UNIT

1Introduction to History: Definition, Sources, and Methodologies

Lesson 2 Sources in History

Learning Outcomes
At the end of the lesson, you are expected to:
1. Differentiate primary and secondary sources of history records;
2. Evaluate the provenance of history materials; and
3. Identify possible repositories of primary source

Data sources provide evidence of the historian gathering information from historical
events. Historians not only rely on data in writing history but also contextualize the
documents and historical records.

Pretest (Do not answer)

Fake News or Real News
Directions: In the space provided, write your insights in the following story behind the
Oblation statue of the University of the Philippines (UP). Is it a credible source material or
not?

When you visit any UP campus, it is not difficult to

see the Oblation. In the UP Diliman campus, the popular
statue, measuring 3.5 meters in height, was constructed during
the university presidency of Rafael Palma. First-time
observers, whether part of the UP community or not, usually
ask “Who is the model of the famous UP symbol, the
Oblation?”
The answer is Fernando Poe, Sr., a UP student during
the time. Natural artist Guillermo Tolentino, a professor at the
UP School of Fine Arts, created the statue.

Figure 1 UP Oblation
Photo credits: sites.google.com

___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Learning Content

Historical Source

Sources are our way of peering into the past but they all pose their own advantages
and challenges in the various kinds. Groeneveld (2017), remarked the distinction between
primary and secondary sources. A primary source is first-hand material that stems (roughly)
from the time period that one wants to examine, whereas a secondary source is an additional
step removed from that period – a 'second-hand' work that is the result of reconstructing and
interpreting the past using the primary material, such as textbooks, articles, and, of course,
and websites.

Historical sources can be classified into;

1. Written sources which can be books, eyewitness accounts, copies of speech,
letters, diaries, magazines, newspaper, laws, maps, etc and
2. Non-written sources such as remains, relics, fossils, videos, etc.

There are two types of historical sources

1. Primary sources are those sources produced at the same time as the event, period, or
subject being studied. It is considered as the lifeblood of history. Examples of primary
sources are minutes of the meeting, diaries and journals, autobiographies, speeches, receipts,
essays written by a person expressing his views, laws, letters of instruction, decrees, letters,
eyewitness accounts, official reports, newsletter Articles reporting directly about the event,
editorials or books containing direct quotation of events. A primary source is something that
originates from the past. It can be a chronicle, a piece of pottery, or even a piece of glacial ice
that gives us climate data about the levels of atmospheric carbon one thousand years ago.
 Historians, to the best of their abilities, work with primary sources to understand the past on
its own terms, not through the modern-day lenses (Rank, 2020).
2. Secondary sources are documents or works made by individuals who are not directly
involved to the events or made by people who obtained the information from
somebody else or from primary sources (Grey, 2017). Examples of primary sources
are textbooks, encyclopedia entries, newspapers accounts of a meeting, magazine
articles about a subject or teacher’s reports on student behavior as reported by school
counselors.

Internal and External Criticism

1. 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

Below is the format on how to name your file.

minutes of
meeting decrees Course, year and Section_ name_
lesson number
receipts
BS CE-1B_Philip John Alcazarin_
Lesson 2
Rr

Activity 1. Complete the Word Web

letters Directions: Enumerate journals examples of primary sources.
Write your answers on the web diagram below

Laws autobiograp
hies
speeches

Primary
Source
Activity 2. Comparative Analysis: Primary vs. Secondary Sources
Directions: Read the following materials and fill in the table with the necessary information.

The Katipunan and the Revolution: Memoirs of a General

By: Santiago V. Alvarez (1992)

About the Author

As the information stated in the book, “Santiago V. Alvarez was born in Noveleta,
Cavite on July 27, 1872. During his early years, he studied at San Juan de Letran and the
University of Santo Tomas, and later at Liceo de Manila to take up law. A son of
revolutionary leader Mariano Alvarez, he himself became Captain General of the Magdiwang
forces and fought with distinction against Spain in the battles of 1896-1897. After the
Revolution’s defeat by the U.S. Army, Alvarez became president of Nacioalista Party’s
directorate in 1901 and served as leader of the Philippine Independent Church”. The work
under review, “The Katipunan and the Revolution: Memoirs of a General” is a product of
prodding from someone Alvarez considered as his colleague and friend in the person of Lope
K. Santos-admittedly “to shed lights on the different facets of the revolution”. This memoir,
as he claimed, is a product of close proximity to the “major personalities” of the Revolution,
namely Andres Bonifacio, Dr. Pio Valenzuela and Emilio Jacinto as he was able to keep
notes about the experiences. At the time Alvarez completed this work, he was fifty five years
old. He died at San Pablo, Laguna in 1930, about three years after the completion of this
work.

Introduction

Content Analysis

The book was originally published in Sampagita, a Tagalog weekly during the 1920’s.
It was serialized from 24 July 1927 to 15 April 1928. The original work was written in
Tagalog but was translated by Paula Carolina S. Malay in English. Composed of four
hundred sixty six pages, two hundred thirty six is the English translation while two hundred
pages composed the original Tagalog text, included is the appendix on the comments of
Teodoro Gonzales about the series. The book was divided into eighty parts; probably the
number it appeared in the weekly.
The work is a faithful reconstruction of events that happened in the brightest period of
our history as a people longing for an independent country. This work did not have any
pretention of an academic “high brow” but in the process has created a new form of
historiography, of writing history from the point of view of the masses. The uniqueness and
strength of this historical work lies in the fact that the author was an active participant in the
events he was writing about. This work is a collection of narratives of ordinary people living
in an extraordinary period.
Santiago Alvarez started his memoir on a specific date, March 14, 1896, the day when
the future military rival in Emilio Aguinaldo was to become a member of the secret society
initiated by the Supremo himself, Andres Bonifacio. Although his mentioning of important
dates associated with important personalities during this period was a recurrent theme in his
work, his narration of chronological events portrayed the lives not only of the major actors
but the ordinary “sons of the people” in an effort to write “history from below”. To
corroborate his own recollection, he also included the accounts of ordinary people, such as in
a case of Juan Maibay and Ramon Bernardo whose raw emotion was captured candidly by
Alvarez. The apprehension, excitement, superstition, anxiety, bravery, treachery, cowardice
were not filtered in his work, an account lacking in other memoirs relating to the period.
Readers who are familiar with the works of Agoncillo and Constantino particularly during
this time will find themselves a chance for a fresh look at the “facts” presented by them as
Alvarez readily offered firsthand account. In this work, readers are given a chance to
concretize their own historical analysis. Alvarez supplied his reader the raw materials to
develop an independent inquiry devoid of coloration. This work did not offer refuge to both
Magdalo and Magdiwang members and leaders alike; of their mistakes, miscalculations,
abuses, personal ambitions, of which caused the fatal rift between the two factions.
In this work, I was able to validate my early assumptions as a student of history of the
“grays” in the history of the Revolution, which other authors of Philippine history had only
mentioned briefly. Examples of these are stated below to emphasize the point. Instances like
the first signs of brewing rift between the two major councils, as represented by Aguinaldo
and Bonifacio. Pirating heads was already practiced by the Katipuneros as the Magdalo
faction has tried to persuade Artemio Ricarte and Pascual Alvarez of accepting military
commissions in the former ranks. Likewise, Alvarez narrated the event which confirmed the
cheating of Magdalo representatives during the election at Tejeros Convention. Treachery
even at the height of battle did not escape the narrative of Alvarez, as he wondered that,
during the defense of the fortification of San Francisco de Malabon, the site of retreat of
Magdiwang council after Novelata was besieged by the Spanish army, Col. Pio Del Pilar, a
Magdalo officer, suddenly withdrew, despite the previous commitment of helping the defense.
Alvarez also narrated the betrayal of Aguinaldo’s men when the Magdiwang Council, in a
gesture of settling the previous misunderstanding, lends their rifles to the Magdalo soldiers
who did not bother to return he weapons to its owners. Likewise, the controversial question of
why Aguinaldo did not assert his order of commuting the death sentence of Bonifacio brothers
after the court martial was also answered by Santiago Alvarez in the words if his cousin
Pascual Alvarez. These are but few examples of angles that are worth highlighting in the
study of the Revolution. In general, aside from his recollection, substantial portion of this
work were the recollections of ordinary actors of the period. An appendix was also included in
this book that discusses the comments of the events as recounted by Teodoro Gonzales, an
active participant in the Revolution. The comments somehow confirmed the vulnerability of
historical memoirs. However, the comments only strengthen Alvarez’s work in terms of the
correctness of his assessment of the period.

The Revolt of the Masses

By Teodoro Agoncillo (2002)

In dealing with Andres Bonifacio and the Katipunan, I have laid more emphasis on
the latter than on its founder and organizer, firstly, because of the dearth of materials on his
life, and secondly, because it is my belief that Bonifacio can best be seen and appreciated
against the backdrop of the revolutionary society. He could not have been greater than the
Katipunan. Nor could he have risen above it. To understand him, one must understand the
Katipunan. He looms great because of the society. He must, therefore, be seen in and through
the Katipunan, and this method of unraveling the thin and scattered threads of his life is valid
only because of the lack of materials.
In examining my sources of information, I have adopted the attitude of friendly
hostility. It has been my experience that most of the errors in the difficult task of interpretation
—which, after all, is the most important in any book—spring from the scholar’s uncritical
attitude. He takes for granted that the fame of an author is sufficient guaranty of reliability and
competence. Such mental outlook smacks of hypocrisy and cowardice. I have, therefore,
dismissed this line of reasoning as inadequate. In this book, I have subjected my sources to a
severe scrutiny, looked for loopholes, inconsistencies, and inaccuracies in order to arrive at a
balanced conclusion. Ricarte, for instance, hitherto regarded as incontrovertible, is, after a
careful examination, not always accurate and reliable. So is General Pio del Pilar. So are
certain documents on the trial and death of Bonifacio. And so are some of the opinions
expessed by the great scholars Epifanio de los Santos and Teodoro M. Kalaw. I shall probably
hear loud protests and whispered innuendos, but I invite the potential objectors to my method
to read my notes carefully, for in them I have embodied the reasons for repudiating some of the
claims of famous scholars, for dismissing this authority, and for accepting that document. —
T.A.A.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Eminent historian, poet, short story writer, editor, and professor, Teodoro A. Agoncillo was
born in Lemery, Batangas, on November 9, 1912. He earned his Bachelor in Philosophy
degree in 1934 and Master of Arts in 1939 at the University of the Philippines. He was
conferred the degree of Doctor of Letters, “Honoris Causa,” by the Central Philippines
University in 1969; Linguistic Assistant, Institute of National Language, 1951–1956;
Department Head, Department of History, 1963–1969; Rafael Palma Professor of Philippine
History, 1973–1976, and University Professor, 1976–1977, University of the Philippines;
Academician, National Academy of Science and Technology, 1980; and Commissioner,
National Historical Commission, 1967–1985. His distinguished books are History of the
Filipino People, The Revolt of the Masses: The Story of Bonifacio and the Katipunan,
Malolos: The Crisis of the Republic, and The Fateful Years: Japan’s Adventure in the
Philippines. His outstanding works in Philippine literature are Bahaghari’t Bulalakaw and Sa
Dalampasigan at Iba Pang Tula. He received the First Commonwealth Literary Contest
Award in History, 1940; First Prize for the Republic Contest on Bonifacio and the First
Epoch of the Revolution, 1948; Carlos Palanca Memorial Award in Philippine Literature for
Short Story (Tagalog division), 1953; Philippine Historical Associations Award for his
outstanding books on history and literature, 1975; the Diwa ng Lahi Award from the City of
Manila, 1982; and the posthumous award as National Scientist in 1985. He died on January
14, 1985.
 Category Alvarez Agoncillo
Brief description of the The way Alvarez wrote the A lot of events were
author
article was very detail introduced before getting to
oriented, it really focused on the main event which was
the tejeros convention. It the convention. While
made the readers feel like reading the article, it almost
they were there when the feels like he was covering up
convention happened because the wrong deeds that the
you can picture the scene in Magdalo officers have done
your mind clearly. He also because the sentences were
didn’t cover up any words that created in a beautifully
spewed out of the character’s poetic way. And also before
mouths and kept it clear and arriving at the main scene, so
straight to the point. many conflicts were
introduced by the author
which made the readers
understand why, what,
when, where and how did
the conflict of the magdalo
and magdiwang party
happened
Type of source (primary or Works - the Katipunan and Secondary)The type of
secondary)
toledo source that Agoncillo use is
Revolutions - Memoirs of a Primary to his study. In
general analyzing my wellsprings of
SECONDARY SOURCE: data, ithas been my
TEODORO AGONCILLO’S experience that the vast
“REVOLT OF THE MASS” majority of the blunders in
Daniel Tirona- Breakt the the troublesome undertaking
meeting rules and insulted the of understanding which is
elected Jose del Rosario the most significant in
anybook spring from the
 researcher's uncritical
demeanor.
Main points raised by the “The Katipunan and the The 1890s themes of
article Revolution: Memoirs of a exploitation and betrayal by
General” is a product of the propertied class, the rise
prodding from someone of a plebeian leader, and the
Alvarez considered as
his revolt of the masses against
colleague and friend in the
Spain, are implicitly being
person of Lope K. Santos-
played out in the late 1940s.
admittedly “to shed lights on
the different facets of the
revolution”. This memoir, as
he claimed, is a product of
close proximity to the “major
personalities” of the
Revolution, namely Andres
Bonifacio, Dr. Pio Valenzuela
and Emilio Jacinto as he was
able to keep notes about the
experiences.
Texts from the article which Santiago Alvarez started his In dealing with Andres
support the main points memoir on a specific date, Bonifacio and the Katipunan,
raised
March 14, 1896, the day when I have laid more emphasis on
the future military rival in the latter than on its founder
Emilio Aguinaldo was to and organizer, firstly, because
become a member of the secret of the dearth of materials on
society initiated by the his life, and secondly,
Supremo himself, Andres because it is my belief that
Bonifacio. Although his Bonifacio can best be seen
mentioning of important dates and appreciated against the
associated with important backdrop of the revolutionary
personalities during this period society. He could not have
was a recurrent theme in his been greater than the
 work, his narration of Katipunan.
chronological events portrayed
the lives not only of the major
actors but the ordinary “sons
of the people” in an effort to
write “history from below”. To
corroborate his own
recollection, he also included
the accounts of ordinary
people, such as in a case of
Juan Maibay and Ramon
Bernardo whose raw emotion
was captured candidly by
Alvarez. The apprehension,
excitement, superstition,
anxiety, bravery, treachery,
cowardice were not filtered in
his work, an account lacking in
other memoirs relating to the
period.
Relevance to the Philippine Santiago Alvarez, a He and his contemporary
history revolutionary general and Renato Constantino were
founder and honorary among the first Filipino
president of the first historians who earned renown
directorate of the Nacionalista for promoting a distinctly
Party, was born in Imus, nationalist point of view of
Cavite. He was known as Filipino history (nationalist
Kidlat ng Apoy (Lightning of historiography).
Fire) because of his inflamed
bravery and dedication as
commander in the battle of
Dalhican, Cavite.