Chapter 1:

Meaning and Relevance

of History
Chapter 1:
Meaning and Relevance of History
A. Meaning and Relevance of History
B. Distinction of Primary and Secondary
Sources; External and Internal Criticism
 A. Meaning and
Relevance of History
 History
Traditional Understanding:
• Study of the past
• Chronological record of significant events
often including an explanation of their
causes
Modern Understanding:
• Came from Greek word “Historia” that
means “Knowledge acquired through
inquiry or investigation”
• Sources are oral traditions in forms of epics,
songs, artifacts, architecture, memory etc.
“Ang kasaysayan ay SALAYSAY na may
SAYSAY sa SINASALAYSAYANG
SALINGLAHI.”
-Zeus Salazar
“Pantayong Pananaw” (Salazar,1974)
Divisions of History
1. Pre-History
• period where no written records exist or
when the writings of people were not
preserved
• analyzed through fossils and artifacts by
Archaeologists and Anthropologists
2. History
• period when man started to write and
record events using a system of writing
• analyzed through wood carves, engraved
metals, written papyrus, written papers
It is studied by “Historians”
Role of Historians
• To look at the available sources and select
the most relevant for history and subject of
study
• To organize the past that is being created
• To seek for the meaning of recovering the
past to let the people see the continuing
relevance of memories (Historical
Understanding)
 History as a “Social Science”

SCIENCE

NATURAL SOCIAL
-HISTORY
-ECONOMICS
-POLITICAL
PHYSICAL BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE
-Physics -Zoology -SOCIOLOGY
-ANTHROPOLOGY
-Chem istry -Botany
-PHILOSOPHY
-GEOGRAPHY
-PSYCHOLOGY
Historiography
• “Writing of history” (Historical Writing)
• Based on critical examination of sources,
selection of particular details from authentic
materials in those sources and the synthesis
of those details into a narrative
• Done through “Historical Research” with the
aid of “Historical Methodology”
1. Choosing a topic.
2. Looking for data through Historical sources.
3. Determining the data as a Primary or
Secondary source.
4. Analyze the data through historical
criticisms.
5. Writing the entire narrative.
Im portance of History
• To unite a nation
• To legitimize regime and forge a sense of
collective identity through collective
memory
• To make sense of the present
• To not repeat mistakes of the past
• To inspire people to keep their good
practices to move forward
 Historical Tim efram e of the
Philippines

9000 BCE or
7000 BCE 21st Century

Pre-historic era Spanish era American era Contemporary era – present

Japanese era
 B. Distinction of
Prim ary and Secondary
Sources;
External and Internal
Criticism
Historical Sources
1. Prim ary Sources
• Produced 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”
• It may include diaries, letters, interviews,
photographs, newspapers
Prim ary sources
*W ritten Sources
*Unw ritten sources
6 Points of inquiries to evaluate Primary
sources (Garraghan, 1950):
1. Date- When was it produced?
2. Localization- Where did it originate?
3. Authorship- Who wrote it?
4. Analysis- What pre-existing material served
as the basis for its production?
5. Integrity- What was its original form?
6. Credibility- What is the evidential value of
its content?
2. Secondary Sources
• Produced by authors who used and
interpreted primary sources
• Analyzed a scholarly question and often use
primary source as evidence
• Include books, theses, dissertations,
journals, magazines, knowledge of
historians
• Written few years after the exact time of the
event
Prim ary
Source A

Equals:

Prim ary
COMPARISON Secondary
Source B
Source

Prim ary
Source C
Secondary sources
Drill: Identify w hether Prim ary or
Secondary Source
1. “Batas Militar: Martial Law Under President
Ferdinand E. Marcos Full Documentary”
2. “La Revolucion Filipina” of Apolinario Mabini
3. National Historical Commission of the
Philippines YouTube Channel
4. Historical Data Papers from National Library of
the Philippines
5. “War Memoirs of Jose P. Laurel” by Jose P. Laurel
6. “Brains of the Nation” by Resil B. Mojares
7. “A Question of Heroes” by Nick Joaquin
8. “Anting-anting ni Manuel Quezon” at National
Museum of the Philippines- Museum of
Anthropology
9. “Veneration Without Understanding” by
Renato Constantino
10. Homo luzonensis ecofacts (fossils) unearthed
by UP Archaeological Studies Program
Primary and Secondary sources should be
evaluated its validity and credibility by asking
these questions:
1. How did the author know about the given
details? Was the author present at the
event?
2. Where did the information come from? Is it
a personal experience, an eyewitness
account etc.?
3. Did the author conclude based on a single
or multiple source?
In terms of historical reliability,

Primary source:
• The closer the date of creation, the more
reliable one.

Secondary source:
• The more recent, the more reliable one.
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.
• We can ask the following questions:
-when it was written?
-where it was written?
-who was the author?
-why did it survive?
-what were the materials
used?
-where the words used were
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
• It looks at the content of the source and
examines the circumstance of its production
• We can ask the following questions:
-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?
7 factors in evaluating through Internal
Criticism (Howell and Prevenier, 2001):
1. Genealogy of the document
2. Genesis of the document
3. Originality of the document
4. Interpretation of the document
5. Authorial authority of the document
6. Competence of the observer
7. Trustworthiness of the observer
Rizal did not w rite
“Sa Aking Mga
Kabata”
 Rom an Roque;
“Forger of
Philippine History”
 Jose Marco;
“Greatest Con Man
of Philippine
History”
William Henry Scott’s findings:
• The alleged writer Fr. Jose Ma.
Pavon was not in the Philippines
in 1838 or 1839.
• The alleged writer dedicated the
book (that contains the code)
to King of Spain in 1838, but Spain did not have
a king between 1833-1974.
• The writer mentioned that there were microbes in
the month of November in the country (1838) but
the term “microbes” was first used in 1878.
Suggested readings for Chapter 1:

• Understanding History: A Primer of Historical

Method (1969) by Louis Gottschalk (pp. 41-
61, 117-170)
• From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to
Historical Methods (2001) by Martha Howell
and Walter Prevenier (pp. 17-68)
“Our misfortunes are our own fault, let us
blame nobody else for them. But as long as
the Filipino people do not have sufficient
vigour to proclaim, head held high and
chest bared, their right to a life their own
in human society and to guarantee it with
their sacrifices, with their very blood if
necessary. Why give them independence?
What is the use of independence if the
slaves of today, will become the tyrants of
tomorrow? And no doubt they will, because
whoever submits to tyranny, loves it!”
-Padre Florentino (El Filibusterismo, 1891)