Section 3 – Evaluation of Primary and Secondary Sources

Overview

Section 2 guided you how to distinguish primary sources from secondary sources and
gave you an opportunity to classify and give samples. You searched historical sources and assess
if they are opinionated or biased. This lesson offers you a chance to evaluate primary and
secondary sources. It also elaborates the primacy of primary sources over secondary sources.
Furthermore, it presents criteria that can be used to analyze both types of sources.

Intended Learning Outcomes:

At the end of the section, the learners must have:

1. identified the criteria in evaluating primary and secondary source materials

2. assessed primary and secondary source materials; and

3. evaluated the provenance (origin) of primary sources

Topics

 Criteria for Evaluating the Primary Sources

  Assessing the reliability of Primary Sources
 Limitations of Primary and Secondary Sources

Learning Resources

 Internet and other social media websites

 Laptop, mobile phones and other gadgets
 Readings, reference books and materials
 Activity sheets

Time Frame: Week 2 (October 18-22, 2021)

Let’s Try This!

Fake News or Real News?

Instructions: Write your insights on the space provided on the following story behind the story
about the Oblation statue of the University of the Philippines (UP). Is it a credible source
material or not?

(Asuncion and Cruz, 2019).

When you visit any UP campus, it is not difficult to see the Oblation. In the UP
Diliman campus, the popular statue, measuring 3.5 meters in height, was constructed
during the presidency of Rafael Palma. First-time observers, whether part of the UP
community or not, usually ask “Who is the model of the famous UP symbol, the
Oblation?”
The answer is Fernando Poe, Sr., a UP student during the time. National artist
Guillermo Tolentino, a professor of the UP School of Fine Arts, created the statue.

LET’S DIG DEEPER!

Instructions: Read and understand the text of the literature below.

It is a 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 an 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 texts should be scrutinized for
their credibility. However, for a nation where there is minimal documentation of oral history, it
is very difficult to trace the primary sources of many 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 is contestable. Garragham (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 as the basis for its production?

5. Integrity – What was the original form?

6. Credibility – hat 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 accounts 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 to 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 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 the difficulty in accessing primary sources. More often, historians
depend on secondary sources to improve their background knowledge of contemporary
documents and detect any errors they may contain. Specifically, Gottschalk suggested that
secondary sources must only be used for (1) deriving the setting wherein the contemporary
evidence will fit in the grand narrative of history; (2) getting leads to other bibliographical date;
(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 Prevenier (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 then 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 a 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 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 the alleged draft of Jose Rizal’s third novel, the
Makamisa. The stack of writing s was labeled Borrador del Noli Me Tangere. However, upon
reading the draft, it was clear that it is not connected to Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo.
This a clear case of mislabeling for the discovered draft seems misplaced in the stack where it
was taken from. A closer look at the characters of 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 in the document varies
significantly when compared to the letters written by Bracken.

Given the possibility of forgery and mislabeling, historian 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).

1. The genealogy of the document – refers to the development of the document. The
document may be original, a copy, or a copy of the copy;

2. The genesis of the document - includes the situations and the authorities during the
document’s production;

3. The originality of the document – includes the nature of the document whether it is
an eye/earwitness account or merely passing of existing information;

4. The interpretation of the document – pertains to the deducing meaning from the
document;

5. The authorial authority of the document – refers to the relationship between the
document’s subject matter and author;

6. The competence of the observer – refers to the author’s capabilities and

qualifications to critically comprehend and report information; and

7. The trustworthiness of the observer -refers to the author’s integrity – whether he or

she fabricates 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
creation. More likely, the farther the date of creation from the actual event, the more reliable the
source is. This 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. (Asuncion & Cruz, 2019).

LET’S STRENGTHEN OUR SKILL!

Exercise 1.3.1

Analyzing Primary Sources

Name_____________________Course/Yr./Sec. ________

Date submitted: _______________

Instructions: Access and read the full transcript of the undelivered Arrival Speech of Senator
Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. and answer the questions below. The speech can be accessed at

[Link]

I. First Impressions

A. What are your first impressions about the undelivered speech of Benigno S. Aquino, Jr?

___________________________________________________________________________ To
be honest, my first thought upon reading Senator Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino's unfinished speech
was: quite detailed.

He appeared to keep a diary for all of the dates and events he had written down. It was so
thorough that you could picture where, how, and when all of the events took place. It also
includes his unequivocal response to all of the accusations and suspicions that swirled around
him throughout his time in America.

B. What type of document is it? (Letter, ad, newspaper etc)?

I consider it to be an autobiography.
___________________________________________________________________________

II. Looking More Closely

1. Write your impressions about the undelivered speech?

To be honest, my first thought upon reading Senator Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino's unfinished
speech was: quite detailed.

He appeared to keep a diary for all of the dates and events he had written down. It was so
thorough that you could picture where, how, and when all of the events took place. It also
includes his unwavering stance on all of the false charges and stories that swirled around him
during his time in America.

But after reading it, I'm left with the impression that there's still a lot more we need to learn
about his period. In our past, I believe there is a lot of silent truth. Some of which have the
potential to turn the tables on our own ideas and expertise.

2. What form of document is it (newspaper, letter, ad)?

Probably an
autobiography__________________________________________________________________
_________

3. List unfamiliar words or phrases you encountered while reading the undelivered speech

_ asylum

leniency
regime
deteriorated
surmounted
cadre
disputes
allegedly
exile
repression
allegedly
escalating
fortified
4. What specific date was the speech written? If it has, when was it? If none, are there hints
that might indicate when it was written?

It was said that there was no specific date on the undelivered speech of Benigno Aquino Jr.

5. Where was the speech written indicated?

METRO MANILA

___________________________________________________________________________

6. Who is the author of the document? How did you know?

Benigno Aquino Jr.

___________________________________________________________________________

7. To whom was the document addressed to? How ddi you know?

To the Filipino People

___________________________________________________________________________

F. What is the purpose of the document? Why do you think so?

That he genuinely cares about the Philippines and its people. And they believe that the
Philippines' largest problem is corrupt government and politicians, which are preventing the
country from developing as an independent nation.

Exercise 1.3.2

Comparative Analysis: Primary and Secondary Sources

Instructions: Read the following materials and fill in the table with needed information derived
from the said materials.

Readings:

 Alvarez, S. (1992). The Katipunan and the revolution: Memoirs of a general (pp. 82-88).
Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo de Manila University Press
 Agoncillo, T.A. (2002). The Revolt of the masses: The story of Bonifacio and the Katipunan
(pp. 201-217). Quezon City, Philippines: University of the Philippines Press

Category Alvarez Agoncillo

Brief description of the author Alvarez, also called Al Agoncillo (November 9, 1912
Alvarez, in full Alfred – January 14, 1985) was one
Alvarez, (born August of the pre-eminent Filipino
5, 1929, London, historians of the 20th
England—died century. He and his
September 23, 2019), contemporary Renato
British novelist, Constantino were among the
essayist, and critic first Filipino historians who
whose works explore earned renown for promoting
the interaction of a distinctly nationalist point of
public and private view of Filipino history
forces that shape (nationalist historiography)
personality and
behaviour.
Type of source (primary or Santiago Alvarez His notable works include The
secondary) account was written at History of the Filipino
the same time as the People; Malolos: The Crisis
event occurred that is of the Republic; The Writings
why and Trials of Bonifacio; and
his writing became the Revolt of the Masses
primary source
Main points raised by the article A failing government is He scorned the "objective"
the outcome of a rigged historian's concept. He claims
election. Democracy, that all historians are human,
the introduction of fair and that humans have
and equal rights for all, "passion, prejudices, and
never becoming emotion" that impact even
complacent, and their greatest work. Agoncillo
finally, a failed taught historians to embrace
government is the their humanity rather than
result of a rigged reject it while writing history.
election.
Text from the article which As a student of history, “History deals with the past,
support the main points raised I have always held the not with the future. We use
history to avoid the
belief that history as a
mistakes of the past, not to
discipline and as a
recreate the very same
species of composition
events. You cannot.”
has the elements of the
humanities and the
social sciences
Relevance to Philippine history The Alvarez memoirs What role does history
(especially the Tagalog play in modern
original) tell a gripping society, particularly in
story of the events of the Philippines?
1896-97, and are Every Filipino's present and
particularly revealing future plans are guided by
for their account of the history. 8. Our shared history
events that led to one of binds us together and shapes
the Revolution's most us into responsible Filipino
contentious events — citizens.
the execution of
Katipunan Supremo
 Andres Bonifacio and
his brother Procopio.

Synthesis:

Based on the primary and secondary sources of historical records using the two
articles, of Alvarez and Agoncillo, which do you think provides a more accurate and
detailed information on the story? 30 Justify your stand or claim in 300 to 300
words. (Use extra sheet of paper, if needed.)

______________________________________________________________________________

Suggested Further Readings

 Limitations of Primary and Secondary Sources retrieved from [Link]

[Link]

Looking Back at Your Learning Process

Answer the following questions truthfully and

wholeheartedly. Write your answer
In your Reflection Journal below.

1. Which section/s or part/s is (are) easy for you to study?

Why was it easy?
2. Which section/s or part/s is (are) difficult?
Why was it difficult?
3. If you were to study the content of the module and do the exercises
again, How would you improve your learnings?
a. Refer to your own exercises
b. Confer with your classmates and ask them of the past
 exercises in studying
c. Consult your teacher and ask for suggestions
4. What are your concerns about this course/subject (GE-RPH). List
them with your plans/proposals to overcome them.

MY REFLECTION JOURNAL

I find these three sections a bit challenging and that it was not easy. I don’t also consider it
a difficult activity. And if I were to study the content of the module and do the exercises
again, I would probably focus on the primary issues about the martial laws and Benigno’s
cases. I find this part of activity okay and maybe I’ll just state my concerns to another
activities later on.

______________________________________________________________________________

Module Check!
Instructions: Find out your learning gains by answering the items below.
Highest Possible Score: 60
1. Define: history; historiography; historia; historical methodology (2 pts each)
HISTORY
- the entire sequence of prior events involving someone or something

HISTORIOGRAPHY
- Historiography is the study of historians' approaches in creating history as an academic field,
and by extension, any collection of historical work on a certain topic.

HISTORIA
- Historia was derived from the Greek term historia, which originally signified inquiry, or the
act of seeking information, as well as the knowledge gained via investigation. ... History, on the
other hand, is a collection of accounts of occurrences.

HISTORICAL METHODOLOGY
- The technique by which historians gather data and construct beliefs about the past is referred to
as historical methodology. It is vital to investigate original sources in order to formulate
historical concepts. ... An interpretation, or a specific theory about the past, can be produced after
analyzing materials.
 2. Differentiate history and historiography in terms of object of study and benefit learners get
from each of them (4 pts)

History is the study of an event or a period of time. The study of how history was written, who
wrote it, and what variables influenced how it was written is known as historiography.
Historiography teaches us how cultural, political, economic, and other factors can influence how
history is recorded over time. It helps us to get as near to historical fact as feasible as long as we
don't bring any biases with us.

3. Give three roles of history in the past (3 pts)

History tells the tale of how your country, city, or community came to be what it is now. It tells
you where you come from and who your forefathers and mothers were. Most importantly, it
enables you to recognize (and value) whatever legacies you may have acquired from them.

4. Why is it difficult to have an accurate account of the past? (2 pts)

Because authentic history is difficult to gather for a variety of reasons, there is a lot of debate. A
great deal of historical data has been lost. ... Even if they are genuine, the significance of
historical documents might be difficult to decipher for a modern investigator, and they may clash
with other sources.

5. Cite three roles or tasks of a historian (3 pts)

Historians are scholars and experts who research historical events. Obtaining historical data from
libraries, archives, and artifacts, evaluating the legitimacy of historical material, and teaching or
researching at universities are among their key responsibilities.

6. What factors influence the historical narrative of a historian?

It could be where the historian sided to which we also termed as being “bias”, most of the time.

7. What makes history still scientific despite the bias or subjectivity of the researcher? (2pts)
___________________________________________________________________________it
could be that the history made by the historian was not been proved or no evidence shown
regarding the said history.

8. Differentiate primary sources from secondary sources (4 pts)

Primary sources are firsthand, contemporaneous descriptions of events written by people who
lived at the time or a few years later (such as correspondence, diaries, memoirs and personal
histories). ... Generalizations, analysis, interpretation, and synthesis of primary sources are
frequently used in secondary sources.

9. What are three questions to ask in evaluating the validity and credibility of historical sources?
(3 pts)
___________________________________________________________________________
How credible is the author?

Are arguments very one-sided with no acknowledgement of other viewpoints?

Are there vague or sweeping generalizations that aren't backed up with evidence?

10. What are the six points to consider in evaluating the authenticity of a primary source
according to Garragham? (6pts)
___________________________________________________________________________
Garraghan divides criticism into six inquiries (A Guide to Historical Method, 168): When
was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)? Where was it
produced (localization)? By whom was it produced (authorship)?

11. Primary sources have the primacy over secondary sources, but secondary sources can still be
used. Give four instances, when can secondary sources be used according to Gottschalk? (4 pts)
___________________________________________________________________________
Secondary sources are created after the studied event/work took place or the studied work was
created. They can therefore take into consideration other events and place a primary source in
its historical context. Secondary sources are not evidence but rather commentary on and
discussion of evidence.

12. What are the three preconditions to be satisfied before a primary or secondary source can be
used as evidence to historical argument? (3 pts)

Despite the fact that primary sources are more dependable as evidence, competent
research uses both primary and secondary sources.
Explanation:

Raw data as well as first-hand proof can be found in primary sources. Interview
transcripts, statistical data, and works of art are some examples. A primary source
provides you with direct access to the topic of your study.
Secondary sources contain information and comments from other scholars that are not
available from primary sources.

Journal articles, book reviews, and scholarly books are some examples. Primary sources are
described, interpreted, or synthesised in secondary sources.
13. Give the seven factors identified by Howell and Prevenier to consider in evaluating the
internal characteristics or content of a historical source or evidence? Define each briefly. (14 pts)

Books, films, and articles that display primary sources selectively for the purpose of interpreting
the past are examples of secondary sources. Primary sources are documents, images, or artifacts
that provide evidence about past events, whereas secondary sources are books, films, or articles
that display primary sources selectively for the purpose of interpreting the past. (Williams, 2003)
To achieve the goal of distinguishing true from fictionalized accounts of historical events, the
study used some of the main elements of source criticisms traditionally practiced by historians,
as cited by Howell and Prevenier (2001), which include: ( genealogy of the document to
determine whether the document is an original, a copy of an original, or a copy of a copy,
genesis of the document to determine where the sources were produced, by whom, and when...