LESSON 2 - EVALUATION OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SOURCES

This section 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.

Intended Learning Outcomes

At the end of this lesson, the students are expected to:

1. identify the criteria in evaluating primary and secondary source materials;

Diagnostics

Fake News or Real News?

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

When you visit any UP Diliman 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 university
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 that time . National artist Guillermo
Tolentino, a professor at the UP School of Fine Arts, created the statue.

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 à source as primary or
secondary has never been an easy task. Nevertheless, the primacy of primary Over secondary Sources
has always been recognized. This 1s aue 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 1s evident in both print and digital media platforms.
Thus, it becomes more apparent that sources of texts should be scrutinized for their credibility.
However, in a nation where there is minimal documentation to 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 1s given to primary sources, there are instances when the credibility of these sources
is contestable. Garraghan (950)1dentified six points of inquiries to evaluate the authenticity or a primary
source:

1. Date When was it produced?

3. Authorship - Who wrote it?

4. Analysis - What pre-existing material served as the basis for its production?

5. Integrity - What was its original form?

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 1s 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 counter checked 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 the 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 1s
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 it 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, Koman Roquę, who allegedly
forged the signature of General. Urbano Lacuna that led to the captivity of Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo. Roque
also forged the signature to 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 footwell and Prevenier (2001):

1. The genealogy of the document refers to the developmento f 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 deducing meaning from the document;

5. The authorial authority of the document refers to the relationship between the document’s subject
matter and its 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 their creation.
More likely, the farther the date of creation from the actual event, the more reliable the source is1his 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.
Exercise:

Instructions: Read the full transcript of the undelivered arrival speech of Senator Benigno S. Aquino, Jr.
and answer the following questions. The speech can be accessed at
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/631394/undelivered-speech-of-senator-benigno-s-aquino-jr

1. First Impressions
A. What are your first impressions about the undelivered speech?
B. What kind of document is it ( letter ad,newspaper, etc.)?

2. Looking More Closely

A. Make a list of unusual or unfamiliar words or phrases you encountered while reading
the

speech.

B. Is there a specific date on the speech? if so, when is it? If there is none, are there clues
that might indicate when it was written?
C. Is there an indicated location ? Where is it ?
D. Who authored the document? Why did you say so?
E. To whom was the written document addressed ? How did you know?
F. What is the purpose of the document ? what made you think so?

Source: Readings in Philippine History

By: Nestor M Asuncion

Geoffrey Rhoel C. Ofalia