ANDRES SORIANO COLLEGES OF BISLIG

MANGAGOY, SURIGAO DEL SUR

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ACCOUNTANCY

READINGS IN THE PHILLIPPINE HISTORY

CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION TO HISTORY: DEFINITION, ISSUES, SOURCES, AND
METHODOLOGY
 READINGS IN THE PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Module 1: THE MEANING AND RELEVANCE OF HISTORY

Distinction of Primary and Secondary Sources

Prepared by: Joy Mark P. Hingco

(Week 1-2)

“Who controls the present, controls the past.

Who controls the past, controls the future” - GEORGE ORWELL

LESSON 1- DEFINITION OF HISTORY I-

Objective

• To be able to understand the meaning of history as an academic discipline and to be familiar with the
underlying philosophy and methodology of the discipline.
• To apply the knowledge in historical methodology and philosophy in assessing and analyzing
existing historical narratives.
• To examine and assess critically the value of historical evidences and sources.
• To appreciate the importance of history in the social and national life of the Philippines.

II- Reference:

Candelaria, J.L. et. al. (2018) Readings in Philippine History. Rex Book Store. Manila.

III- Input

HISTORY

• Derived from the Greek word ―historia‖ which means ―knowledge acquired through inquiry or
investigation‖.
• Also known as the study of the past.
• Is the account of the past of a person or a group of people through written documents and historical
evidences.

NO DOCUMENT, NO HISTORY

• It means that unless a written document can prove a certain historical event, then it cannot be
considered as a historical fact.
• There are theories constructed by historians in investigating history;
a) Factual History
b) Speculative History
 Factual History - presents readers the plain and basic information, the events that took place
(what), the time and date with which the event happened (when), the place with which the
event took place, and the people that were involved (who).

Speculative History - it goes beyond facts because it is concerned about the reasons for
which events happened (why), and the way they happened (how). - It tries to speculate on the
cause and effect of an event – (Cantal, Cardinal et.al.)

Historiography/ historical method (Internal and External)

• HISTORIOGRAPHY - The practice of historical writing is called historiography, the traditional

method in doing historical research that focus on gathering of documents from different libraries and
archives to form a pool of evidence needed in making descriptive or analytical narrative.

• History and historiography are two different things. History is a discipline that focuses on studying
the past; while historiography or historical method is the history itself.

• To make it clearer, historiography lets the students have a better understanding of history. They do
not only get to learn historical facts, but they are also provided with the understanding of the facts’
and historians’ contexts. The methods employed by the historian and the theory and perspective,
which guided him, will also be analyzed.

• Essentially, historiography comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use primary
sources and other evidence to research and then to write histories in the form of accounts of the past.
The question of the nature, and even the possibility, of a sound historical method is raised

• History and historiography are two different things. History is a discipline that focuses on studying
the past; while historiography or historical method is the history itself.

• To make it clearer, historiography lets the students have a better understanding of history. They do
not only get to learn historical facts, but they are also provided with the understanding of the facts’
and historians’ contexts. The methods employed by the historian and the theory and perspective,
which guided him, will also, be analyzed.

• Essentially, historiography comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use primary
sources and other evidence to research and then to write histories in the form of accounts of the past.
The question of the nature, and even the possibility, of a sound historical method is raised.

The following are some procedures for people who wanted to employ historiography, as proposed by
Bernheim (1889) and Langlois & Seignobos (1898):

a) If the sources all agree about an event, historians consider the event proved.
b) However, majority does no rule; even if most sources relate events in one way, that version will
not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis.
c) The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some of its
parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible similarly to confirm the entire text.
d) When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source with most
―authority‖-that is the source created by the eyewitness.
 e) Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where the ordinary
observer could have accurately reported what transpired and, more specifically, when they deal
facts known by most contemporaries.
f) If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measurably
enhanced.
g) When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then historians take the
source which seems to accord best with common sense.

• Aside from these procedures, historiography also involves the employment of internal and external
criticisms. External criticism is the practice of verifying the authenticity of evidence by
examining its physical characteristics; consistency with the historical characteristic of the time when
it was produced; and the materials used for the evidence. Examples of the things that will be
examined when conducting external criticism of a document include the quality of the paper, the type
of ink and the language and words used in the material, among others.

• Internal criticism, on the other hand, is the examination of the truthfulness of the evidence. It
looks at the content of the source and examines the circumstance of its production.

LESSON 2 – HISTORICAL SOURCES

Sources – an object from the past or testimony concerning the past on which historians depend in order
to create their own depiction of that past.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SOURCES

• In conducting any historical research, different sources of information are required to gain extensive
knowledge on a particular topic.

• Some researchers rely on written sources while others choose to make use of oral sources.

• Primary sources are those sources produced at the same time as the event, period, or subject being
studied. It contains original information that is not derived from interpretation, summarizing or
analyzing someone else’s work. Furthermore, they are first-hand and not interpreted by anyone else,
they offer a personal point of view, and are created by a witnesses of, or participants in, an event.
Examples of these are diaries, letters and official records.

• These sources are considered as contemporary accounts of an event, personally written or narrated
by an individual person who directly experienced or participated in the said event.

Primary sources also include materials that capture the event such as photographs, voice and video
recordings, and the like. These materials are considered as original sources that directly narrate the
details of the event.

Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to what actually happened during
an historical event or time period.
 o Diary
o o Interviews
o Journal entries
o Official Records

o Letters
o Minutes
o Memoirs
o Artworks
o Speeches
o Artifacts

Primary sources mostly include unpublished works of individuals that were discovered after some
time as during historical excavation and historical researches done in public and private libraries.

Newspapers and magazine articles are also considered primary sources as long as they were written
soon after the events and not as historical account.

Sound Recordings and interviews are considered primary resources.

Why use primary sources?

 Primary sources provide a window into the past—unfiltered access to the record of artistic,
social, scientific and political thought and achievement during the specific period under
study, produced by people who lived during that period.

 These unique, often profoundly personal, documents and objects can give a very real sense
of what it was like to be alive during a long-past era. What are the disadvantages?

 Primary sources are often incomplete and have little context. Students must use prior
knowledge and work with multiple primary sources to find patterns.

 In analyzing primary sources, students move from concrete observations and facts to
questioning and making inferences about the materials.

Secondary Sources - are those sources, which were produced by an author who used primary
sources to produce the material. In other words, secondary sources are historical sources, which
studied a certain historical subject. Examples are biography of a famous person or a
documentary about a historic event, book that provides an introduction to a theorist’s work or
critiques; or an article that reviews research in a particular area and provides a summary of the
key findings.

 Secondary sources are written "after the fact" - that is, at a later date.

 Usually the author of a secondary source will have studied the primary sources of an
historical period or event and will then interpret the "evidence" found in these sources.
  You can think of secondary sources as second-hand information.

Think about it like this…. If I tell you something, I am the primary source. If you tell someone
else what I told you, you are the secondary source.

 Secondary source materials can be articles in newspapers, magazines, books or articles

found that evaluate or criticize someone else's original research.

Why Use Secondary Sources? Advantages

 Secondary sources can provide analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the

original information.
 Secondary sources are best for uncovering background or historical information about a
topic and broadening your understanding of a topic by exposing you to others’
perspectives, interpretations, and conclusions
 Allows the reader to get expert views of events and often bring together multiple primary
sources relevant to the subject matter

Secondary Source Disadvantages

 Their reliability and validity are open to question, and often they do not provide exact
information
 They do not represent first-hand knowledge of a subject or event
 There are countless books, journals, magazine articles and web pages that attempt to interpret
the past and finding good secondary sources can be an issue.

Evaluation of Primary and Secondary Sources

 Primary source provides better and more accurate historical details compared to a secondary
source. However, the authenticity and reliability of primary sources should be scrutinized before
they are used.
 In this day and age, the proliferation of fake news is evident in both print and digital media
platforms.
 Although primacy is given to primary sources, there are instances when the credibility of these
sources are contestable. Garraghan (1950) identified six points of inquiries to evaluate the
authenticity of a primary source:
1) Date – When was it produced?
2) Localization – Where did it originate?
3) Authorship – Who wrote it?
4) Analysis – What pre-existing material served as the basis for its production?
5) Integrity – What was its original form?
6) Credibility – What is the evidential value of its content?
  Secondary accounts of historical events are narratives commonly passed on from one generation
to the next or knowledge that is shared within a community. Similar to the usual problem with
passing information from one point to another, details can be altered.
 Louis Gottschalk (1969) emphasized that is impossible for historians to avoid using secondary
sources due to difficulty in accessing primary sources. He suggested that secondary sources must
only be used for:
1) Deriving the setting wherein the contemporary evidence will fit in the grand narrative
of history:
2) Getting leads to other bibliographic data
3) Acquiring quotations or citations from contemporary or other sources; and
4) Deriving interpretations with a view of testing and improving them but not accepting
them as outright truth.
 Martha Howell and Walter Prevenier (2001) stated that before any source can be considered as
evidence in a historical argument, it must satisfy three preconditions.
1) It must be comprehensible at the most basic level of vocabulary, language, and
handwriting
2) The source must be carefully located in accordance with place and time. Its author,
composer, or writer and the location where it was produced/published should be noted
for the checking of authenticity and accuracy.
3) The authenticity of the source must always be checked and counterchecked before
being accepted as a credible source in any historical findings. Subtle details such as
the quality of paper used, the ink or the watermark of the parchment used, and the
way it was encoded.
 Cases of forgery and mislabeling are common in Philippine historiography.
 Ambeth Ocampo’s discovery of the alleged draft of Jose Rizal’s third novel, the
Makamisa
 Signature of Gen. Urbano Lacuna that led to the captivity of signature Emilio
Aguinaldo
 Signature of Jose Rizal in the great retraction controversy  Josephine Bracken
and Jose Rizal marriage under Catholic rites  Internal criteria set by Howell
and Prevenier (2001):
1) The genealogy of the document – refers to the development of the document.
The document may be original, a copy, or a copy of the copy.
2) The genesis of the document – includes the situations and the authorities during the
document’s production.
3) The originality of the document – includes the nature of the document whether it is
an eye/earwitness account or merely passing of existing information.
4) The interpretation of the document – pertains to deducing meaning from the
document.
5) The authority of the document – refers to the relationship between the document’s
subject matter and its author.
6) The competence of the observer – refers to the author’s capabilities and qualifications
to critically comprehend and report information.
7) The trustworthiness of the observer – refers to the author’s integrity – whether he or
she fabricates or reports truthfully
 Primary sources: How these sources are directly related and closely connected to the time of the
events they pertain to.
  Secondary sources: Depends on the elapsed time from the date of the event to the date of their
creation. More likely, the farther the date of creation from the actual event, the more reliable the
source is (exhaustion of all available materials)

“Only a part of what was observed in the past

was remembered by those who observed it;
only a part of what was remembered was
recorded; only a part of what was recorded
has survived; only a part of what has
survived has come to the historian's
attention.” - Louis Gottschalk
"Only a part of what is credible has been
grasped, and only a part of what has been
grasped can be expounded or narrated by ,,
the historian. " - Louis Gottschalk

IV- SHORT QUIZ

TRUE OR FALSE. Write true if the Statement is true. Otherwise, write false in the space provided.
__________________ 1. History is the study of the past
__________________ 2. Historical sources that were not written whould not be used in
writing history
__________________ 3. The subject of historiography is history itself.
__________________ 4. History has no use for the present, thus, the saying ―past is past‖ is
true.
__________________ 5. History is limited to the story of a hero versus a villain.
__________________ 6. Only primary sources may be used in writing history.
__________________ 7. There are three types of sources: primary, secondary, and tertiary
sources.
__________________ 8. External criticism is done by examining the physical characteristics
of a source.

__________________ 9. Internal criticism is done by looking at a source’s quality of paper

and type of ink, among others.
__________________ 10. The historians are the only source of history.

V- ASSIGNMENT

Prepare for a graded recitation.