Intoduction to History:

Definition,Issues, Sources,and
Methodology
Learning objectives
• To understand the meaning of history as an academic discipline and to be
familiar with the underlying philosophy and methodology of the discipline.
• To apply the knowledge in historical methodology and philosophy in
assessing and analyzing existing historical narratives.
• To examine and assess critically the value of historical evidences and
sources.
• To appreciate the importance of history in the social and national life of the
Philippines.
This chapter introduces history as a discipline and as a narrative.
It presents the definition of the history, which transcends the
common definition of history as the study of the past.

This chapter discusses several issues in history that consequently

opens up for the theoretical aspects of the discipline.

The distinction between primary and secondary sources is also dis-cussed in

relation to the historical subject matter being studied and the historical
methodology employed by the historian.

It tackles the task of the historian as the arbiter of facts and evidences in
making his interpretation and forming historical narrative.
• Definition and Subject Matter
History was derived from a Greek word historia which means knowledge
acquired through inquiry or investigation”.
History as a discipline existed for around 2,400 years and is as old as
mathematics and philosophy. This term was then adapted to classical Latin
where it acquired a new definition. Historia became known as the account of
the past of a person or group of person through written documents and
historical evidences. That meaning stuck until the early parts of the twentieth
century. History became an important academic discipline.
It became the historian’s duty to write about the lives of important individuals
like monarchs, heroes, saints, and nobilities. History was also focused on
writing about wars, revolutions ,and other important breakthroughs.

What counts as history?

Traditional historians lived with the mantra of “ no document ,no history”. It
means that unless a written document can prove a certain historical event,
then it cannot be considered as a historical fact.
• But as any other academic disciplines, history progressed and opened
up to the possibility of valid historical sources, which were not limited
by written documents, like government records, chroniclers’ accounts,
or personal leters.
Giving premium to written documents essentially invalidates the
history of other civilizations that do not keep written records restricting
historical evidences as exclusively written is also discrimination against
other social classes who were not recorded in paper. Nobilities ,
monarchs, the elite, and even the middle class would have their birth,
education, marriage, and death as matters of government and historical
record. But what the peasant families or indigenous groups who were
not given much thought about being registered to government
records?
Does the absence of written documents about them means that they
were people of no history or past? Did they even exist?
• The loophole were recognized by historians who started using other kinds of
historical sources ,which may not be in written form but are just as valid.
• A few of this examples are oral traditions in form of epics and songs, artifacts,
architecture, and memory.
• History became more inclusive and started collaborating with other
disciplines as its auxiliary disciplines. With the aid of Archeologist, historians
can use artifacts from a bygone era to study ancient civilization that were
formerly ignored in history because of lack of documents.
• Linguist can also be helpful in tracing historical evolutions, past connections
among different groups, and flow of cultural influence by studying language
and the changes that it has undergone.
• Even scientists like biologists and biochemists can help with the study of the
past through analyzing genetic and DNA patterns of human societies.
Questions and issues in History

HISTORY as a discipline has already turned into a complex and dynamic inquiry. This
dynamism inevitably produced various perspectives on the discipline regarding different
questions like:
What is history? Why study history? And history for whom? These questions can be
answered by historiography.
Historiography is the history of history, in simple terms. History and historiography should
not be confused with each other. The former’s object of study is the past, the events that
happened in the past ,and the causes of such events.
The latter’s object of study, on the other hand, is history itself (i.e., How was a certain
historical text written? Who wrote it? What was the context of it publication? What
particular historical method was employed? What were the sources used?
Thus, historiography lets the students have a better understanding of history.
They do not only get to learn historical facts, but they are also provided with the
understanding of the fact’s and the historian’s contexts. The methods employed by the
historian and the theory and perspective, which guided him, will also be analyzed.
Historiography is important for someone who studies because it teaches the student to be
critical in the lessons of history presented to him.
History has played various roles in the past.

• States use history to unite a nation.

• It can be used as a tool to legitimate regimes and forge a sense of

collective identity through collective memory.

• Lessons from the past can be used to make sense of the present.
Learning of the past mistakes can help people to not repeat them.

• Being reminded of a great past can inspire people to keep their good
practices to move forward.
• Positivism is the school of thought that emerged between the eighteen and nineteenth century.
• This thought requires empirical and observable evidence before one can claim that a particular
knowledge is true.
Positivism also entails an objective means of arriving at a conclusion.

In the discipline of history, the mantra “no document, no history

‘ stems from this very same truth, where historians were required to show
written primary documents in order’ to write a particular historical narrative.
Positivist historians are also expected to be objective and impartial not just in their
uments but also on their conduct of historical research.
As a narrative,
Any history that has been taught and written is always intended for a certain group of audience.
For example, Jose Rizal, Isabelo de los Reyes; and Pedro Paterno wrote history
whom they called themselves ilustrado intended it for the Spaniards so that they would realize that
Filipinos are people of their own intellect and culture.

When American historians depicted the Filipino people as uncivilized in their publications, they
intended that narrative for their fellow Americans to justify their colonization of the islands. They
wanted the colonization to appear not as a means of undermining Philippines’ sovereignty, but as a
civilizing mission to fulfill what they called as the “ white man’s burden.

The same is true for nations which prescribed official versions of their history like North Korea,
the Nazi Germany during the war period, and Thailand.

The same was attempted by Marcos in the Philippines during the 1970’s.
Postcolonialism is a school of thought that emerged in the early twentieth century when
formerly colonized nations grappled with the idea of creating their identities and
understanding their societies against the shadows of their colonial past.
Two things that Postcolonial history looks in writing history:

1. To tell the history of their nation that will highlight their identity free from that of
colonial discourse and knowledge
2. To criticize the the methods, effects, and idea of colonialism.

Postcolonial history therefore is a reaction and an alternative to the colonial history that
colonial powers created and taught to their subjects.
• One of the problem confronted by history is the accusation that the history is always
written by victors. This connotes that the narrative of the past is always written from the
bias of the powerful and the more dominant players.

• For instance , the history of the Second World War in the Philippines always depicted
the United States as the hero and the imperial Japanese Army as the oppressors.
Filipinos who collaborated with the Japanese were lumped in the category of traitors or
collaborators.
• However, a more thorough historical investigations will reveal a more nuanced account
of the history of that period instead of a simplified narrative as a story of the hero
versus villain.
• History and the Historian

If history is written with agenda or is heavily influenced by the historian ,is it possible to come up
with an absolute historical truth?
Is history an objective discipline? No. if its not, is it still worthwhile to study history?
These questions have haunted historians for many generations. An exact and accurate account of
the past is impossible for the very simple reason that we cannot go back to the past. We cannot
access the past directly as our subject matter.
Historians only get to access representation of the past through historical sources and evidences.
It is the historian’s job not just to seek historical evidences and facts but also to interpret these
facts.” facts cannot speak for themselves.” It is the job of the historians to give meaning to these
facts and organize them into a timeline, establish causes, and write history.
He is a person of his own who is influenced by his own context, environment, ideology,
education, and influences, among others. In that sense, his interpretation of the historical facts
is affected by his context and circumstances. His subjectivity will inevitably influence the process
of his historical research; the methodology that he will use, the facts that he shall select and
deem relevant, his interpretation, and even the form of his writings.
Thus, in one way or another, history is always subjective. If that is so, can history still be
considered as an academic and scientific inquiry?
• Historical research requires rigor. Despite the fact that historians cannot ascertain absolute objectivity, the
study of history remains scientific because of the rigor of research and methodology that historians employ.

• Historical methodology comprises certain techniques and rules that historians follow in order to properly
utilize sources and historical evidences in writing history. Certain rules apply in cases of conflicting
accounts in different sources, and on how to properly treat eyewitness accounts and oral sources as valid
historical evidences. In doing so, historical claims done by historians and the arguments that they forward
in their historical writings, while may be influenced by the historian’s inclinations, can still be validated by
using reliable evidences and employing correct and meticulous historical methodology.

• The Annales School of History is a school of history born in France that challenged the cannons of history.
This school of thought did away with the common historical subjects that were almost always related to the
conduct of states and monarchs.
• The Annales scholars like Lucien Febvre, Marc Bloch, Fernand Braudel, and Jacques le Goff studied other
subjects in a historical manner. They were concerned with social history and studied longer historical
periods. For example, Annales scholars studied the history of peasantry, the history of medicine, or even
the history of environment. They advocated that the people and classes who were not reflected in the
history of the society in the grand manner be provided with space in the records of mankind. In doing this,
Annales thinkers married history with other disciplines like geography, anthropology, archeology, and
linguistics.
For example, if a historian chooses to use an oral account as his data in
studying the ethnic history of the Ifugao's in the cordilleras during the American
occupation, he needs to validate the claims of his informant through comparing
and corroborating it with written sources. Therefore, while bias is inevitable, the
historian can balance this out by relying to evidences that back up his claim. In
this sense, the historian need not let his bias blinds his judgement and such bias
is only acceptable if he maintains his rigor as a researcher.
• Historical Sources
• History’s subject matter is the past, the historians most important research tools are historical sources.
• Historical Source can be Classified between primary and secondary sources. The classification of sources
between these two categories depends on the historical subject being studied.
• Primary are those sources produced at the same time as the event, period, or subject being studied.
For Primary sources example: A historian wishes to study the Commonwealth Constitution Convention
of 1935, his primary sources can include the minutes of the convention, newspaper clippings, Philippine
Commission reports of the U.S. Commissioners, records of the convention, draft of the Constitution, and
even photographs of the event .Eyewitness accounts of convention delegates and their memoirs can also
be used as primary sources.
• The same goes with other subjects of historical study. Archival documents, artifacts, memorabilia, letters,
census, and government records, among others are the most common examples of primary sources.

• Secondary Sources are those sources, which were produced by an author who used primary sources to
produced the material. In other words ,secondasry sources are historical sources, which studied a certain
historical subject. For example, On the subject of the Philippine Revolution of 1896, students can read
Teodoro Agoncillo’s Revolt of the masses; The Story of Bonifacio and the Katipunan published originally
in 1956. The Philippine Revolution happened in the last years of the nineteenth century while Agoncillo
published his work in 1956, which means the revolt of the masses a secondary source. More, interview
with the veterans of the Revolution, and correspondence between and among Katipuneros.
• The classification of the sources between the primary and secondary depends not on the period
when the source was produced or the type of the source but on the subject of the historical
research .
• For example, a textbook is usually classified as a secondary source, a tertiary source even.
However, this classification is usual but not automatic.
• If a historian chooses to write the history of education in the 1980’s, he can utilize textbooks
used in that period as a primary source.
• If a historian wishes to study the historiography of the Filipino- American War for example, he
can use works of different authors on the topic as his primary source as well.
• Both primary and secondary sources are useful in writing and learning history. However,
historians and students of history need to thoroughly scrutinize these historical sources to avoid
deception and to come up with historical truth.
• The historian should be able to conduct an external and internal criticism of the source, especially
primary sources which can age in centuries. External criticism is the practice of verifying the
authenticity of evidence by examining its physical characteristics; consistency, with the historical
characteristics of the time when it was produced; and the materials used for the evidence.
• Examples of the things that will be examined when conducting external criticism of a document
include the quality of the paper, the type of the ink, and the language and words used in the
material, among others.
• Internal criticism, is the examination of the truthfulness of the evidence. It looks at the content
of the source and examine the circumstance of its production. IC looks at the truthfulness and
factuality of the evidence by looking at the author of the source, its context, the agenda behind
its creation, the knowledge which informed it, and its intended purpose ,among others.
• .For example, Japanese reports and declaration during the period of the war should bot be
taken as historical fact hastily. Internal criticism entails that the historian acknowledge and
analyze how such reports can be manipulated to be used as war propaganda.
• Validating historical sources is important because the use3 of unverified, falsified, and
untruthful historical sources can lead to equally false conclusions. Without thorough criticism of
historical evidences, historical deception and lies will be highly probable.
• One of the most scandalous cases of deception in Philippine history is the hoax Code of Kalantiaw. The code
was a set of rules contained in an epic, Maragtas, which was allegedly written by a certain Datu Kalantiaw. The
document was sold to the National Library and was regarded as an important precolonial document until
1968, when American historian William Henry Scott debunked the authenticity of thger code due to
anachronism and lack of evidence to prove that the code existed in the precolonial Philippine Society.
• Ferdinand Marcos also claimed that he was a decorated World War ll soldier who led a guerrilla unit called
Ang Maharlika. This was a widely believed by students of history and Marcos had war medals to show. This
claim, however was disapproved when historians counterchecked Marco’s claims with the war records of the
United States.
These cases prove how deceptions can propagate without rigorous historical research.
• The task of the historian is to look at the available historical sources and
select the most relevant and meaningful for history and for the subject matter
that he is studying.
• History, like other academic discipline, has come a long way but still has a lot
of remaining tasks to do. It does not claim to render absolute and exact
judgement because as long as questions are continuously asked, and as long
as time unfolds, the study of history can never be complete.
• The task of the historians is to organize the past that is being created so that it
can offer lesson s for nations, societies, and civilization.
• It is the historian’s job to seek for the meaning of recovering the past to let
the people see the continuing relevance of provenance, memory,
remembering, and historical understanding for both the present and the
future.
• Philippine historiography underwent several changes since the precolonial
period until the present. Ancient Filipinos narrated their history through
communal songs and epics that they passed orally from a generation to
another. When the Spaniards came, their chroniclers started recording their
observations through written accounts. The perspective of historical writing
and inquiry also shifted. The Spanish colonizers narrated the history of their
colony in a bipartite view. Hey saw the age before colonization as a dark
period in the history of the Islands, until they brought light through Western
thoughts and Christianity. Early nationalist refuted this perspective and
argued the tripartite view. They saw the precolonial society as a luminous age
that ended with darkness when the colonizers captured their freedom. They
believed that the light would come again once colonizers were evicted from
Philippines. Filipino historian Zeus Salazar introduced the new guiding
philosophy for writing and teaching history: pantayong pananaw [ for us-from
us perspective.]. This perspective highlights the importance of facilitating an
internal conversation and discourse among Filipinos about our own history,
using the language that is understood by everyone.
End