of how the Filipinos at the time looked liked and how people would perceive a hero like Lapu-Lapu. As elementary pupils, we believed what was taught to us in school and trusted the books because those had to be based upon primary sources, or be the primary sources itselves. The story could have been true but Lapu-Lapu will always be a faceless hero because nothing could ever represent him perfectly unless a perfect description from a reliable source surfaces. -

The last given sources were the old residents in Camotes City, where Lapu-Lapu was believed to have originally come from. These were stories handed down by word of mouth from generation to generation. Word of mouth passed down to many generations will never be credible, reliable, and authentic as it is the most prone to alterations. A person’s memory will fail him or her and this might have caused alterations as older generations passed these stories onto the next. The narratives could have been changed because the earlier generations could have omitted or added details from the real narrative.

-

In discussing history, it is of utmost importance that the narratives aren’t changed. Primary sources are to be used to ensure credibility, reliability, and authenticity. Secondary sources may be used as well to support the events and data presented however these may fail to provide credibility, reliability, or authenticity.

2. What are some of the limitations cited in the documentary which led to the problem of us not knowing very much about Lapu-Lapu? - In our textbooks, which we use to teach the pupils at school, only short paragraphs were written about him. There were no details

about his life, family, or even his death. The only truth we know about him is that he killed Magellan. This is even a bit questionable, too, given the fact that there is almost nothing to prove its authenticity. The fact that it has been a lot of years and still, nothing is found to further support the claims makes it even more unreliable. This goes to show that anything in history, without historical data to properly support it, is in risk of getting debunked and thus result in being categorized as a mere hearsay. The narratives about Lapu-Lapu might soon be considered obsolete and his entire existence will be questionable, despite the fact that we have been teaching him in elementary schools. Historians may uncover the truth to his existence or non-existence. 3. Why are there so many versions of Lapu-Lapu’s name (based on the documentary)? Do you think that this will cause confusion? How can we reconcile the problem? - The narratives available give three variations of Lapu-Lapu’s name. Reformists during Rizal’s time didn’t use Lapu-Lapu. These variations are bound to cause confusion, and might further support the idea of Lapu-Lapu as being a myth. People can have various nicknames, yes, but in Lapu-Lapu’s case this will only make people doubt his existence even more. If the people during his time are confused as to what his real name was, then it is also most likely to happen to the people in the present. Nonetheless, we can reconcile this problem by collectively agreeing to use one name. It is also possible to clear the confusion if we are able to uncover the truth about his identity. This is almost impossible now, though. If there are other proofs that exist, people could have uncovered them already. The truth could have surfaced if there really is one aside from what we know now. 4. What were the contending/conflicting versions on the location of the Battle of Mactan? What was the evidence presented by both parties? - The two locations were Opon (now Mactan) or Camotes Island.

Mactan is the recognized location but not much evidence was presented in the documentary. Camotes Island, however, being the one to oppose what most people know has shown pieces of evidence. First, it is claimed that it would have been impossible to be in Opon because of the number of people that was described by Pigafetta. Next, potteries were uncovered where valuable artifacts were collected. Lastly, skeletons were uncovered as well and these skeletons are believed to be of foreigners. Now, these artifacts aren’t even carbon-dated so it would be hard to check whether this evidence coincides with the period of Magellan’s expedition. It is also possible that the skeletons and potteries that were uncovered belong to other individuals. We cannot easily jump to the conclusion that these indeed belong to Magellan and his team. It also remains questionable as to who buried these artifacts in the area. Another point to consider is the truth that the battle was like a massacre to Lapu-Lapu’s side. There should have been a lot of skeletons that are uncovered if that were the case. It was a bloody encounter but the artifacts that were uncovered sort of suggest a civilization (a big settlement as explained by Jojo Bersales) starting to progress, not a bloody massacre. Those gold, pendants, panaksan and other artifacts do not suggest a battle. Although they did say that other artifacts like swords are not with them, and that there were looters before them. 5. On the issue of the descendants of Lapu-Lapu, what was the evidence presented by those who claimed that they are related to Lapu-Lapu? How can we establish the credibility of these people? The reliability of their statement? - The Pagobos claimed their family names were changed because they will be killed if found related to Lapu-Lapu. However, historians argue that Legazpi, who traced Magellan’s route, was never ordered to look for Magellan’s remains or Lapu-Lapu’s descendants so they could have never been threatened to be killed. The proof was their ancestor Muchong who was believed to be a very strong man and was also bulletproof because of his

Antingan. This is hard to believe as there has been no Muchong recorded in the history that matches the given description. It can be considered as a mere legend, and legends will never be considered for reliability tests. Although it could have been possible that their family names were indeed changed, there is no concrete evidence that will support this claim. Especially since this story is passed on from generations to generations through word of mouth, we cannot trace the root of their belief. -

The Talintings talked about how Lapu-Lapu ended up after the battle, and how he has the power of foreseeing the future events, thus having prepared for the battle even before Magellan came. Evidence presented was mostly mythical as well, believing rocks to be people from the past. They also built statues from folktales out of dreams. Of course I find it hard to believe this evidence and thus completely refuting their claim of being Lapu-Lapu’s descendants. The reliability of their statements is hard to prove since there are no plausible explanations as to how these things make sense. Moreover, to believe in being one’s descendant because of a dream or because of some rock formations is not sound to me.

-

-

These people who claim to be descendants are not credible as they are not primary sources, nor their claims can be supported by one. To accept one who claims being Lapu-Lapu’s descendant, I believe familial records that will coincide with history can be considered. It can be any verifiable account or text. However, given the confusion in Lapu-Lapu’s mere existence and the lack of resources available that is related to him, it might be hard to establish credibility. It is also very unlikely that someone will be proven to be his descendant. Claims and statements about this can be considered reliable if they do not involve mythical ideas or anything fictitious. Moreover, it has to be backed up by historical data where

someone can check and trace back to the roots. Maybe then we will be able to learn more about Lapu-Lapu aside from the fact that w=he was the one who killed Magellan....