The Philippines before the arrival of Spain

This unit introduces the idea of primary sources in history. It defines primary sources as historical
sources that are contemporaneous to the period under study.
Secondary sources, on the other hand, are historical sources which utilize primary sources to
provide an interpretation of the past. Reading primary sources enables us to give our own
interpretation of the past and not rely on the interpretation of others.
In this unit, we get a glimpse of the religion of the early Filipinos using primary sources penned by
the religious such as Fray Juan de Plasencias Las costumbres de los Tagalos en Filipinas (Customs of the
Tagalogs) and Father Pedro Chirino’s Relation de las Islas Filipinos (An account of the Philippine
Islands). Nonreligious accounts such as those written by Antonio de Morga, judge of the Real Audiencia
in his Sucesos de las Islas Filipinos (Historical Events of the Philippine Islands)-, and by Miguel de
Loarca, an encomedero in his Relation de las Islas Filipinos, (An account of the Philippine Islands, 1582)
yield enormous information on the early religion and culture of the Filipinos. Excerpts from these
primary sources are found in this unit.

CHAPTER I
The Importance of Primary Sources in History

A letter especially written by a person during the period one is studying, e.g., the Philippine
Revolution is an example of a primary source document. This letter of Andres Bonifacio
addressed to Emilio Jacinto sent at the height of the revolution is a good of example of a
primary source.
Primary Source
Reproduction of Andres Bonifacio’s
Letter to Emilio Jacinto
News was also received here last month that you had been killed by the Carabineers because, it was
said, you had given a bad order; but as this news came from Imus, I did not believe it and I treated it as
one of the usual duplicities of these people.
As to the collection of money, I believe we need not beg, but should solicit or take it from
whoever is wealthy. Brother Don Nakpil wrote me, asking whether the money collected by him, almost
four hundred pesos or so, should be given to Mamerto Natividad. Do not allow this to happen, because
that man is not sincere in his friendship with us, and he is very close to the Magdalo people.
A piece of sickening news I can tell you is the treachery committed by the chief of the Magdalo
Council who have applied for pardon or gone over to the Spaniards. These are Daniel Tirona. Minister
of War; Jose del Rosario. Minister of the Interior; Jose Cailles. Lieutenant-General, and nearly all the
Tanza people, even the parish priest there, the whole lot of them henchmen or partisans of Capitan
Emilio. For this reason, many people strongly suspect that they strive so hard to get control of the
Government in order to surrender the whole Revolution. Last week I ordered our soldiers to tie up
another of the Ministers of Capitan Emilio because he was caught as he was about to escape with two
Spanish prisoners and a lady. One of these Spaniards told the truth, that they were going to escape. He
[the Minister] was tried by a Council of War, but the outcome, as usually happens here, was that
everybody covered up for each other, or favoritism. However, the record of the case against the
minister mentioned, Don Cayetano Topacio, remains in my possession, as does that against the
Spaniards. This is one of the reasons why we desire to leave here, because our life is in danger not only
from the Spanish enemy, but still more so from the leaders here, most of whom have wicked
intentions.
We have taken away everything: the printing press, the necessary books, the big map, and the
tools for making cartridges.
The spoons you sent for the brother and sisters of Dimas could not be given to them because
they have already left in the direction of Silangan (Laguna). We have sent for your mother, who is now
in Maragondon, and we are still waiting for her.

Receive the close embrace that I send you from here.

Limbon, April 24, 1897

The President of the Sovereign Nation

And.: Bonifacio
Maypagasa

History is not spared from forgeries or fake documents. In 1912. Jose E. Marco was the source
of some fake documents which became part of the collection of the Philippine Library and Museum
which was then headed by James Robertson, one of the authors of the multi-volume work. The
Philippine Islands.
The Code of Kalantiaw figures in the work Las antiguas leyendas de la Isla de Negros by Fr. Jose
Maria Pavon, who was assigned in Mamamaylan (sic) in Negros Occidental. Robertson declared the
Code as rare, authentic, and valuable according to Scott. Robertson translated the Code of Kalantiaw in
English and was published in the H. Morse Stephen and Herbert E. Bolton’s The Pacific Ocean in History
in 1917.
In 1965, William Henry Scott decided to work on the prehispanic sources for the study of
Philippine history as his topic for a doctoral degree at the University of Santo Tomas. In his doctoral
dissertation defense held on June 16, 1968, Scott demonstrated that the Code was a forgery
committed by a Jose F. Marco of Pontevedra. Negros Occidental. Scott’s panel was composed of
eminent historians of the period: Teodoro Agoncillo, Horacio de la Costa. Marcelino Foronda, Nicolas
Zafra and Gregorio Zaide.
Scott later published in 1968 his findings in his book Prehispanic Source Materials for the Study
of Philippine History. Scott observed that the handwriting used by Fr. Pavon was not similar to the
period where it belongs i.e., sixteenth century Spanish. Spanish scholar. Lourdes Diaz Trechuelo stated
the ‘letters present features strange and uncommon in documents of the period.” This comment was
shared by historian Nicolas Cushner who after consulting a book by Agustin Millares Carlo entitled
Album de Paleografia hispanoamericana del Siglo XVI stated that there was no semblance of it to the
Spanish script of the 16th century. Moreover, Scott observed that there was the presence of the
hyphen which was totally absent in the sixteenth century.
In addition. Scott observed that the punishments meted out in the legal code such as being put
to death by drowning, being cut to pieces and fed to the crocodile, being exposed to the ants and
beaten to death were un-Filipino. Checking with other primary sources, Scott asserted that the usual
punishments meted out to crimes committed were payment of fine and becoming servant of the
aggrieved party.
The case of the Kalantiaw Code illustrates that sources perceived to be primary sources may in
time be discovered to be hoax and that there are people who may create them for some gain—
monetary or political.
It is therefore important that primary sources be subjected to the historical method which
includes checking the authenticity of the document (internal criticism) and checking the reliability of
the document (external criticism).
Do you consider the letter of Andres Bonifacio an eyewitness account or a firsthand
account of the Philippine Revolution? Explain your answer.
Compare the letter with this excerpt from Teodoro Agoncillo’s History of the Filipino People.

Secondary Source
Bonifacio and Jacinto were like brothers who never separated from each other if either one
could help it. Separation came late in December 1896 when Bonifacio went to Cavite to mediate
between two rival factions of the Katipunan in that province and Jacinto, appointed commander-in-
chief of the revolutionary forces in Laguna, went to this province to direct the movements of the
revolutionists. Nevertheless, they communicated with each other when time and circumstances
permitted. Bonifacio died two years earlier than Jacinto, who while directing a campaign against the
Spaniards in Mahayhay, Laguna, contracted fever and died on April 16, 1899.'
How different is this excerpt from the letter of Andres Bonifacio? Which of the two (the letter
of Bonifacio and the excerpt from History of the Filipino People} gives you a direct link to the past?
Reading primary sources gives us the opportunity to come into direct contact with the past and
experience it. Reading textbook accounts of the past, however, deprives us of this opportunity and
make us dependent on the interpretation of the past by textbook authors.

Kinds of Historical Sources

There are two meanings of history. One meaning is that it is the sum total of what happened in the
past—every event, every action, and every thought that a human being has done. Another meaning of
history is the act of analyzing and writing about the past. In short history is not only the past but is also
the study of the past.
In studying the past, there must be evidences to reconstruct the past. For historians, these
evidences are classified into two: primary sources and secondary sources. A primary source is defined
“as a piece of evidence written or created during the period under investigation.” It is a record left by a
person who witnessed the event one is studying. In other words, a primary source can be an
eyewitness account or a firsthand account of a particular event. A primary source can come in the form
of written sources such as documents, archival materials, letters (e.g., letters of Rizal to his fellow
reformists), government records (Hojas de servicios de maestras or Service Records of Teachers),
newspapers (Heraldo de la revolution, Muling Pagsilang), parish records (Libro de bautismo, Libro de
matrimonio), court transcripts, and business ledgers.
Primary sources can also be non-written. They can come in the form of artifacts such as the
Manunggul Jar; edifices like colonial churches; clothes, jewelry, farming implements, and paintings.
An individual’s firsthand account of a particular event such as the memoirs of the Japanese
occupation in the Philippines can be a primary source.
Of recent date, photographs, films, and recordings (both audio and video) are also considered primary
sources.
On the other hand, secondary sources in history are works produced after the event has taken
place. Secondary sources are usually an assessment or a commentary of events, people, or institutions
of the past. Secondary sources often use primary sources for the aforementioned purpose. The books
History of the Filipino People by Teodoro Agoncillo and The Past Revisited by Renato Constantino are
examples of secondary sources.
'Secondary sources may also come in many forms. They come in the form of books which can
be popular or scholarly. Usually, textbooks are considered as secondary sources. Secondary sources
come in the form of monographs. Monographs are specialized works which are narrow in scope, but
are based on primary sources. Monographs provide new historical interpretations and can be vehicles
for historical revisionism. Essays or chapters in a book based on primary or secondary sources are
considered secondary sources. Articles published in scholarly journals are likewise considered
secondary sources. They should not be ignored by students as they provide new findings or
interpretations useful for research. Articles published in popular magazines are also secondary sources.
Dissertations which offer original analysis and adds to the body of knowledge of a particular historical
topic would be another example of a secondary source. Lastly, papers read in conferences are
considered secondary sources. Conference papers get their initial scrutiny in conferences but once
revised, may be submitted to a scholarly journal.
Primary Sources and the Historical Method
Primary sources, in whatever form, have to be subjected to what is called the historical method. There
are two components in the historical method. The first is called External criticism which aims at
checking the authenticity of the primary source. External criticism aims to check whether the source is
real or fake. For example, validating the authenticity of a document requires checking if the paper and
ink of the document belong to the period being studied. In addition, one checks whether the
handwriting in the document belongs to the handwriting of the period one is researching on. The
historian in this instance somewhat becomes of a paleographer. In other cases, the historian is
constrained to study the style and language of the text in a document. In this case, the historian
becomes a philologist. If the primary source would be coins and medals, the historian should have
some knowledge of numismatics and if inscriptions in monuments are being studied, epigraphy.
Once the source is considered authentic, then primary source goes through internal criticism
which checks on the reliability of the source. Not just because the source is primary should one accept
its contents completely. There should be some skepticism in accepting the source. The following are
some questions that one may pose to check on the reliability of the source:

1. How close was the author to the event being studied?

This question refers to the physical location of the author of the document. Did he/she witness the
event personally or did he/she rely on somebody’s report? How reliable is his account? An example of
this is Antonio Pigafetta’s account of the Battle of Mactan, which claimed the life of Ferdinand
Magellan. Pigafetta was the chronicler of the Magellan expedition. He witnessed the Battle of Mactan
and wrote about it in his work Primo viaggio intorno al globo terracqueo written in Italian and later
translated in Spanish as Primer viaje alrededor del mundo. By virtue of Pigafetta being a chronicler of
the Magellan’s voyage, his account is reliable.
Archives are repositories of past documentation. We find primary sources in the archives. There
are many kinds of archives, such as those maintained by a religious order, which are called religious
archives. In the Philippines, the Dominicans have the Dominican Archives which is found in the
University of Santo Tomas. The Jesuits have theirs at the Ateneo de Manila University. Some schools
have their own respective archives such as the University of the Philippines. Some private entities like
business companies or families also have archives.
Archives which houses primary sources are important for two reasons. One is the archives
organize documents in a systematic manner, making it easier for a researcher to do his work. Another
importance is the archives help researchers with their work by producing research aids or finding tools
to their collection.
Nowadays, countries usually have national archives. The Philippines is one of them. The present
Philippine National Archives (PNA) dates back to 1898 when Spain, by virtue of the Treaty of Paris,
transferred its archives to the United States.
During the American Period, the PNA started as an Office of Archives in 1901 and was placed
under the Executive Bureau. In 1901, the Office of Archives was then placed under the Department of
Public Instruction, and in 1915 was back as an office under the Executive Branch. In 1928, the PNA
became a Division under the National Library. At present, the Philippine National Archives is an
attached agency under the Office of the President.
The PNA houses 13 million Spanish-era documents and 60 million catalogued documents.
The holdings are divided into two collections: Spanish Period Collection composed of
documents and plans dating back from 1552 to 1900, and the American and Republic Period Collection
dating from 1900 to the present, composed of documents from government agencies, civil records,
notarial documents, and Japanese War Crime Records.

2. When was the account made?

A primary source should be closest or contemporary to the period being studied.
The work Urbana at Felisa by Modesto de Castro published in 1864 is an example of a primary source
for the study of the norms of conduct of a woman in the nineteenth century. Since the work was
published in the nineteenth century (the year 1864 belongs to the nineteenth century), this work of
Modestro de Castro on how a Christian woman should behave is a reliable primary source.

3. Who was the recipient of the account?

The election results of a gobemadorcillo of the town of Muntinlupa during the Spanish period is an
example of a primary source. The recipient of the election result is the provincial governor who makes
the final appointment. Hence, the document labeled as Elecciones de Gobenadorcillo would be a
reliable primary source.

4. Is there bias to be accounted for?

The Tejeros Convention, which ended the existence of the Katipunan and its replacement by a
revolutionary government, is covered in the work of Santiago Alvarez entitled Si Andres Bonifacio, Ang
Katipunan at Himagsikan; in the memoir of Artemio Ricarte; in Aguinaldo’s Mga Gunita ng Himagsikan;
in the work of Carlos Ronquillo entitled Ilang Talata Tungkol sa Paghihimagsik nang 1896-1897', and in
the Letter of Andres Bonifacio to Emilio Jacinto. Each of the aforementioned authors would have a bias
in narrating what transpired in that particular event.
All of the abovementioned primary sources have a bias. Thus, it is important that as a reader, one
should be conscious of the bias of the work. The bias will be coming from the author of the primary
source. People generally write their memoirs in order to explain or justify their actions during a
particular event.

5. Does informed common sense make the account probable?

The key words here are probable and informed common sense. One cannot get absolutely conclusive
answers in history. The test whether a given testimony is believable or not, is when there is an inherent
probability of it being true and is supported by appropriate evidence.
For instance, abuses committed by encomenderos toward the native Filipinos in the collection
of tribute may be probable as evidenced by Bishop Domingo de Salazar, writing the King of Spain about
encomenderos collecting tribute without giving the natives proper governance, religious instruction,
and defense against their enemies. Bishop Salazar was a defender of native rights and was critical of
the injustices received by the Filipinos in the hands of the encomenderos.

6. Is the account corroborated by other accounts?

A primary source cannot stand by itself. There should be corroboration from other
sources as well.
Having established the authenticity and reliability of the primary source, bear
in mind the following:
• When was the document or artifact created?
• What type of primary source is it?
• Who created the document or artifact?
• Why was it written or produced?
• For whom was the text or image intended?
• What is the main point the author is trying to make?
• Is there any unintentional evidence given by the text?
• Does the text provide an author’s point of view bias, or opinion?
• How does the source stand in relation to other primary sources of the period?

Chapter Summary
• For historians to understand the past, they need evidences about the past.
• These evidences are of two kinds: primary sources and secondary sources.
•A primary source is any document or artifact from the period under study while a secondary source is
any document or artifact that was created after the period under study.
• One must know how to read a primary source.

Assessment

Below are sources about the peoples of the Cordillera. Answer if the source cited is a primary
source or a secondary source.
1. Francisco, Antolin. Notices of the Pagan Igorots in the Interior of the Island of Manila in 1789.
Translated by William Henry Scott. Manila: University of Santo Tomas Press, 1988.
2. Campa, Buenaventura. “Una visita a las rancherias de llongotes." In Correo Sino-Anamita. Manila:
Imprenta de Santo Tomas, 1891.
3. Kessing, Felix. The Ethnohistory of Northern Luzon. Kentucky: Stanford University Press, 1962.
4. Rosaldo, Renato. Ilongot Headhunting, 1893-1974: A Study in Society and History. California:
Stanford University Press, 1980.
5. Villaverde, Juan. “Informe sobre la reduccion de los infieles de Luzon.” In Correo Sino-Anamita.
Manila: Imprenta de Santo Tomas, 1879.

Below are sources about the city of Manila. Answer if the source cited is a primary source or a
secondary source.
1. Buzeta, Manuel et Felipe Bravo. Diccionario geografico, estadistico-historico de la Islas Filipinas.
Madrid: 1850.
2. Gatbonton, Esperanza. Intramuros: A Historical Guide. Manila: I A, 1980.
3. Cavada Mendez de Vigo. Agustin. Historico, geografico, geologica y estadistica de Filipinas. Manila:
Ramirez y Giraudier, 1876.
4. Salt. Alexander. "The Street Names of Manila and Their Origins.“ in Focus on Old Manila. Manila:
Philippine Historical Association. 1971.
5. Torre, Visitacion de la. Landmarks of Manila, 1571-1930. Quezon City: Paragon Print Corporation,
1981.

Suggested Readings
• Berkhofer, Robert. Fashioning History: Current Practices and Principles. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2008.
• Brundage. Anthony. Going to the Sources: A Guide to Historical Research and Writing. Chichester:
John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2013.
• Salevouris. Michael J. The Methods and Skills of History. With Conal Furay. Chichester: John Wiley &
Sons Ltd., 2015.
• Tosh, John. The Pursuit of History: Aims. Methods and New Directions in the Study of History.
Oxfordshire: Routledge, 2015.
• Culture and Society. Manila: Ateneo University Press. 1994.
• Scott. William Henry. "Chapter 1: Archaeology" in Prehispanic Source Materials for the
Study of Philippine History. Quezon City: New Day Publishers, 1984.