THE MEANING AND RELEVANCE OF HISTORY

A. The Meaning of History

History – derived from the Greek word historia which means learning
by inquiry. Aristotle looked upon history as the systematic accounting
set of natural phenomenon that is taking into consideration the
chronological arrangement of the account.
The word History is referred usually for account of phenomena,
especially human affairs in chronological order.

Factual History – presents the readers the plain and basic information
vis-à-vis the events that took place (what), the time and date with
which the events happened (when), the place with which the events
took place, and the people that were involved (who).

Speculative History – goes beyond facts because it is concerned

about the reasons for which events happened (why), and the way they
happened (how).

Filipinos term for history is kasaysayan which rooted in two words,

salaysay which means a narrative or a story and saysay or meaning.

‘’ang isang kasaysayan ay isang salaysay na may saysay sa mga

taong nagsasaysay’’ o ‘’ang kasaysayan ay isang salaysay hinggil sa
nakaraan na may saysay para sa sinalsayang pangkat ng tao o
salinlahi’’ - Zeus Salazar

Salazar’s contribution to definition of history is couched on his

theoretical frame of pantayong pananaw, which is monumental for
adds to the simple definition of history as a systematic account of past
events. The concept of saysay or meaning is a major element for a
narrative to qualify as historical account. A narrative without meaning to
the group of people will never be history.
To Agoncillo, History is the study of the relevant past. It is the struggle
of the Filipino people for freedom. While Constantino, define it as the
history of the inarticulate.
B. Sources of Historical Data

What are Sources?

In conducting any historical research, different sources of information

are required to gain extensive knowledge on a particular topic. Some
researchers rely on written sources while others choose to make use of
oral sources. No matter what source is being utilized, it is important to
know. Which among the gathered sources can provide accurate details
and information about the historical event or subject being researched
on.

Primary versus Secondary Sources

1. Primary sources are the raw materials of historical research they
are the documents or artifacts closest to the topic of investigation.

The following are examples of primary sources:

1. Autobiographies and memoirs
2. Diaries, personal letters, correspondence
3. Interviews, surveys, and fieldwork
4. Internet communications on email, blogs, listservs, and newsgroups
5. Photograph, drawing
6. Works of arts and literature
7. Speeches and oral histories
8. Original documents (birth certificates, property deeds, trial
transcripts)
9. Research data, such as census statistics
10. Official and unofficial records of organizations and government
agencies
11. Artifacts of all kinds, such as tools, coins, clothing, furniture, etc.
12. Government documents (reports, bills, proclamations, hearings,
etc.)
13. Patents

2. Secondary sources offer an analysis or a restatement of primary

sources. They often attempt to describe or explain primary sources.

The following are examples of secondary sources:

1. Bibliographies
2. Biographical works
3. Reference books, including dictionaries, encyclopedias, and atlases
4. Articles from magazines, journals, and newspapers after the event
5. Literature reviews and review articles (e.g., movie reviews, book
reviews)
6. History books and other popular orc scholarly books
7. Works of criticism and Interpretation
8. Commentaries and treatises

Most scholars use the following questions in evaluating the validity and
credibility of sources of historical accounts.

1. How did the author know about the given details? Was author
present at the event? How soon was the author able to gather the
details of the events?
2. Where did the information come from? Is it a personal experience,
an eyewitness account, or a report made by another person's?
3. Did the author conclude based on a single source, or o many
sources of evidence?

If the evaluation of an available source shows any indication

that it is an interpretative work rather than a factual firsthand account, it
is considered as a secondary source. Thus, in conducting historical
researcher, it is important to identify first whether the available sources
are primary or secondary sources. This is to determine how reliable
and helpful these sources are.
Hearsay and Secondary Evidence When historian can find no primary
witness, he uses the best secondary witness available. Unlike the
lawyer, he wishes to discover a nearly as possible what happened
rather than who was at fault. If he sometimes has to make judgments,
he does not have to pass sentence and hence he does not have the
same hesitation as a judge to permit evidence that practice rules out of
courtrooms.

In cases where he uses secondary witnesses, however, he

does not rely upon them fully. On the contrary, he asks (1) On whose
primary testimony does the secondary witness base his statements?
(2) Did the secondary witness accurately report the primary testimony
as a whole? (3) If not, in what details did he accurately report the
primary testimony? Satisfactory answers to the second and third
questions may prove the historian with the whole or the substance of
the primary testimony upon which the secondary witness may be his
only means of knowledge. In such cases the secondary source is the
historian's "original" source, in the sense of being the "origin" of his
knowledge. In so far as this "original" source is an accurate report of
primary testimony, he tests its credibility as he would that of the
primary testimony itself.

Thus, hearsay evidence would not be discarded by the historian

as it would be by a law court, merely because it is hearsay. It is
unacceptable only in so far as it cannot be established as accurate
reporting of primary testimony. A single example will perhaps suffice to
make that clear. A White House correspondent stating what the
president had said at a press conference would be a primary source of
information on the president's words the same correspondent telling a
presidential secretary's version of what the president had said would
be a secondary or hearsay witness, and probably would be
successfully challenged in a courtroom and yet if the correspondent
were a skilled and honorable reporter and if the presidential secretary
were competent and honest, the correspondent s account might by a
thoroughly accurate statement of what the president in fact had said.
Even the most punctilious historian might retain that kind of evidence
for further corroboration.

Categories of Written Sources

1. Narrative - Chronicles or tracts presented in narrative form, written
to impart a message whose motives for their composition vary widely.
**A newspaper article might be intended to shaped opinion; to so-
called ego document or personal narrative such as diary or memoir.

2. Diplomatic sources - Those which document/record an existing

legal situation or create a new one, and it is these kinds of sources that
professional historians treated as the "best" source.
**A legal document is usually sealed or authenticated to provide
evidence that a legal transaction has been completed and can be used
as evidence in a judicial proceeding in case of dispute

3. Social Document - Information pertaining for economic, social,

political, or judicial significance.
**They are records kept by bureaucracies.
**Example. Government reports, such as municipal accounts, research
findings, and documents like civil registry records, property register,
and records of census.
Non-written Sources of History

1. Material evidence
"archeological evidence
**One of the most important unwritten evidences.
**Artistic creations such as pottery, jewelry, dwellings, graves,
churches, roads, and other that tell a story about the past

2. Oral evidence
**Source of information for historians, told by the tales or sagas of
ancient people. Folksongs or popular rituals
7