HISTORICAL SOURCES
Primary Sources Secondary Sources
Secondary sources are
Historian's most important re- those sources, which were pro-
search tools are historical sources. duced by an author who used pri-
In general, historical sources can mary sources to produce the ma-
be classified between primary and terial.
secondary sources. The classi-
fication of sources between these
two categories depends on the
historical subject being studied.
Primary sources are those
sources produced at the same
time as the event, period, or
subject being studied.
Eyewitness accounts of
convention delegates and their
memoirs can also be used as pri-
mary sources. The same goes with
other subjects of historical study.
Archival documents, artifacts,
memorabilia, letters, census, and
government records, among oth-
ers are the most common exam-
ples of primary sources.
EXT ERNAL CRIT ICISM VS INT ERNAL CRIT ICISM
External Criticism Internal Criticism
is the practice of verifying the looks at the truthfulness
authenticity of evidence by ex- and factuality of the evidence by
amining its physical character- looking at the author of the
istics; consistency w ith the his- source, its context, the agenda be-
torical characteristic of the time hind its creation, the knowledge
when it was produced; and the ma- which informed it, and its intended
terials used for the evidence. E purpose, among others.
Historiography/ historical method (Internal and External)
History and historiography are tw o different things. History is a
discipline that focuses on studying the past; while historiography or historical
method is the history itself.
To make it clearer, historiography lets the students have a better under-
standing of history. They do not only get to learn historical facts, but they are al-
so provided with the understanding of the facts’ and historians’ contexts. The
methods employed by the historian and the theory and perspective, which guided
him, will also, be analyzed.
Essentially, historiography comprises the techniques and guidelines by
which historians use primary sources and other evidence to research and then to
write histories in the form of accounts of the past. The question of the nature,
and even the possibility, of a sound historical method is raised.
The following are some procedures for people who wanted to employ his-
toriography, as proposed by Bernheim (1889) and Langlois & Seignobos (1898):
a. If the sources all agree about an event, historians consider the event proved.
b. However, majority does no rule; even if most sources relate events in one way,
that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis.
c. The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in
some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible similarly to confirm
the entire text.
d. When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the
source with most “authority”-that is the source created by the eyewitness.
e. Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where the
ordinary observer could have accurately reported what transpired and, more specifi-
cally, when they deal facts known by most contemporaries.
f. If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is
measurably enhanced.
g. when two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then histori-
ans take the source which seems to accord best with common sense.
Aside from these procedures, historiography also involves the employment of in-
ternal and external criticisms.
External criticism is the practice of verifying the authenticity of evidence by ex-
amining its physical characteristics; consistency with the historical characteristic
of the time when it was produced; and the materials used for the evidence. Ex-
amples of the things that will be examined when conducting external criticism of
a document include the quality of the paper, the type of ink and the language
and words used in the material, among others.
Internal criticism, on the other hand, is the examination of the truthfulness of
the evidence. It looks at the content of the source and examines the circum-
stance of its production.
Other methods also used are as follows:
a.Positivism – emphasizes the man- c. Annales School of Thought – chal-
tra “no document, no history”, where lenged the canons of history, stating
historian were required to show that history should not only be con-
written primary documents in order cerned of states and monarchs.
to write a particular historical narra-
tive. d. Pantayong pananaw (for us-from
us perspective) – highlights the im-
b. Postcolonialism - emerged in the portance of facilitating an internal
twentieth century when formerly conversation and discourse among
colonized nations grappled with the Filipinos about our own history, using
idea of creating their identities and the language that is understood by
understanding their societies against everyone.
the shadows of their colonial past.
