Readings in Philippine History

MODULE 2
Evaluation of Primary and Secondary Sources

INTRODUCTION
This module explains how to evaluate primary and secondary source materials. This also elaborates on
the primacy of primary sources over secondary sources. In addition, this presents the different points of
consideration in analyzing both types of sources.

DATE AND TIME ALLOTMENT

I. INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOMES

II. LECTURE
It is already common knowledge in the academe that both primary and secondary sources are
important in fleshing out the details of significant events in history. However, classifying a source as primary
or secondary has never been easy task. Nevertheless, the primacy of primary over secondary sources has
always been recognized. This is due to the fact that a primary source provides better and more accurate
historical details compared to a secondary source. However, the authenticity and reliability of primary
sources should be scrutinized before they are used.
In this day and age, the proliferation of fake news is evident in both print and digital media
platforms. Thus, it becomes more apparent that sources of text should be scrutinized for their credibility.
However, in a nation where there is minimal documentation of oral history, it is very difficult to trace the
primary sources of many written historical records that can help in understanding the relevance of historical
events in addressing contemporary social issues.
Although primacy is given to primary sources, there are instances when the credibility of these
sources are contestable. Garraghan (1950) identified six points of inquiries to evaluate the authenticity of a
primary source:
1. Date – when was it produced?
2. Localization – where did it originate?
3. Authorship – who wrote it?
4. Analysis – what pre – existing material served basis for its production?
5. Integrity – what was its original from?
6. Credibility – what is the evidential value of its content?
The absence of primary documents that can attest to the accuracy of any historical claim is really a
problem in the extensive study of history. In that sense, the significance of secondary sources should not
be discredited. Secondary sources are readily available in print and digital repositories. Secondary
accounts of historical events are narratives commonly passed on from one generation to the next or
knowledge that is shared within a community. Yet, similar to the usual problem with passing information
from one point as another, details can be altered. As information is relayed from person to person, the
accuracy of the source material is compromised. Nevertheless, secondary source materials in the study of
Philippine history without conjectures and refutations have the capacity to fill in gaps caused by the lack or
absence of primary sources.
Louis Gottschalk (1969) emphasized that it is impossible for historians to avoid using secondary
sources due to difficulty in accessing primary sources. Most often, historians depend on secondary
sources. Most often, historians depend on secondary sources to improved their background knowledge of
contemporary documents and detect any errors they may contain. Specifically, Gottschalk suggested that
secondary sources must only use for (1) deriving the setting wherein the contemporary evidence will fit in
the grand narrative of history; (2) getting leads to other bibliographic data; (3) acquiring quotations or
citations from contemporary or other sources; and (4) deriving interpretations with a view of testing and
improving them but not accepting them as outright truth. Historians should be prepared to verify the
information provided by secondary sources.
Martha Howell and Walter Preventer (2001) stated that before any source can be considered as
evidence in a historical argument, it must satisfy three preconditions. First, it must be comprehensible at the
most basic level of vocabulary, language, and handwriting. The first precondition sets the ground for the
contentions on the acceptability of the source and for all the aspects of the debate. Second, the source
must be carefully located in accordance with place and time. Its author, composer, or writer, and the
location where it was produced/published should be noted for the checking of authenticity and accuracy.
One example is a personal letter which usually indicates when (date) and where (place) it was written. This
information can assist in corroborating the details of the source given the whereabouts of its author as
stated in letter. Third, through the first two preconditions, the authenticity of the source must always be
checked and counterchecked before being accepted as a credible source in any historical findings. Subtle
details such as the quality of paper used, the ink or the watermark of the parchment used, the way it was
encoded using a typeface or the way the tape was electronically coded should be carefully scrutinized to
check if it was forged or mislabeled by archivists.
Cases of forgery and mislabeling are common in Philippine historiography. One example of the latter is
Ambeth Ocampo’s discovery of alleged draft of Jose Rizal’s third novel, the Makamisa. The stack of
writings was labeled Borrador del Noli Me Tangere. However, upon reading the draft, it is clear that it is not
connected to Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. This is a clear case of mislabeling for the discovered
draft seems misplaced in the stack where was taken from. A closer look at the characters in the novel,
however, reveals a different setting and story. This falsifies the alleged third novel of Rizal.
An example of forgery in historical documents is the story of the great forger, Roman Roque, who
allegedly forged the signature of Gen. Urbano Lacuna that led to the captivity of Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo.
Roque also forged the signature of Jose Rizal in the great retraction controversy. Another example, the
claim that the supposed autobiography of Josephine Bracken written on February 22, 1897, which asserts
her marriage to Rizal under Catholic rites, was badly forged. The penmanship on the document varies
significantly when compared to the other letters written by Bracken.
Given the possibility of forgery and mislabeling, historians not only evaluate the sources in terms of
external characteristics that focus on the questions of where, when, and by whom. They also evaluate in
terms of internal criteria which include seven factors identified by Howell and Prevenier (2001).

The genealogy of the - refers to the development of the document. The document
document may be original, a copy, or a copy of the copy.
The genesis of the - includes the situations and the authorities during the
document document’s production.
The originality of the - includes the nature of the document whether it is an eye/ear
document witness account or merely passing of existing information.
The interpretation of - pertains to deducing meaning from the document
 the document
The authorial authority - refers to the relationship between to the document’s subject
of the document matter and its author
The competence of the - refers to the author’s capabilities and qualifications to
observer critically comprehend and report information
The trustworthiness of - refers to the author’s integrity – whether he or she fabricates
the observer or reports truthfully.

In general, the reliability of primary sources is assessed on how these sources are directly related
and closely connected to the time of the events they pertain to. On the other hand, the reliability of
secondary sources depends on the elapsed time from the date of the event to the date of their creation.
More likely, the farther the date of creation from the actual event, the more reliable the source is. This is
because as time passes, more materials are likely to be made available. With this, those who engage in
historical research have the opportunity to exhaust all available materials in order to come up with
extensive outputs.

V. OTHER REFERENCES:

Cabrera, V. (2017, May 29). Fake news also hounded 1896 Philippine revolution. Philippine Daily Inquirer.
Retrieved from [Link]
Smith, B. (n.d.). Historical method: The how of historical inquiry. Retrieved from
[Link]
Smithsonian National Museum of American History. (n.d.). Engaging students with primary sources.
Retrieved from https;//[Link]/sites/default/files/[Link]