Historical Methodology

1. Historical Methodology

Historical methodology comprises certain techniques and rules that historians follow for proper utilization of sources
and historical evidences in writing history. There are also certain rules that apply in cases of conflicting accounts in
different sources, and on how to treat eyewitness accounts and oral sources as valid historical evidence.

These methodology includes:

1. Historiography
2. External and Internal Criticism
3. School of thought: Positivism and Postcolonialism
4. Annales School of Thought
5. Pantayong Pananaw (for us – from us perspective).

1.1. Historiography
History and historiography are two different things. History is a discipline that focuses on studying the past;
while historiography 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):

1. If the sources all agree about an event, historians consider the event proved.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measurably enhanced.
7. 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.

Philippine Historiography underwent several changes from the precolonial period until the present. Ancient Filipinos
narrated their history through communal songs and epics that they passed orally from a generation to another. When
the Spaniards came, their chroniclers started recording their observations through written accounts. Filipino historian
Zeus Salazar introduced the new guiding philosophy for writing and teaching history: pantayang pananaw (for us –
from our perspective). This perspective highlights the importance of facilitating an internal conversation and discourse
among Filipinos about our own history, using the language understood by everyone.

1.2. External vs Internal Criticism

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 has produced; and the materials used for the evidence.

Things that needs to be examined: quality of the paper, the type of ink, and the language and words used in the
material, among others.

Internal Criticism is the examination of the truthfulness of the evidence. It looks at the truthfulness and factuality of
the evidence by looking at the author of the source, its context, the agenda behind its creation, the knowledge that
informed it, and its intended purpose.
Validating historical sources is important because the use of unverified, falsified, and untruthful historical sources can
lead to equally false conclusions. Without thorough criticisms of historical shreds of evidence, historical deceptions and
lies will be highly probable.

1.3. School of Thought

Positivism

Emerged between 18th and 19th century. This school of thought requires empirical and observable evidence before
one can claim that a particular knowledge is true. It entails an objectives mean of arriving at a conclusion. Positivist
historians are expected to be objective and impartial not just in their arguments but on their conduct of historical
research.

Post-colonialism

Emerged in early 20th century when formerly colonized nations grapple with the idea of creating their identities and
understanding their societies against the shadows of their colonial past. Looks at two things in writing history: to tell
history of their nation that will highlight their identity free from that of colonial discourse and knowledge; to criticize
the methods, effects and idea of colonialism. Postcolonial history, therefore, is a reaction and an alternative to the
colonial history colonial powers created and taught to their subjects.
1.4. Annales School of History
Annales School of History. A school of history born in France that challenged the canons of history.

Annales scholars:

1. Lucien Febvre
2. Marc Bloch
3. Fernand Braduel
4. Jacques Le Goff

They were concerned with social history and studied longer historical periods. They advocated that the people and
classes that is not included in the history of the society in the grand manner needs a space in the records of humankind.
Annales thinkers married history with other disciplines like geography.

1.5. Pantayong Pananaw (for us – from us

perspective).
Pantayong Pananaw highlights the importance of facilitating an internal conversation and discourse among Filipinos
about our own history, using the language that is understood by everyone.

Pantayong Pananaw (The “We” Perspective) is defined as a method of acknowledging the history and development of
the nation based on the “internal interconnectedness and linking of characteristics, values, knowledge, wisdom,
aspirations, practices, behavior, and experiences as a unified whole” — a unity that is framed by and expressed in a
single language; that is, within an autonomous, self-directed discourse of progress and civilization. This is a reality
within any ethno-linguistic group, among us or anywhere in the world, with a singular wholeness and identity.