This lesson introduces both history as a study and history as a story.

It gives a definition of history that

goes beyond the usual understanding of history as the study of the past. It also examines a number of
historical topics, which opens the door to the discipline's theoretical components. The historian's
historical approach and the distinction between primary and secondary sources are also examined in
respect to the historical subject matter being studied.

Finally, this module addresses the historian's role as arbiter of facts and evidences in building historical
narratives and making interpretations.

The word history comes from the Greek word historia, which means "knowledge gained by examination
or inquiry." History has been studied for almost 2,400 years, and it predates both mathematics and
philosophy. This phrase was then translated into classical Latin, where it took on a new meaning.
Historia came to be defined as a written description of a person's or a group's past based on historical
data and written records. Until the early twentieth century, that meaning remained. History has grown
in importance as a subject of study. It became the historian's responsibility to chronicle the lives of
notable people such as rulers, heroes, saints, and nobility.

Indeed, history as a field has evolved into a multifaceted and dynamic investigation. This dynamism
unavoidably resulted in a variety of opinions on the discipline, such as: What is history? What is the
point of studying history? And who is history for? Historiography can provide answers to these
questions. Historiography is the study of the study of history.

History and historiography are not interchangeable terms. The past, past events, and the reasons of
such occurrences are the subject of the former's research. On the other hand, the latter's subject of
study is history itself (e.g., how was a particular historical text written?). Who penned it? What was the
context in which it was published? What method of historical research was used? What sources were
used?).

As a result, historiography aids students in developing a better comprehension of history. They not only
acquire historical facts, but they also gain an awareness of the situations in which the data were
discovered and the historian's conclusions were reached. The historian's methodology, as well as the
philosophy and perspective that guided him, will be examined. Historiography is crucial for history
students because it encourages them to be critical of the historical lessons they are provided with.

From precolonial times to the present, Philippine historiography has seen various transformations.
Ancient Filipinos told their stories through communal songs and epics, which were passed down from
generation to generation verbally. When the Spaniards arrived, their chroniclers began keeping written
chronicles of their observations. The perspective of historical research and writing has evolved as well.
In a bipartite approach, the Spanish colonizers told the history of their colony. They considered the
period before colonization as a dark period in the islands' history, until Western thought and Christianity
brought light to the situation.
The tripartite concept was presented by early nationalists to dispute this viewpoint. They considered
precolonial life as a dazzling epoch that came to an end when the colonists seized their independence.
They believed that once the colonists were ousted from the Philippines, the light would return. The new
guiding principle for writing and teaching history was introduced by Filipino historian Zeus Salazar:
pantayong pananaw (for us-from us perspective). This viewpoint emphasizes the significance of
promoting internal dialogue and discourse among Filipinos about our own history in a language that is
accessible to all.

Any history that has been taught or published has always been meant for a specific group of people. The
ilustrados, such as Jose Rizal, Isabelo de los Reyes, and Pedro Paterno, wrote history for the Spaniards so
that they would understand that Filipinos are people with their own intelligence and culture. When
American historians painted the Filipinos as barbarians in their books, they were attempting to persuade
their own countrymen to legitimize their colonization of the islands. They intended colonization to
appear like a civilizing mission to alleviate what they called the "white man's burden," rather than a
method of weakening the Philippines' sovereignty. North Korea, Nazi Germany during World War II, and
Thailand are examples of countries that prescribe official narratives of their histories. Marcos attempted
something similar in the Philippines in the 1970s.

One of the issues that history has to deal with is the claim that history is always written by winners. This
implies that the history is always written from the point of view of the powerful and dominant player.
For example, the United States is always seen as the hero in the history of the Second World War in the
Philippines, whereas the Imperial Japanese Army is usually depicted as the oppressors. Filipinos who
collaborated with the Japanese were branded as traitors or collaborators. A more extensive historical
inquiry, on the other hand, will reveal a more nuanced picture of that period's history, rather than a
simple narrative as a hero vs villain scenario.

The Scientific History

Is it feasible to come up with an absolute historical truth if history is written with an agenda or is
substantially affected by the historian? Is history a discipline that is objective? Is it still worthwhile to
study history if it isn't? For many decades, historians have been plagued by these questions. For the
sheer fact that we cannot go back in time, an exact and true description of the past is impossible. We
are unable to directly access the past as a source of information. Historians can only access historical
materials and facts in order to represent the past.As a result, the historian's job include not just
gathering historical evidence and facts, but also interpreting such evidences and facts. “Facts are
incapable of speaking by themselves.” The historian's task is to provide meaning to these data by
organizing them into a timeline, determining causes, and writing history. Meanwhile, a historian isn't a
piece of paper that mechanically evaluates and analyzes current historical events. He is a unique
individual who is influenced by his surroundings, philosophy, education, and influences, among other
things. In this way, his surroundings and circumstances influence his understanding of historical facts.
His subjectivity will unavoidably impact the historical research process, including the methods he
employs, the information he chooses and considers relevant, his interpretation, and even the format of
his works. As a result, history is always subjective in some sense. Can history still be considered an
intellectual and scientific study if this is the case?

Historical research necessitates objectivity. Despite the fact that historians cannot guarantee full
neutrality, the study of history remains scientific due to the rigor with which historians conduct research
and methods. Historical methodology refers to the strategies and standards historians use to
appropriately use sources and historical evidence when writing history. When there are competing
reports in different sources, certain standards apply, as well as how to appropriately handle eyewitness
accounts and oral sources as historical evidence.

While historians' historical assertions and arguments in their historical writings may be influenced by the
historian's inclinations, they may still be validated by using credible data and applying precise and
thorough historical technique.

For example, if a historian chooses to use an oral tale as data in researching the ethnic history of the
Ifugaos in the Cordilleras under the American occupation, he must compare and corroborate his
informant's statements with documented sources. While bias is unavoidable, the historian might
mitigate it by depending on facts to support his claims. In this sense, the historian should not allow his
bias to cloud his judgment, and such bias is only permissible if he maintains his research rigor.

historical Sources

Historical sources are the historian's most significant research tools because history is about the past.
Historical sources can be divided into two categories: primary and secondary. The historical subject
being investigated determines how sources are classified into these two categories.