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
o period when man started to write and record events using a
system of writing
o 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”
Branches of Science (Flowchart Format)
SCIENCE
├── Natural Science
│ ├── Physical Sciences
│ │ ├── Physics
│ │ └── Chemistry
│ └── Biological Sciences
│ ├── Zoology
│ └── Botany
└── Social Science
├── History
├── Economics
├── Political Science
├── Sociology
├── Anthropology
├── 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
Importance 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 Timeframe of the Philippines
Pre-historic era — Spanish era — American era — Japanese era —
Contemporary era – present
9000 BCE or 7000 BCE → 21st Century
B. Distinction of Primary and Secondary Sources; External and
Internal Criticism
Historical Sources
1. Primary 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
Primary sources
- Written Sources
- Unwritten 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
Primary Source A
Primary Source B
Primary Source C
COMPARISON
Equals: Secondary Source
Secondary sources
Drill: Identify whether Primary 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?
- were the words used during 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 write “Sa Aking Mga Kabata”
Roman 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)
Thank you!
Yosef Eric C. Hipolito, LPT, MA
Bachelor of Arts in History
[email protected]
