M1 - Readings in the Philippine History with Indigenous Studies

The word History comes from what Greek word which literally means "learning by inquiry."

Historia

According to whom? who said history is the formal, systematic recording of a series of natural phenomena, ensuring that the events are arranged and accounted for in the correct chronological order.

Aristotle

In Histography, this is the traditional practice of historical writing and research, focusing on gathering documents and evidence from various sources to create a descriptive or analytical narrative of the past.

Research and Writing

In Histography, this also refers to the imaginative reconstruction of the past, meaning the historian must take the gathered data and evidence and creatively interpret and piece it together to form a meaningful story.

Reconstruction

This focuses on giving the reader only the plain and basic information about events, simply answering the fundamental questions of what, when, where, and who.

Factual History

This goes beyond the basic facts to explore the deeper reasons and motivations behind events, seeking to answer the complex questions of why and how things happened.

Speculative History

Because evidence from the past is always incomplete, historians must meaningfully reconstruct history from the records they have. This means history isn't the total past, but only the part that can be re-created from available evidence, making it a subjective process.

History as Subjective Re-creation

Since historians can't achieve absolute truth, their main goal is Verisimilitude, which means they strive to make their re-creation of the past as close as possible to the truth by ensuring it has Truth, Authenticity, and Plausibility.

Aim for Verisimilitude

This is the formal, academic process used by historians to carefully critically examine and analyze all the surviving records and materials from the past to determine their authenticity and meaning.

Historical Method

The first step in historical analysis is to clearly choose the topic or event you wish to study, which defines the scope of your entire investigation.

Step 1: Select the subject to investigate

Next, you must gather all likely evidence—records, documents, and artifacts—that relate to your chosen subject, which will serve as the raw material for your research.

Step 2: Collect probable sources

You must then critically examine all your sources to ensure they are authentic and credible, checking them for originality, accuracy, and any potential bias.

Step 3: Examine the sources genuinely

The final step of the analysis is to carefully pull out all the trustworthy and credible facts from the verified sources to be used as evidence for your historical account.

Step 4: Extract credible particulars

This is the information collected about past events and their circumstances. It is sourced from artifacts (like relics or remains) left behind or from the testimonies of witnesses, and it is the material historians use to construct meaning about the past.

Historical Data

This is a written account that tells or narrates a story of past events, providing a personal or descriptive view (e.g., diaries or chronicles).

Written Source: Narrative or Literature Source

These are formal written records or documents that confirm or create a legal situation, making them essential legal documents (e.g., laws, executive orders, or treaties).

Written Source: Diplomatic Sources

These are official written records containing information about the economic, social, political, or judicial significance of a population or group (e.g., census records or research findings).

Written Source: Social Documents

This includes physical artifacts like relics, bones, or tools. These non-written objects can reveal a great deal about the culture and daily life of people in the past.

Non-written Source: Material Evidence (also called archaeological evidence)

This consists of sources that are transmitted verbally, often passed down through generations. These include things like tales, folk songs, or recorded interviews, which provide spoken accounts of the past.

Non-written Source: Oral Evidence

These are the original, first-hand information because they were created or written during or very close to the event or period being studied (e.g., diaries, journals, or speeches).

Primary Sources

These are materials made long after the event by someone who was not a witness. They provide interpretations and analysis of primary sources and are considered second-hand information (e.g., research papers or history textbooks).

Secondary Sources

This is the process historians use to check the authenticity of a historical source. It answers questions about who made the source, where and when it was produced, and what its overall evidential value is.

External Criticism

The first question to External Criticism is about knowing the author helps determine if the source is an original work or a forgery.

Who wrote the document?

The second question of External Criticism is about asks to Understand the intent and audience help reveal potential bias or misrepresentation.

For what purpose was the document written, and for whom?

The third question of External Criticism is to ensure the described events could have realistically happened during that specific time period.

When was the document written, and is the date accurate?

The fourth question of External Criticism asks to verify if the details described in the source could have actually occurred in that specific geographic location.

Where was the document written?

This is the process historians use to check the credibility and reliability of a historical source's content. It focuses on understanding the substance and message by examining the author's intent and overall meaning.

Internal Criticism

The first question of Internal Criticism helps determine if the account is a direct, first-hand testimony.

Was the author actually present during the event he or she was describing?

The second question of Internal Criticism is about knowing their role helps judge the completeness and perspective of their testimony.

Was the author a participant or just an observer?

The third question of Internal Criticism considers the author's skill, knowledge, and ability to accurately understand and report what they witnessed.

Was the author competent to describe the event?

The fourth question of Internal Criticism is about knowing the high emotional involvement can suggest potential bias that might distort the objective facts of the account.

Was the author emotionally involved in the event?

The fifth question of Internal Criticism is to know what personal stake in the results (like seeking fame or avoiding blame) can severely undermine the reliability of the source.

Was the author emotionally involved in the event?