Unit 1- Understanding History using Primary and Secondary Sources

This unit will introduce the students to the basics of studying history including its
definition, the sources, the analyzation of the primary and secondary sources and its
authenticity. Furthermore, the students will identify credible and authentic from fake and hoax
primary sources and know how to evaluate their provenance.
Introduction
When we ask the question “What is History?” basically, most of us will easily say that it
is the study of the past. Most students will say that it is just a mere memorization of dates,
events and names. That is why they find it a boring subject during their earlier years in their
academic life. However, if we dig deeper, there is much more to it. Knowing our past is
important in understanding our identity, our society and most of all, it aids in nation building.
Lesson Objectives
At the end of the lesson, the students should be able to:
1. Define what is history
2. Determine the difference between a primary and a secondary source
3. Distinguish the difference between an external criticism and external criticism
4. Evaluate materials in terms of authenticity, credibility and provenance.
WHAT IS HISTORY?
This question can be answered by looking back at a classic work of Louis Gottschalk
entitled, “Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Method” in 1950. He states that:
“The English word history is derived from the Greek
noun “istoia”, meaning learning. As used by the
Greek philosopher Aristotle, history meant a
systematic account of a set of natural phenomena,
whether or not chronological factoring was a factor
in the account… In the course of time, however, the
equivalent Latin word “scientia” (English, science)
came to be used more regularly to designate non
chronological systematic accounts of natural
phenomena; and the word history was reserved
usually for accounts of phenomena (especially
human affairs) in chronological order. By its most
common definition, the word history now means,
“the past of mankind”1

However, the word “Kasaysayan” which we think the equivalent of the word history in
Filipino has a deep meaning than its English equivalent. It is not merely a story but it also needs
to be a “meaningful” story. Dr. Augusto de Viana in his book “The Philippines: A Story of a
Nation” divided the word “Kasaysayan” into three: ka-, saysay and –an:

1
Louis Gottschalk, Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Method (New York: Knopf, 1950), 17.
 “Its root word saysay, means “sense” or
“meaning”. It also means importance or purpose. Things
that have no importance or meaning are valueless or
“walang saysay”and have no purpose. With the addition
of the suffix –yan, saysayan means the act of conveying
words of importance or sense. This is usually through a
narrative or story (nagsasaysayan). With the addition of
the prefix “ka”, saysayan now has a new meaning. “Ka”
has a very important connotation. It implies interaction
connectiveness or relationship, of being a part of
something, of being together, or doing something
together.”2
Dr. Zeus Salazar defined kasaysayan through his
Pantayong Pananaw as “mga salaysay na may saysay sa isang
grupo ng tao”. It is not only a thing of the past but it should also
be an important narrative that binds them as a people.
For Constantino, “history is not merely a chronology of
events; it is not the story of heroes and great men. Essentially, history consist of the
people’s effort to attain a better life. The common people possess the capacity to
make history.”3 In other words, he is more focused on the masses and how these
important events affect their lives. For him, history is not only comprised of the
stories of the famous leaders but more importantly, the people as a whole.

Historical Sources
In doing and studying history, sources are important.
We cannot have a sight of what transpired in the past if we do
not have our bases. It serves as our evidence in
reconstructing our past. Remember that we cannot re-create
the complete past and what we can only have is a glimpse of
what happened. These sources serves as our window and
lenses in rediscovering our past. It is up to the historians and
scholars on how we will interpret the events that took place
and its connection with our present.
Louis Gottschalk discussed in his book
“Understanding History” the importance of sources in doing
history. He stated:

“The historian, however, has to use many materials

that are not in books. Where these are archeological, epigraphical, or
numismatical materials, he has to depend largely on museums. Where there

2
Augusto De Viana, The Philippines: A Story of a Nation (Manila: Rex Book Store, 2011), xi.
3
Renato Constantino, The Philippines: A Past Revisited (Quezon City: Tala Publishing Services, 1975), 3.
 are official records, he may have to search for them in archives,
courthouses, government libraries, etc. where there are private papers not
available in official collections, he may have to hunt among the papers of
business houses, the muniment rooms of ancient castles, the prized
possessions of autograph collectors, the records of parish churches, etc.
Having some subject in mind, with more or less definite delimitation of the
persons, areas, times, and functions (i.e., the economic, political,
intellectual, diplomatic or other occupational aspects) involved, he looks for
materials that may have some bearing upon those persons in that area at
the time they function in that fashion. These materials are his sources. The
more precise his delimitation of persons, area, time, and function, the more
relevant his sources are likely to be.”4

Bear in mind that sources are not limited to tangible things. There are sources that can
be of good help in finding facts without it being tangible. Written documents are obviously
viewed as the more scholarly one, but over time, non-written sources proved that they are as
valuable as written.

There are two groups of types of sources: it is either a primary and secondary; written
and non-written.

Primary Sources
A primary source is defined as materials produced by people or groups directly involved
in the event or topic being studied.5 Meaning to say, they are involved and eyewitnesses as the
historical event is taking place. It is also defined as a piece of evidence written or created during
the period under investigation.6 This also makes the primary source as a firsthand account.
Diaries, memoirs, letters, legal documents, official documents (government records), speeches
and editorial cartoon are examples of primary sources to name a few.
Primary Sources can also be non-written that may count as documents. They can come
in the form of artifacts such as the Manunggul Jar; edifices like colonial churches; clothes,
jewelry, farming implements, photographs, films, recordings and even paintings. 7 Oral traditions
such as Epiko, Tarsila, Bugtong, Kwentong Bayan, Salawikain can also be considered as
primary sources.

4
Louis Gottschalk, Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Method (New York: Knopf, 1950), 52-53.
5
Jose Victor Torres, Batis: Sources in Philippine History, (Quezon City: C & E Publishing, Inc., 20018), 6.
6
Michael J. Salevouris and Conal Furray, The Methods and Skills of History: A Practical Guide, 4th ed.(Chichester:
John Wiley and Son, Inc. 2015), 171.
7
Maria Luisa Camagay et. al. Unravelling the Past: Readings in Philippine History, (Quezon City: Vibal Group Inc.,
2018), 7.
Secondary Sources
Louis Gottschalk defined Secondary sources as “the testimony of anyone who is not an
eyewitness- that is of one who was not present at the event of which he tells” 8 They usually
assess and comments on the events that took place. It is vital to use a primary source in
analyzing people and event that took place for a secondary source to be produced. Textbooks
are the best example of secondary sources. Classic history books such as History of the Filipino
People by Teodoro Agoncillo, Pasyon at Revolution of Reynaldo Ileto, The Past Revisited by
Renato Constantino, Philippine Political and Cultural History by Gregorio Zaide.
Criticism
Sources are essential in history-making but the documents cannot interpret themselves.
This is where an expert must intervene and show his expertise in interpreting the documents. In
doing so, they need to criticize the documents to check its authenticity. This process is called
historical method. There are two components in the historical method: external criticism and
internal criticism.
External Criticism
External criticism aims at checking the
authenticity of the primary source. It aims to check
whether the source is real or fake. In reading, it is the
process of scanning as opposed to skimming.
Validating the authenticity of the 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.9
For example, in analyzing the letters of Rizal, a
historian must understand the language used by Rizal https://adaa.org/learn-from-us/from-the- 1
so as his writing style, signature, etc.to prove that the
document is authentic and can be used in the next process.
Internal Criticism
Once finished with external criticism, the historian must test the reliability of the
document or otherwise known as the internal criticism. The historian must always be skeptical of
the sources presented. Dr. Camagay et. al. listed the following questions to serve as a guide in
checking the reliability of the document:
- How close was the author to the event being studied?
- When was the account made?
- Who was the recipient of the account?
- Is there bias to be accounted for?
- Does informed common sense make the account probable?

8
Louis Gottschalk, Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Method (New York: Knopf, 1950), 53.
9
Maria Luisa Camagay et. al. Unravelling the Past: Readings in Philippine History (Quezon City: Vibal Group Inc.,
2018), 8.
 - Is the account corroborated by other accounts?10

Always remember that a historian is always in the state of doubt in doing research. They
should accept that the fact of the present may be proven a hoax in the future. In doing so, the
historian is always leaning towards the truth.
Additional Readings:
- Mga Batis Pangkasaysayan
- Historian’s Task in the Philippines by John Schumacher

10
Maria Luisa Camagay et. al. Unravelling the Past: Readings in Philippine History, (Quezon City: Vibal Group Inc.,
2018), 8-10.