READING PHILIPPINE HISTORY
WHAT IS HISTORY?
- greek word “historia”; knowledge
acquired through investigation
HISTORIA
 the account of the past person or of a
group of people through written
documents and historical evidences
HISTORY
 the past events that happened in the
past, and the causes of such events
 used a tool to unite nation
 tool to legitimize regimes and forge a
sense of collective identity through
collective memory
HISTORIOGRAPHY
 the history itself; How was a certain
historical text written? Who wrote it? What
was the context of its publication? What
particular historical method was employed?
What were the sources used?
WHAT COUNTS AS HISTORY?
 traditional historians lived with the mantra
of, “no document, no history”
WHAT ACCUSATION IS CONFRONTED BY HISTORY?
 history is always written by the victors;
narrative of the past is always written from
the bias of the powerful and more dominant
player
POSITIVISM
 school of thought that requires empirical
and observable evidence one can claim that
a particular knowledge is true
POST-COLONIALISM
 school of thought that looks at history in
two-ways. First is to tell the history of their
nation that will highlight their identity free
from that of colonial discourse and
knowledge. Second is to criticize the
methods, effects, and idea of colonialism
HISTORY AND THE HISTORIAN
 facts cannot speak for themselves
 the historian’s job not just to seek
historical evidences and facts, but also
to interpret them
 it is the historians’ job to give meaning
to these facts and organize them into
timelines, establish causes, and write
history
HISTORICAL RESEARCH REQUIRES RIGOR
- historians cannot ascertain absolute
objectivity, the study of history remains
scientific because of the rigor of research
and methodology historians employ
HISTORICAL METHODOLOGY
 historians follow these certain techniques
and rules to properly utilize sources and
historical evidences in writing history
I. Choosing a topic
II. Looking for data through historical
sources
III. Determining the data as a Primary
or Secondary source
IV. Analyze the data through historical
criticisms
V. Writing the entire narrative
HISTORICAL SOURCE
I. Primary Sources
(historical reliability: closer the date of
creations, more reliable one)
- produce at the same time as the
event being studied (contemporary
accounts)
- include documents or artifacts
created by a witness or participant
of the event
- “firsthand testimony,” “eyewitness
accounts”
eg: diaries, letters, interviews,
photographs, newspapers
6 points of inquiries to evaluate Primary Source 7 factors in evaluating through Internal
(Garraghan, 1950) Criticism (Howell and Prevenier, 2001)
I. Date – when was it produced? I. Genealogy of the Document
II. Localizations – where did it originate? II. Genesis of the document
III. Authorship – Who wrote it? III. Originality of the document
IV. Analysis – what pre-existing material IV. Interpretation of the document
served as the basis for its production? V. Authorial authority of the
V. Integrity – what was the original form? document
VI. Credibility – what is the evidential VI. Competence of the observer
value of its content? VII. Trustworthiness of the observer

II. Secondary Sources

(historical reliability: more recent more
reliable)
- produced by authors who used and
interpreted primary sources
- analyzed a scholarly question and
often use primary source as evidence
- written few years after the exact time
of the event
eg: books, theses, dissertations,
journals, magazines, knowledge of
historians
HOAX CODE OF KALANTIAW
findings of William Henry Scott:
- alleged writer Fr. Jose Ma. Pavon was not in
the Philippines in 1838 or 1839
- alleged writer dedicated the book (contains
code) to King of Spain in 1838, but Spain did
not have a king between 1833 – 1974
- writer mentioned that there were microbes
in the month of November (1838), but
“microbes” was first used in 1878

HISTORICAL CRITICISM
1. External Criticism
- verification of authenticity by
examining physical characteristics;
consistency with the historical
characteristics of the time when it was
produced, and materials used
- when it was written?; where it was
written?; who was the author?; why did
it survive?; what were the materials
used?; were the words used being used
those times?

2. Internal Criticism
- looks at the truthfulness and
factuality of the evidence by looking at the
author of the source, its context, the agenda
behind its creation
- looks at the content of the source
and examines the circumstance of its
production
- was it written by eyewitness or not?;
why was it written?; is there consistency?;
what are the connotations?; what is the
literal meaning?; what is the meaning of the
context?