RIPH
RIPH
RIPH
The end goal is to enable students to understand and appreciate our rich past by
deriving insights from those who were actually present at the time of the event. It also
aims to develop the historical and critical consciousness of the students so that they
will become versatile, articulate, broadminded, morally upright and responsible
citizens.
2. History
It is a historian’s duty to draw insights from the ideas and realities that have
shaped the lives of men and women and the society. And in understanding these
ideas, a historian (or in fact, a student of history) can comprehend how situation
happened, identify their elements, and think of how these situations can solve
today’s predicaments and help plan for the future.
History has 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. This low appreciation of the
discipline may be rooted from the shallow understanding of history’s relevance to
their lives and to their respective contexts. While the popular definition of history
as the study of the past is not wrong, it does not give justice to the complexity of
the subject and its importance to human civilization.
HISTORY was derived from the Greek word historia which means
“knowledge acquired through inquiry or investigation”. History as a discipline
existed from around 2, 400 years and is as old as mathematics and philosophy.
This term was then adopted to classical Latin where it acquired a new definition.
Historia became known as the account of the past of a person or group of people
through written documents and historical evidences.
3. History is concerned with man in time: It deals with a series of events and each
event occurs at a given point in time. Human history, in fact, is the process of
human development in time. It is time which affords a perspective to events and
lends a charm that brightens up the past.
6. Multisided: All aspects of the life of a social group are closely interrelated and
historical happenings cover all these aspects of life, not limited only to the political
aspect that had so long dominated history.
7. History is a dialogue between the events of the past and progressively emerging
future ends. The historian’s interpretation of the past, his selection of the
significant and the relevant events, evolves with the progressive emergence of new
goals. The general laws regulating historical happenings may not be considered
enough; attempts have to be made to predict future happenings on the basis of the
laws.
8. Not only narration but also analysis: The selected happenings are not merely
narrated; the causal relationships between them are properly unearthed. The
tracing of these relationships lead to the development of general laws that are also
compared and contrasted with similar happenings in other social groups to
improve the reliability and validity of these laws.
9. Continuity and coherence are the necessary requisites of history: History carries
the burden of human progress as it is passed down from generation to generation,
from society to society, justifying the essence of continuity.
10. Relevant: In the study of history only those events are included which are
relevant to the understanding of the present life.
Historians are often asked: what is the use or relevance of studying History?
Why on earth does it matter what happened long ago? The answer is that History
is inescapable. It studies the past and the legacies of the past in the present. Far
from being a 'dead' subject, it connects things through time and encourages its
students to take a long view of such connections.
All people are living histories. To take a few obvious examples: communities
speak languages that are inherited from the past. They live in societies with
complex cultures, traditions and religions that have not been created on the spur
of the moment. People use technologies that they have not themselves invented.
And each individual is born with a personal variant of an inherited genetic
template, known as the genome, which has evolved during the entire life-span of
the human species.
So, understanding the linkages between past and present is absolutely basic
for a good understanding of the condition of being human. That, in a nutshell, is
why History matters. It is not just 'useful', it is essential.
Looking at the past teaches us to see the world through different eyes –
appreciating the diversity of human perceptions, beliefs, and cultures. Different
and/or new perspectives will enable us to analyze critically the present contexts of
society and beings. It also includes a look into the development of Philippine
culture through time especially with the influences of the colonial period that
would eventually shape the present Philippine identity.
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 forge a sense of collective
identity through collective memory. Lessons from the past can be used to make
sense of the present. Learning of 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 18th and 19th century.
This though 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
arguments but also on their conduct of historical research.
As a narrative, any history that has been taught and written is always
intended for certain group of audience. When the ilustrados, like Jose Rizal,
Isabelo de los Reyes, and Pedro Paterno wrote history, they 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 the 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 prescribe 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.
POSTCOLONIALSIM
Is a school of thought that emerged in the early 20th century when formerly
colonized nations grappled with the idea of creating their identities and
understanding their societies against the shadows of their colonial past.
Postcolonial history looks at two things in writing history: first is to tell the history
of their nation that will highlight their identity free from that of colonial discourse
and knowledge, and second is to criticize the methods, effects, and idea of
colonialism. Postcolonial history is therefore a reaction and an alternative to the
colonial history that colonial powers created and taught to their subjects.
One of the problems 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 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 Army as the oppressors. Filipinos
who collaborated with the 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
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 these facts and organize them into a timeline,
establish causes, and write history. Meanwhile, the historian is not a blank paper
who mechanically interprets and analyzes present historical 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.
Historical research requires rigor. Despite the fact that historians cannot
ascertain absolutely 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 how
to properly treat eyewitness accounts and oral sources as valid historical evidence.
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.
1. Form a group which consists three (3) members each. Try to discuss and
brainstorm about your important duties as students of history. What will be
your responsibilities not just as a student but as a citizen as you study
history/Philippine History?
2. Journal Writing: Pause for a few minutes and think about or reflect on your
past. Has your past influenced you in a way or another? How does your past
shape your identity and behavior?
3. Do you think that learning about our History is important and relevant to your
course? Explain your answer.
LESSON II
HISTORICAL SOURCES
Sources are our way of peering into the past, it is from historical sources
that our history is studied and written. But in analyzing them, several
methodologies and theories were used by historians to properly study history and
glean from the sources what is, for them, a proper way of writing history to
enhance and disseminate national identity.
Sources of information provide the needed evidence from which historians and
historiographers obtain facts and details about the peoples’ life and experiences in
the past. Historians must not only rely on information that are already presented,
but rather, it is imperative for them to re-enact and revisit historical details in
terms of triangulating information through the use of in-depth interview to
eyewitnesses, analysing documents, and other important records left by those who
first studied history. This is fundamentally important to come up with the real and
genuine presentation of one’s historical narrative.
A. Primary Sources
B. Secondary Sources
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.
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. They saw the age before
colonization as a dark period in the history of the islands, until they brought light
through Western thought and Christianity. Early nationalists 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 the colonizers were
evicted from the Philippines. Filipino historian Zues Salazar introduced the new
guiding philosophy for writing and teaching history: pantayong pananaw (from 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.
Tests of Credibility
i. Identification of the author e.g. to determine his reliability; mental
processes, personal attitudes
ii. Determination of the approximate date e.g. handwriting, signature, seal
iii. Ability to tell the truth e.g. nearness to the event, competence of witness,
degree of attention
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
judgment 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 historian
is to organize the past that is being created so that it can offer lessons 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.
1. Origin
In order to analyse a source, you must first know what it is. Sometimes not
all of these questions can be answered. The more you do know about where a
document is coming from, the easier it is to ascertain purpose, value and
limitation.
2. Purpose
This is the point where you start the real evaluation of the piece and try to
figure out the purpose for its creation. You must be able to think as the author of
the document. At this point you are still only focusing on the single piece of work
you are evaluating
Questions to consider are as follows:
a. Why does this document exist?
b. Why did the author create this piece of work? What is the intent?
c. Why did the author choose this particular format?
d. Who is the intended audience? Who was the author thinking would
receive this?
e. What does the document “say”?
f. Can it tell you more than is on the surface?
3. Value
Now here comes the difficult part. Putting on your historian hat, you must
determine: Based on who wrote it, when/where it came from and why it was
created...what value does this document have as a piece of evidence? This is where
you show your expertise and put the piece in context.
It helps if you know the context of the document and can explain what the
document helps you to understand about the context.
4. Limitation
The task here is not to point out weaknesses of the source, but rather to
say: at what point does this source cease to be of value to us as historians or
students of history?
Also, it is obvious that the author did not have prior knowledge of events
that came after the creation of the document. Do not state that the document
“does not explain X” (if X happened later).
Being biased does not limit the value of a source. If you are going to
comment on the bias of a document, you must go into detail. Who is it biased
towards? Who is it biased against? What part of a story does it leave out? What
part of the story is MISSING because of parts left out?
a. What part of the story can we NOT tell from this document?
b. How could we verify the content of the piece?
c. Does this piece inaccurately reflect anything about the time period?
d. What does the author leave out and why does he/she leave it out (if you
know)?
e. What is purposely not addressed?
This is again an area for you to show your expertise of the context. You need
to briefly explain the parts of the story that the document leaves out. Give
examples of other documents that might mirror or answer this document. What
parts of the story/context can this document not tell?
4. What is the main distinction between primary source and secondary source?
5. Read the excerpts below then do a comparative analysis.
The following readings discuss the findings on the remains of what was then
considered the earliest known human remains in the Philippines—Tabon Man.
Tabon Man-During the initial excavations of Tabon Cave June and July,
1962, the scattered fossil bones of at least thre~ individuals were
excavated, including a large fragment of a frontal bone with the brows
and portions of the nasal bones. These fossil bones were recovered towards
the rear of the cave alona b the left wall. Unfortunately, the area in which the
fossil human bones were recovered had been disturbed by Magapode birds.
It was not possible in 1962 to ·establish the association of these bones
with a specific flake assemblage, although they were provisionally related to
either Flake Assemblage II or III. Subsequent excavations in the same area
now strongly suggest that the fossil human bones were associated with Flake
Assemblage III, for only the flakes of this assemblage have been found to
date in this area of the cave.3 The available data would suggest that Tabon
Man may be dated from 22,000 to 24,000 years ago. But, only further
excavations in the cave and chemical analysis of human and animal bones
from disturbed and undisturbed levels in the cave will define the exact age
of the human fossils.
The fossil bones are those of Homo sapiens (Fig. 12). These will form a
separate study by a specialist which will be included in the final site report
for Tabon Cave. It is important to point out, however, because of a recent
publication (Scctt 1969), that a preliminary study of the fossil bones of Tabon
Man shows that it is above average in skull dimensions when compared to
the modern Filipino. There is no evidence that Tabon Man was " ... a less
brainy individual. .. " [Scott (1969) 36]. Moreover, Scott's study includes many
mistatements about the Tabon Caves, always the problem when writers work
from "conversations."
William Henry Scott. Prehispanic Source Materials for the Studyof Philippine History
(Revised Edition) (Quezon City, 1984), pp. 14—15.
Tabon Man – The earliest human skull remains known in the Philippines are
the fossilized fragments of a skull and jawbone of three individuals who are
collectively called “Tabon Man” after the place where they were found on the
west coast of Palawan. “Tabon Man” after the place where they were found
on the west coast Palawan. Tabon Cave appears to be a kind of little
Stone Age factory: both finished tools and waste cores and flakes
have been found at four different levels in the main chamber. Charcoal left
from cooking fires has been recovered from three of these assemblages and
dated by C-14 to roughly 7,000 B.C., 20,000 B.C., and 28,000 B.C. with an
earlier level lying so far below these that i must represent Upper Pleistocene
dates like 45 or 50 thousand years ago....Physical anthropologists who have
examined the Tabon skullcap are agreed that it belonged to modern man---
that is, Homo sapiens as distinguished from those mid-Pleistocene species
nowadays called Homo erectus. Two experts have given the further opinion
that the mandible is “Australian” in physical type, and that the skullcap
measurements are mostly nearly like those of Ainus and Tasmanians. What
this basically means is that Tabon Man was “pre-Mongoloid,” Mongoloid being
the term anthropologists apply to the racial stock which entered Southeast
Asia during the Holocene and absorbed earlier peoples to produce the modern
Malay;Indonesian,Filipino, and Pacific peoples popularly—and unscientifically
—called, “the brown race.” Tabon Man presumably belonged to one of those
earlier peoples, but, if decently clothed in flesh, T-shirt, and blue jeans, might
pass unnoticed in Quiapo today, whatever his facial features are concerned,
nothing can be said about the color of his skin or hair, or the shape of his
nose or eyes—except one thing: Tabon Man was not a Negrito.
a. Which is the primary source and the secondary source between the two
readings?
b. Do a credibility analysis of the sources. Who between the two authors is
more credible to talk about the topic?