MODULE 1: Meaning and Relevance of History, Primary and Secondary Sources

and Historical Method

Lesson 1
Title: Learning History

INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOMES

After studying this lesson, you are expected to:
 Explain the meaning and relevance of history
 Identify credible and authentic primary sources and know how to
evaluate their provenance
 Examine and assess critically the historical sources in writing history

READ AND PONDER:

History is derived from the Greek word historia which means learning by inquiry.
History deals with the study of the past. The word History is referred usually for
accounts of phenomena, especially human affairs in chronological order. There are
theories constructed by historians in investigating history; the factual history and
speculative history. Factual history presents readers the plain and basic information vis-
à-vis the events that took place (what), the time and date which the events happened
(when), the place with which the event took place, and the other people that were
involved (who). Speculative history, on the other hand, goes beyond facts because it is
concerned about the reasons for which events happened (why), and the way happened
(how). “It tries to speculate on the cause and effects of an event”(Ligan et al., 2018)
Breisach (1994) states that the role of history and historians have played in the
various societies and phases of western culture, proved substantially move different to
write than “who wrote that, when” book. That latter would demand much time and
patience but little sense of development or interpretation. Understand that reading
history books is not a mere memorizing names, dates nor places but also, to note that it
needs, to narrate and interpret, not to recite lists.
Historians do history to illuminate the nature of the human condition. History
should be honest – it must also be critical, informed, engaged and committed. It should
expose tyranny, celebrate achievement, condemn crimes, explain prejudice, describe
sacrifice, honor victims, commemorate the dead, and most importantly, provoke debate
(Champion, 2020).
Historical sources
Sources are very important in the lives of historians. Historians are mere fictitious
writers of events without the sources. Historians depend on the sources to create their
depiction of the past.
Any object from the past can be considered a source. It might be a document, it
might also be a building, a piece of art or an ephemeral object – a train ticket, say or
perhaps a pair of shoes. These are all ‘sources’ because they all provide as in different
ways with information which can help us create our own depiction of the past (University
of Cambridge. 2020).
Sources only become historical evidence when they are interpreted by the
historian to make sense of the past. The answer they provide will very much depend of
the sorts of questions historians are asking. For example a train ticket might be used to
provide evidence of migration patterns or of the cost of living at a particular time (What
are Historical Sources [UOC], 2020).
As for a pair of shoes, it might provide the cultural historian with evidence of
changing fashions and consumer tastes, or the social historian with evidence of class
differences or production patterns. This is why it makes little sense to ask if something
is good historical evidence it’s supposed to provide (UOC, 2020).
Primary Sources
Primary sources provide raw information and first-hand evidence (examples
include interview transcripts, statistical data, ad works of art). A primary source gives
you direct access to the subject of your research (Streefkerk, 2018). Primary sources –
are materials that are eyewitness accounts or as close to the original source as possible
(American University Washington, 2018). Primary sources – are contemporary to the
events and the people describe and show minimal or no mediation between the
document/artefact and its creator. As to the format, primary sources materials can be
written and non-written, the latter including sound, picture and artefact. Examples of
primary sources include; personal correspondence and diaries, works of arts and
literature, speeches and oral histories, audios and video recordings, photographs and
posters and so on (IU Bloomington, 2020).
Secondary Sources
Secondary sources – provide second-hand information and commentary from
other researchers (examples includes journal articles, reviews, and academic books) it
describes, interprets, or synthesizes primary sources (Streefkerk, 2018). Secondary
sources in contrast, lack immediacy of a record. As someone produced sometime after
an event happened they contain information that has been interpreted, commented,
analyzed or processed in such a way that it no longer conveys the freshness of the
original. History books, dictionaries, encyclopedias,, interpretive journal articles, and
books, reviews are all examples of secondary sources (IU Bloomington, 2020).
Historical method
Historical method 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 in the philosophy of history as a question of
epistemology. The study of historical method and writing is known as historiography.
Source criticism
Core principles: The following core principles of source criticism were formulated by
two Scandinavian historians, Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997):
 Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a
statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.
 Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality
of the source increase its reliability.
 The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one
can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.
 A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source which is more reliable
than a tertiary source, and so on.
 If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of
the message is strongly increased.
 The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias.
Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.
 If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in
creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.
Procedures
Bernheim (1889) and Langlois & Seignobos (1898) proposed a seven-step
procedure for source criticism in history:
1. If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proved.
2. However, majority does not rule; even if most sources relate events in one way,
that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis.
3. 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.
4. When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the
source with most "authority"—that is the source created by the expert or by the
eyewitness.
5. Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where
the ordinary observer could have accurately reported what transpired and, more
specifically, when they deal with facts known by most contemporaries.
6. If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is
measurably enhanced.
 7. When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then
historians take the source which seems to accord best with common sense.
External criticism: authenticity and provenance
Garraghan divides criticism into six inquiries;
1. When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
2. Where was it produced (localization)? 3. By whom was it produced (authorship)?
3. From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
4. In what original form was it produced (integrity)?
5. What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?
The first four are known as higher criticism; the fifth, lower criticism; and, together,
external criticism. The sixth and final inquiry about a source is called internal criticism.
R. J. Shafer on external criticism: "It sometimes is said that its function is negative,
merely saving us from using false evidence; whereas internal criticism has the positive
function of telling us how to use authenticated evidence."
Internal criticism: Historical Reliability
Noting that few documents are accepted as completely reliable, Louis Gottschalk
sets down the general rule, "for each particular of a document the process of
establishing credibility should be separately undertaken regardless of the general
credibility of the author." An author's trustworthiness in the main may establish a
background probability for the consideration of each statement, but each piece of
evidence extracted must be weighed individually.
Eyewitness evidence R. J. Shafer offers this checklist for evaluating eyewitness
testimony:
1. Is the real meaning of the statement different from its literal meaning? Are words
used in senses not employed today? Is the statement meant to be ironic (i.e.,
mean other than it says)?
2. How well could the author observe the thing he reports? Were his senses equal
to the observation? Was his physical location suitable to sight, hearing, touch?
Did he had the proper social ability to observe: did he understand the language,
have other expertise required (e.g., law, military); was he not being intimidated by
his wife or the secret police?
3. How did the author report? And what was his ability to do so?
1. Regarding his ability to report, was he biased? Did he had proper time for
reporting? Proper place for reporting? Adequate recording instruments?
2. When did he report in relation to his observation? Soon? Much later? Fifty
years is much later as most eyewitnesses are dead and those who remain
may have forgotten relevant material.
3. What was the author's intention in reporting? For whom did he report?
Would that audience be likely to require or suggest distortion to the
author?
 4. Are there additional clues to intended veracity? Was he indifferent on the
subject reported, thus probably not intending distortion? Did he make
statements damaging to himself, thus probably not seeking to distort? Did
he give incidental or casual information, almost certainly not intended to
mislead?
4. Do his statements seem inherently improbable: e.g., contrary to human nature, or
in conflict with what we know?
5. Remember that some types of information are easier to observe and report on
than others.
6. Are there inner contradictions in the document?
Louis Gottschalk adds an additional consideration: "Even when the fact in question
may not be well-known, certain kind of statements are both incidental and probable to
such a degree that error or falsehood seems unlikely. If an ancient inscription on a road
tells us that a certain proconsul built that road while Augustus was princeps, it may be
doubted without further corroboration that that proconsul really built the road, but would
be harder to doubt that the road was built during the principate of Augustus. If an
advertisement informs readers that 'A and B Coffee may be bought at any reliable
grocer's at the unusual price of fifty cents a pound,' all the inferences of the
advertisement may well be doubted without corroboration except that there is a brand of
coffee on the market called 'A and B Coffee.”
Indirect witnesses
Garraghan says that most information comes from "indirect witnesses," people who
were not present on the scene but heard of the events from someone else. Gottschalk
says that a historian may sometimes use hearsay evidence. He writes, "In cases where
he uses secondary witnesses, however, he does not rely upon them fully. On the
contrary, he asks: On whose primary testimony does the secondary witness base his
statements? Did the secondary witness accurately report the primary testimony as a
whole? If not, in what details did he accurately report the primary testimony?
Satisfactory answers to the second and third questions may provide the historian with
the whole or the gist 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. Insofar as this
'original' source is an accurate report of primary testimony, he tests its credibility as he
would that of the primary testimony itself."
 ACTIVITY 2
Check either of box if the source/s is a primary or a secondary source/s. Explain and
write your answer on the box that is provided if the source is a primary or a secondary
source.
Sources Primar Secondary Why is it primary or secondary?
y Source
Source
Newspapers

Almanacs

Letters

Speeches

Bibliographies

Government
Issued
Documents
Census
Records

Textbooks

Encyclopedias

Photographs,
Audio and
Video
 Recordings

Reference:
American Universi Washington. (2018). Primary v.s. Secondary Sources.
Retrieved from http:/subjectguides.library.american.edu/primary
Breisach, Ernst, Historiography; ancient, medieval and modern, 2nd edition, The
University of Chicago Press, London 1994, (pg 1,2)
Champion Justine. (2020). What are Historians for? Retrieved from
http:/www.academics.oup.com/histres/article-anstract/81/211/16
Edwards Education Blog. Historical Method. Retrieved from
https://edwardseducationblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/historical-method.pdf
IU Bloomington. (2020). Identifying Primary and Secondary Sources. Retrieved
from http:/guides,libraries.indiana.edu/primarysources
Ligan, Victoria O., Apsay, Leah C., Espino, Lindsey C., Porras, Cecilie Sharon T.,
Salinas, Emyline D., Lemana, Jose J., Readings in Philippine History, Mutya Publishing
House, Inc. Malabon City, 2018
Streefkerk, Raimo. (2018). Primary and Secondary Sources. Retreived from
http/www.scribbr.com/citing-sources/primary-and-secondary sources/
University of Cambridge. (2020) What are Historical Sources?. Retrieved from
http:/www.hist.cam/ac.uk/prospective-undergrads//virtual-classroom/historical-sources-
what
University of Cambridge. (2020) What are Historical Sources?. Retrieved from
http:/www.hist.cam/ac.uk/prospective-undergrads//virtual-classroom/historical-sources-
where
University of Cambridge. (2020) What are Historical Sources?. Retrieved from
http:/www.hist.cam/ac.uk/prospective-undergrads//virtual-classroom/historical-sources-
how+