INTRODUCTION TO HISTORY: DEFINITION, ISSUES, SOURCES AND

METHODOLOGY

DEFINITION AND SUBJECT MATTER

History has always been known as the study of the past. Students of general education often
dread the subject for its notoriety in requiring them to memorize dates, places, names, and events
from distant eras.

History was derived from the 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.The term was adapted to classical Latin where it acquired a new
definition. Historia became known as the account of the past of a person or a group of people
through written Documents and historical evidences.

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.

History is the study of people, actions, decisions, interactions and behaviours. It is so compelling
a subject because it encapsulates themes which expose the human condition in all of its guises
and that resonate throughout time: power, weakness, corruption, tragedy, triumph … Nowhere
are these themes clearer than in political history, still the necessary core of the field and the most
meaningful of the myriad approaches to the study of history. Yet political history has fallen out
of fashion and subsequently into disrepute, wrongly demonised as stale and irrelevant. The result
has been to significantly erode the utility of ordering, explaining and distilling lessons from the
past.

History’s primary purpose is to stand at the centre of diverse, tolerant, intellectually rigorous
debate about our existence: our political systems, leadership, society, economy and culture.

******

QUESTION 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. In simple terms, historiography is the history of history. History and
historiography should not be confused to each other. The former’s object of study is the past, the
events that happened in the past and the causes of such events.
Thus, historiography lets the students have a better understanding of history. They do not get to
learn historical facts, but they also provided with the understanding of the fact’s and historian’s
contexts.

History has played various roles in the past. States use history to unite a nation. It can be used as
a tool to legitimize regimes and force 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 person can inspire people to keep
their good practices to move forward.

*****
One of the problems confronted by the 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 player. For instance, the history of the Second World War in
the Philippines always depicts the United States as the hero and the Imperial Japanese were
lumped in the category of traitors or collaborators. However, a more thorough historical
investigation will reveal a more nuanced account of the history of that period instead of a
simplified narrative as a story of hero versus villain.

HISTORY AND THE HISTORIAN

We cannot access the past directly as our subject matter. Historians only get to access
representation of the past through historical sources and evidences.

Therefore, 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 historian to give
meaning to thes facts and organize them into a timeline, establish causes, and write history.
Meanwhile the historian fact. 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 fact 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 the 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 the cases of conflicting accounts and oral sources as valid
historical evidence.

For example: If a historians chooses to use an oral account as his data in studying the ethnic
history of the Ifugaos in the Cordilleras during the American Occupation, he needs to validate
the claims if 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 claims. In this sense, the historian need to let his bias blind judgement and such bias
is only acceptable if he maintains his rigor as a researcher.
***

HISTORICAL SOURCES

With the past as history’s subject matter, historian’s most important research tools are historical
sources. In general, historical sources can be classified between these two categories depends on
the historical subject being studied.

1. Primary Sources – are those sources produced at the same time as the event, period, or
subject being studied.

Example of Primary Sources:

Archival documents
Artifacts
Memorabilia
Letters
CensusGovernment records

Example Situation:

If the historian wishes to study the Commonwealth Constitution Convention of 1935, his primary
sources can include the minutes of the convention, newpapers clippings, Philippine Constitution
report of the U.S Commisioners, records of the convention, the draft of the constitution and even
the photographs of the event. Eyewitness accounts of the convention delegates and their memoirs
can also be used as primary sources.

2. SECONDARY SOURCES – are those sources which were produced by an author who used
primary sources to produce the material. In the other words, secondary sources are historical
sources, which studied a certain historical subject.

Example of Secondary Sources

Books
Academic articles
Journals
Websites

Example situation:

On the subject of the Philippine Revolution of 1986, students can read Teodoro Agoncillo’s
Revolt of the Masses: The story of Bonifacio and the Katipunan published in 1956. The
Philippine Revolution happened in the last years of nineteenth century while Agoncillo published
his work in 1956, which makes the Revolt of the Masses a secondary sources. More than this, in
writing book, Agoncillo used primary sources with his research like documents of the
Katipunan,interview with the veterans of the Revolution, and correspondence between and
among Katipuneros.

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 the 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 characteristic of the time when it was
produced; and the materials used for evidence. Example of the things 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 on the
content of the source and examines the circumstance of its production. It looks also 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 intense purpose, among
others.