READINGS IN THE PHILIPPINE HISTORY
Authors: Nestor M. Asuncion, Geoffrey Rhoel C. Cruz (2nd Ediiton); BATIS Authors: Jose Victoe Z. Torres (2nd EdiFon)
MODULE 1: ANALYZING THE MEANING AND
RELEVANCE OF HISTORICAL SOURCES TO
THE HISTORY OF THE FILIPINO
SECTION 1: DISTINCTION BETWEEN
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SOURCES
Intended Learning Outcomes:
1. Differentiate primary and secondary sources
of historical records.
2. identify possible repositories of primary
sources
In conducting any historical research different
sources of information are required to gain
extensive knowledge on a particular topic.
Some researchers rely on written sources while
others choose oral sources.
No matter what source is being utilized, it
is important to know which among the
gathered sources can provide accurate
details and information about the
historical event or subject being
researched on.
Primary Sources are considered contemporary
accounts of an event, personally written or
narrated by an individual who directly
experienced or participated in the said event.
Aside from eyewitness testimonies, primary
sources also include materials that capture the
event, such as photographs, voice and video
recordings, and the like.
These materials are considered original
sources that directly narrate the details of
the event. These sources can be in the
form. These sources can be in the form
of diaries and journal entities, letters,
memoirs, journals, speeches, interviews,
official records, such as government
publications, minutes reports, artworks,
and artifacts.
Primary sources mostly include unpublished
works of individuals discovered after some time,
such as during historical excavations and
historical research done in public and private
libraries.
In some instances, newspaper and
magazine articles are also considered
primary sources as long as they were
written soon after the events and not as
historical accounts
Handouts made by: Niña Arrah Neri
On the other hand, Secondary Sources serve
as interpretations or readings of primary
sources.
Usually, the author of a piece
incorporates his or her personal insights
and interpretations, thus detaching the
original value of the component of the
subject being discussed.
These sources usually contain analyses of
primary sources by experts, academicians, and
professionals. These are usually in the form of
published works, such as journals, articles,
reviews, books, conference papers, and
documentaries.
They can also be based on
interpretations of other secondary
sources or a combination of primary and
secondary sources.
Many historical researchers also bank on
secondary sources to get different perspectives
on a particular topic. However, relying too much
on secondary sources may blur out the actual
details of particular historical events.
Therefore, primary and secondary sources
should be evaluated. Most scholars use the
following questions in evaluating the validity and
credibility of sources of historical accounts:
1. How did the author know about the given
details? Was the author present at the event?
How soon was the author able to gather the
details of the event?
2. Where did the information come from? Is it a
personal experience, an eyewitness account, or
a report made by another person?
3. Did the author conclude based on a single
source or on many sources of evidence?
If the evaluation of an available source shows
any indication that it is an interpretative work
rather than a factual firsthand account, it is
considered a secondary source.
Thus, in conducting historical research, it
is important to identify first whether the
available sources are primary or
secondary sources to determine how
reliable and helpful these sources are.
1
 READINGS IN THE PHILIPPINE HISTORY
Authors: Nestor M. Asuncion, Geoffrey Rhoel C. Cruz (2nd Ediiton); BATIS Authors: Jose Victoe Z. Torres (2nd EdiFon)

SECTION 2: EVALUATION OF PRIMARY AND

SECONDARY SOURCES
Intended Learning Outcomes:
1. Identify the criteria in evaluating primary and
secondary source materials.
2. assess primary and secondary source
materials.
3. Evaluate the provenance of primary sources.
It is common knowledge in the academe that
both primary and secondary sources are
important in fleshing out the details of significant
events in history.
However, classifying a source as primary and
secondary has never been an easy task.
Nevertheless, the primacy of primary over
secondary sources has always been
recognized. This is due to the fact that a primary
source provides better and more accurate
historical details compared to a secondary
source.
However, the authenticity and reliability
of primary sources should be scrutinized
before they are used.
In this day and age, the proliferation of fake
news is evident in both print and digital media
platforms. Thus, it becomes more apparent that
sources of texts should be scrutinized for their
credibility.
The absence of primary documents that can
attest to the accuracy of any historical claim is
really a problem in the extensive study of history.
In that sense, the significance of
secondary sources should not be
discredited. Secondary sources are
readily available in print and digital
repositories.
Secondary accounts of historical events are
narratives commonly passed on from one
generation to the next or knowledge that is
shared within a community.
Yet, similar to the usual problem with
passing information from one point to
another, details can be altered. As
information is relayed from person to
person, the accuracy of the source
material is compromised.
Nevertheless, secondary source
materials in the study of Philippine history
would conjectures and refutations have
the capacity to fill in gaps caused by the
lack or absences of primary sources.
Louis Gottschalk (1969) emphasized that it is
impossible for historians to avoid using
secondary sources due to difficulty in accessing
primary sources.

However, in a nation where there is minimal Most often, historians depend on

documentation of oral history, it is very difficult secondary sources to improve their
to trace the primary sources of many written background knowledge of contemporary
historical records that can help in understanding documents and detect any errors they
the relevance of historical events in addressing may contain.
contemporary social issues.
Specifically, Gottschalk suggested that
Although primacy is given to primary sources, secondary sources must only be used for:
there are instances when the credibility of these (1) Deriving the setting wherein the
sources are contestable. contemporary evidence will fit in the
grand narrative of history
Garraghan (1950) identified six points to (2) Getting leads to other bibliographic data
evaluate the authenticity of a primary source: (3) Acquiring quotations or citations from
1. Date – When was it produced? contemporary or other sources
2. Localization – Where did it originate? (4) Deriving interpretations with a view of
3. Authorship – Who wrote it? testing and improving them but not
4. Analysis – What pre-existing material accepting them as outright truth
served as the basis for its production? Historians should be prepared to verify the
5. Integrity – What was its ofs original information provided by secondary sources.
form?
6. Credibility – What is the evidential value
of its content?

Handouts made by: Niña Arrah Neri 2

 READINGS IN THE PHILIPPINE HISTORY
Authors: Nestor M. Asuncion, Geoffrey Rhoel C. Cruz (2nd Ediiton); BATIS Authors: Jose Victoe Z. Torres (2nd EdiFon)
Martha Howell and Walter Prevenier (2001)
stated that before any source can be considered
as evidence in a historical argument, it must
satisfy three preconditions.
First: it must be comprehensible at the most
basic level of vocabulary, language, and
handwriting
The first precondition sets the ground for
the contentions on the acceptability of the
source and for all the aspects of the
debate.
Second: the source must be carefully located in
accordance in the place and time. Its author,
composer, or writer, and the location where it
was produced/published should be noted for the
checking of authenticity and accuracy.
One example is a personal letter which
usually indicates when (date) and where
(place) it was written.
This information can assist in
corroborating the details of the source
given the whereabouts of its author as
stated in a letter.
Third, through the first two preconditions, the
authenticity of the source must always be
checked and counterchecked before being
accepted as a credible source in any historical
findings.
Subtle details, such as the quality of
paper used, the ink or the watermark of
the parchment used, the way it was
encoded using a typeface, or the way the
tape was electronically coded, should be
carefully scrutinized to check it was
forged or mislabeled by archivists.
Cases of forgery and mislabeling are common
in Philippine historiography. One example of the
latter is Ambeth Ocampo’s discovery of the
alleged draft of Jose Rizal’s third novel, the
Makamisa.
The stack of writings was labeled
Borrador del Noil Me Tangere. However,
upon reading the draft, it is clear that it is
not connected to Noli Me Tangere and El
Filibusterismo. This is a clear case of
mislabeling, for the discovered draft
seems misplaced in the stack where it
was taken from.
Handouts made by: Niña Arrah Neri
A closer look at the characters in the novel,
however, reveals a different setting and story.
This falsifies the alleged third novel of Rizal.
An example of forgery in historical documents is
the story of the great forger Roman Roque, who
allegedly forged the signature of Gen. Urbano
Lacuna that led to the captivity of Gen. Emilio
Aguinaldo.
Roque also forged the signature of Jose
Rizal in the great retraction controversy.
Another example, the claim that the supposed
autobiography of Josephine Bracken written on
February 22, 1897, which asserts her marriage
to Rizal under Catholic rites, was badly forged.
The penmanship on the document varies
significantly when compared to the other
letters written by Bracken.
Given the possibility of forgery and mislabeling,
historians not only evaluate the sources in terms
of external characteristics that focus on the
questions of where, when, and by whom.
They also evaluate in terms of internal criteria,
which include seven factors identified by Howell
and Prevenier (2001):
1. The genealogy of the document – refers to
the development of the document. The
document may be original, a copy, or a copy of
the copy.
2. The genesis of the document – includes the
situations and the authorities during the
document’s production.
3. The originality of the document – includes
the nature of the document whether it is an
eyewitness/earwitness account or merely
passing of existing information
4. The interpretation of the document –
pertains to deducing the meaning from the
document
5. The authorial authority of the document --
refers to the relationship between the
document’s subject matter and its author
6. The competence of the observer – refers to
the author’s capabilities and qualifications to
critically comprehend and report information;
and
3
 READINGS IN THE PHILIPPINE HISTORY
Authors: Nestor M. Asuncion, Geoffrey Rhoel C. Cruz (2nd Ediiton); BATIS Authors: Jose Victoe Z. Torres (2nd EdiFon)

7. The trustworthiness of the observer –

refers to the author’s integrity – whether he or
she fabricates or reports truthfully.

In general, the reliability of primary sources is

assessed on how these sources are directly
related and closely connected to the time of the
events they pertain to.

On the other hands, the reliability of secondary

sources depends on the elapsed time from the
date of the event to the date of their creation.

More likely, the farther the date of

creation from the actual event, the more
reliable the source is. This is because as
time passess, more materials are likely to
be made available.

With this, those who engage in historical

research have the opportunity to exhaust
all availble materials in order to come up
with extensive outputs.

Handouts made by: Niña Arrah Neri 4