Navigating the Historical Maze: Understanding Sources, Authenticity, and Credibility

Our idea about history in our early school days was simply about uncovering what
happened in the olden days. But, as we grew older, we realized that historians have quite the
detective job. They must gather clues from ancient texts, oral accounts, artifacts, visual records,
and much more. However, it all got more interesting as we progressed in our educational journey.
As it turns out, not all those so-called 'clues' are not as trustworthy as they seem. Some of them
might be unreliable, telling us only partially true stories, or they might be the missing pieces of a
much bigger puzzle altogether. Some clues could even be biased, as each source is like looking at
history from someone else's point of view. It is like trying to understand the world through
someone else's eyes. Thus, we should always be more cautious, thinking hard about where the
sources we read are coming from and whether they might leave out essential parts of the story. It
is like assembling a historical jigsaw puzzle. However, unlike a real jigsaw puzzle, the pieces do
not always fit perfectly.

With the twist of history being tampered with, historians have devised some clever ways
to determine if they can trust what they are reading or seeing. In our case, we got to dive into two
books that spilled the beans on these methods. "From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to
Historical Methods" by Martha Howell and Walter Prevenier (2001) was like a beginner's guide,
giving me a solid primary overview of sources and how they shape our understanding of the past.
Meanwhile, "Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Method" by Louis Gottschalk (1969)
cranked up the complexity level. I had to wrap my head around three chapters that explored the
meaning of history, how to deal with historical sources, and the tricky issues of authenticity and
credibility.

In the first reading material, I took a crash course in the techniques historians utilize to
piece together the past. Chapter 1 of "From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical
Methods" by Martha Howell and Walter Prevenier (2001) took me deep into the world of sources
and how they serve as the backbone of historical research. The authors, Howell and Prevenier
elucidated that a source can be anything that gives us information about the past, whether straight
from that time or a detour. They called these explicit references "direct sources," which include
examples such as letters or chronicles written during a specific period, and the more implicit ones,
"indirect sources," like laws or poems written at a later time period, still talking about past events.
What particularly drew my attention about the reading was the authors' discussion about how
sources can assume distinct roles contingent upon their form, content, and origin. It is akin to
attributing individual characteristics to these sources as it highlights the evolution of these
typologies in response to the emergence of novel forms of communication and information
technology (Howell & Prevenier, 2001).

Moreover, the effect of communication and information technology on producing

historical sources must be considered. These advancements have revolutionized the storage and
dissemination of information, introducing innovative methods for preserving the past. For
instance, mediums like television, film, and videotape have assumed pivotal roles as sources for
historians, particularly in studying contemporary events (Howell & Prevenier, 2001). In light of
these developments, Howell and Prevenier's book furnishes invaluable insights into the
multifaceted role of sources within historical research, deepening my grasp of the past. By
comprehending the essence of a source, the intricate systems of source classification, and the
transformative influence of technology on source production, historians and students alike are
better equipped to engage in the complex process of reconstructing history. This knowledge paves
the way for a more dependable and precise framework for understanding the past.

On the flip side, Louis Gottschalk's book presented me with a notably comprehensive
exploration of the historical methodologies and strategies employed to understand the past. Within
Chapter 3, titled "What are 'history' and 'historical sources,'" Gottschalk (1969) delves into the
essence of history and the crucial role that sources take part in historical research. As I immersed
myself in the reading, I discerned fundamental insights crucial to comprehending history and its
enduring relevance in contemporary society.

Gottschalk (1969) asserts that history represents a systematic narrative of natural

phenomena. It serves as a knowledge framework exclusively grounded in the past, allowing us to
discern the sequences of events that have shaped our current circumstances. This perspective
underscores the profound importance of history as a discipline that aids in understanding the path
that has led us to our present state.

Furthermore, Gottschalk's (1969) exploration highlights the dual nature of history,

characterized by objectivity and subjectivity. While history is founded on factual occurrences, it
also involves interpretation and analysis by contemporary historians. Additionally, the book
expounds upon the role of artifacts as invaluable sources of historical knowledge. Artifacts,
encompassing documents, architectural structures, and various objects, serve as repositories of
valuable insights into the past, enabling us to unearth the underlying contexts of historical
evidence. However, the book aptly acknowledges that the completeness of historical records is
often marred by the unfortunate possibilities of tampering and forgery, which can obscure the
accuracy of interpreted historical information. Consequently, historians are compelled to employ
their imaginative and creative faculties to bridge these gaps and reconstruct historical narratives in
a manner that effectively resonates with modern learners.

In subsequent chapters of Louis Gottschalk's book, particularly in Chapter 6 titled "The

Problem of Authenticity or External Criticism," Gottschalk (1969) delves into the intricate matter
of authenticity within historical research. He underscores the imperative for historians to exercise
caution and rigorously assess the authenticity of their sources to safeguard against the utilization
of forged or deceptive documents. To accomplish this, historians employ an array of authenticity
tests, including anachronistic tests and paleography, which scrutinize the alignment of documents
with their purported historical contexts. Gottschalk also highlights the predicament posed by
garbled documents—texts reproduced to perpetuate, modify, or enhance the original but have
inadvertently led to distortion. In response to this challenge, historians rely on techniques such as
textual criticism and the meticulous restoration of texts to reconstruct the integrity of the original
document.

Moving on to the latter chapters of the reading, Gottschalk (1969) further dives into the
issue of credibility in historical research. He elucidates that a historical fact is a detail derived
directly or indirectly from a source that is deemed credible based on the application of historical
methodology. To ascertain the credibility of a source, historians must weigh various factors,
including the author's capacity and willingness to convey the truth, along with corroborative
evidence from other sources. This process enables historians to establish the veracity of historical
claims and ensures a robust foundation to build an accurate understanding of the past.

Through exploring these books, I have gained a profound appreciation for the intricacies
of understanding history through the lens of historical sources. These texts have illuminated the
intricate process of discerning whether a historical source is primary or secondary, offering
invaluable insights into the methodologies and techniques wielded by historians to dissect and
decipher these sources. This includes the pivotal classification of sources into primary and
secondary categories, which lays the groundwork for comprehensive historical analysis.

It has become evident that history is not a stagnant or conclusive account of the past but a
dynamic and provisional interpretation rife with questions, disputes, and uncertainties.
Consequently, as a student, I recognize the importance of fostering curiosity, and critical thinking
in utilizing historical sources to know more about history. With that said, intriguing inquiries loom
on the horizon upon concluding my metacognitive report: Which primary and secondary sources
are most relevant to my study of "Readings in Philippine History," and how can I effectively
evaluate their reliability and significance? What sources are at my disposal, and how can I ascertain
their categorization as primary or secondary? What approaches can I adopt to present my research
findings clearly, concisely, and compellingly, effectively communicating the insights I have
gathered from historical sources? Answers to these questions may unfold in the course of my future
endeavors. Nevertheless, I am gratified to have enriched my comprehension of historical sources
and the methodologies that facilitate their more effective comprehension.