READINGS IN
PHILIPPINE HISTORY
INSTRUCTOR: MS. PAVE LOVE M. CABUNDOC, LPT
INTRODUCTION TO HISTORY:
I. Objectives:
• To be able to understand the meaning of history as an
academic discipline and to be familiar with the underlying
philosophy and methodology of the discipline.
• To apply the knowledge in historical methodology and
philosophy in assessing and analyzing existing historical
narratives.
• To examine and assess critically the value of historical
evidences and sources.
• To appreciate the importance of history in the social and
national life of the Philippines.
Definition and etymology of History
The origin of the word History is associated with the Greek
word “historia” which means “information” or “an inquiry designed
to elicit truth”. History has been defined differently by different
scholars.
Following are the definitions indicating the meaning and scope of
history:
Burckhardt: “History is the record of what one age finds worthy of
note in another.”
Henry Johnson: “History, in its broadest sense, is everything that
ever happened.”
Smith, V.S.: “The value and interest of history depend
largely on the degree in which the present is illuminated by
the past.”
Rapson: “History is a connected account of the course of
events or progress of ideas.”
NCERT: “History is the scientific study of past happenings in
all their aspects, in the life of a social group, in the light of
present happenings.”
Jawaharlal Nehru: “History is the story of Man’s struggle
through the ages against Nature and the elements; against
wild beasts and the jungle and some of his own kind who
have tried to keep him down and to exploit him for their own
benefit.”
Today, modern history has gone beyond the traditional status of an
antiquarian and leisure time pursuit to a very useful and indispensable part
of a man’s education. It is more scientific and more comprehensive. It
has expanded in all directions both vertically and horizontally. It has
become broad-based and attractive.
According to modern concept, history does not contain only the history
of kings and queens, battles and generals, but the history of the
common man-his house and clothing, his fields and their cultivation,
his continued efforts to protect his home and hearth, and to obtain a
just government, his aspirations, achievements, disappointments,
defeats and failures. It is not only the individual but the communities and
the societies are the subject of study of history. Study of history deepens
our understanding of the potentialities and limitations of the present. It has
thus become a future-oriented study related to contemporary
problems. For all these reasons, history has assumed the role of a human
science.
Direction: Answer any 3 of the 5 choices
1. What is History vs Herstory?
2. As Filipinos, do we still need to study history in college,
when history has been taught even in elementary grades?
3. Looking back at our history while living in the present,
could you as a Filipino say that we are either unlucky
SOBs or we are dumb AF?
4. Is the Philippines still worth dying for, or damn it, I’m out of
this hellhole as soon as I’m done with SIKISI?
5. It has been said that ‘history repeats itself’, so why don’t
we learn from history?
WHAT COUNTS
AS HISTORY?
History as a social sciences and its
relation to other fields of disciplines:
a. History and Political Science. A historian is not merely concerned with the
tracing of the history of the political process by a narration of the episodes.
But he has to learn the nature of fundamental political principles and basic
forms of political institution.
b. History and Economics. History is closely related to economics as the activities
of man in society are very closely related with the economic matters. Thus,
the historian of any period must possess at least a rudimentary knowledge of
the economics.
c. History and Sociology. Both history and sociology are concerned with the
study of man in society and differed only with regard to their approach. Max
Weber acknowledges the initial dependence of sociology upon history.
Although, history too benefits from the interaction.
History as a social sciences and its
relation to other fields of disciplines:
d. History and Psychology. A historian must have to show some
psychological insights while making an analysis of the motive and actions of
men and societies. Historian work would be mere fiction unless her uses the
discoveries of modern psychology. The personal life and the environment of
a historian has a direct bearing in his decision and often import a bias to his
account and renders the much desired objectivity impossible.
e. History and Geography. It would be impossible to study certain branches
of history without rudimentary knowledge of geography. Geology is one of
the eyes of history, the other eye being chronology. Time and space factors
give history its correct perspective.
Assignment:
Below is a definition of history by Zeus A. Salazar (1999). Examine it
carefully then answer the questions following the definition.
“Ang KASAYSAYAN ay SALAYSAY hinggil sa nakaraan o nakalipas
na may SAYSAY – kahulugan, katuturan, at kabuluhan – sa SARILING
LIPUNAN at KULTURA o kabuuang kinabibilangan. Ito ay iniuulat gamit ang
mga konsepto at kategorya ng sariling kultura.”
A. What does the author mean or imply by “Ang kasaysayan ay salaysay…
na may saysay sa sariling lipunan at kultura”?
B. The statement. “Ito (referring to kasaysayan) ay iniuulat gamit ang mga
konsepto at kategorya ng sariling kultura, implies who should write a
people’s history. What issues would emerge from (1) a history of people
written and interpreted by an “outsider” (a foreign historian); and, (2) a
history of people analyzed and presented by an “insider” (a local
historian)?
Distinction of Primary and
Secondary Sources
Primary sources are those sources produced at the
same time as the event, period, or subject being studied.
It contains original information that is not derived from
interpretation, summarizing or analyzing someone else’s
work. Furthermore, they are first-hand and not interpreted by
anyone else, they offer a personal point of view, and are
created by a witnesses of, or participants in, an event. There
are five main categories of primary sources. It includes
written sources, numerical records, oral statements,
relics, and images.
6 Points of inquiries to evaluate Primary
sources (Garraghan, 1950):
• Date- When was it produced?
• Localization- Where did it originate?
• Authorship- Who wrote it?
• Analysis- What pre-existing material served as the basis for
its production?
• Integrity- What was its original form?
• Credibility- What is the evidential value of its content?
Distinction of Primary and
Secondary sources
On the other hand, secondary sources are those sources, which
were produced by an author who used primary sources to produce
the material. In other words, secondary sources are historical sources,
which studied a certain historical subject. A secondary source
interprets and analyzes primary sources. These sources are one or
more steps removed from the event. It is prepared by an individual
who was not direct witness to an event, but not who obtained his or
her description of the event from someone else. Secondary sources
may have pictures, votes or graphics of primary sources in them. Some
types of secondary sources are history textbook, printed materials
(serials or periodicals which interpret previews research), biographies,
nonfiction text such as newspaper, magazine, journals, works of criticism
and interpretation.
Secondary Source
• Produced by authors who used and interpreted primary
sources
• Analyzed a scholarly question and often use primary source
as evidence
• Include books, theses, dissertations, journals, magazines,
knowledge of historians
• Written few years after the exact time of the event
Secondary sources must only be
used for (Gottschalk, 1969):
• Deriving the setting wherein the contemporary evidence will
fit in the grand narrative of history;
• Getting leads to other bibliographic data;
• Acquiring quotations or citations from contemporary or other
sources;
• Deriving interpretations with a view of testing and improving
them but not accepting them as outright truth.
Tertiary Source
The last kind of sources is the tertiary source. It provides
third hand information by reporting ideas and details
from secondary source. An eyewitness is more reliable
than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than
hearsay or tertiary sources. This does not mean that tertiary
sources have no value, merely that they include potential
for an additional layer of bias. Some examples of this kind
of source are encyclopedia, almanac, Wikipedia, YouTube,
dictionaries, message boards, social media sites and other
search sites.
Primary and Secondary sources should be
evaluated its validity and credibility by asking
these questions:
1. How did the author know about the given details? Was the
author present at the event?
2. Where did the information come from? Is it a personal
experience, an eyewitness account etc.?
3. Did the author conclude based on a single or multiple
source?
In terms of historical reliability,
1. Primary source: The closer the date of creation, the more
reliable one.
2. Secondary source: The farther the date of creation, the
more reliable one.
1. What are the primary sources you encountered in
the documentary? Secondary sources? Tertiary
sources?
2. Why did Constancio Ongpin and Mara Pardo de
Tavera had different interpretation about the same
event? Based on the sources they presented who is
more convincing among the two? Why?
3. Did Howie Severino presented the documentary
objectively? Explain your answer.
WHAT IS
HISTORY? HOW IS
IT MADE? WHO
WROTE IT?
Sources of Historical Data
a. Published documents - created for large audiences and were
distributed widely. (i.e. books, magazines, newspapers, government
documents, pamphlets, posters, laws and court decisions)
b. Unpublished documents - personal in nature and may be difficult to
find because of few copies existing. (i.e. diaries, journals, school
report cards and business ledgers)
c. Oral traditions/oral histories - provide another way to learn about
the past from people with firsthand knowledge of historical events.
d. Visual documents and articles - include photographs, films,
paintings and other types of works. Visual documents usually capture
moments in time.
Historiography/ historical method
(Internal and External)
History and historiography are two different things. History is
a discipline that focuses on studying the past; while
historiography or historical method is the history itself.
To make it clearer, historiography lets the students have a
better understanding of history. They do not only get to learn
historical facts, but they are also provided with the
understanding of the facts’ and historians’ contexts. The
methods employed by the historian and the theory and
perspective, which guided him, will also, be analyzed.
Historiography/ historical method
(Internal and External)
Essentially, historiography 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.
The following are some procedures for people who wanted to employ
historiography, as proposed by Bernheim (1889) and Langlois & Seignobos
(1898):
a. If the sources all agree about an event, historians consider the event
proved.
b. However, majority does no rule; even if most sources relate events in
one way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical
textual analysis.
c. 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.
d. When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will
prefer the source with most “authority”-that is the source created by the
eyewitness.
The following are some procedures for people who wanted to employ
historiography, as proposed by Bernheim (1889) and Langlois & Seignobos
(1898):
e. 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 facts known by most
contemporaries.
f. If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of
each is measurably enhanced.
g. 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.
Historiography/ historical method
(Internal and External)
Aside from these procedures, historiography also involves the employment of
internal and external criticisms. 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 the evidence.
Examples of the things that will be examined when conducting external
criticism of a document include the quality of the paper, the type of ink and the
language and words used in the material, among others.
Internal criticism, on the other hand, is the examination of the
truthfulness of the evidence. It looks at the content of the source and
examines the circumstance of its production.
1. External Criticism
Verification of authenticity by examining physical characteristics;
consistency with the historical characteristics of the time when it was
produced, and materials used.
We can ask the following questions:
• When it was written?
• Where it was written?
• Who was the author?
• Why did it survive?
• What were the materials used?
• Where the words used were being used those times?
3 Preconditions for historical argument
through External Criticism (Howell and
Prevenier):
• It must be comprehensible at the most basic level of
vocabulary, language and handwriting.
• The source must be carefully located in accordance
with place and time.
• The source must always be checked and
counterchecked before accepting as a credible source
2. Internal Criticism
Looks at the truthfulness and factuality of the evidence by looking at
the author of the source, its context, the agenda behind its creation. It looks
at the content of the source and examines the circumstance of its production.
We can ask the following questions:
• Was it written by eyewitness or not?
• Why was it written?
• Is there consistency?
• What are the connotations?
• What is the literal meaning?
• What is the meaning of the context?
7 factors in evaluating through Internal
Criticism (Howell and Prevenier, 2001):
• Genealogy of the document
• Genesis of the document
• Originality of the document
• Interpretation of the document
• Authorial authority of the document
• Competence of the observer
• Trustworthiness of the observer
Other methods also used are as follows:
a. Positivism – emphasizes the mantra “no document, no history”, where
historian were required to show written primary documents in order to
write a particular historical narrative.
b. Postcolonialism - emerged in the twentieth century when formerly
colonized nations grappled with the idea of creating their identities and
understanding their societies against the shadows of their colonial past.
c. Annales School of Thought – challenged the canons of history, stating
that history should not only be concerned of states and monarchs.
d. Pantayong pananaw (for us-from us 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.
Examples of
historical
Philippine History:
issues
on
1. Rizal did not wrote “Sa Aking Mga Kabata”
2. Roman Roque; “Forger of Philippine History”
(signature of Gen. Urbano Lacuna and 1897
biography of Josephine Bracken)
3. Jose Marco; “Greatest Con Man of Philippine History”
(Code of Kalantiaw and La Loba Negra)
Importance of Studying History
In 1998, an article entitled "Why Study History?", Peter Stearns made
the following observations:
“People live in the present. They plan for and worry about the future.
History, however, is the study of the past. Given all the demands that press
in from living in the present and anticipating what is yet to come, why
bother with what has been? Given all the desirable and available branches
of knowledge, why insist—as most American [and, in this case, British]
educational programs do—on a good bit of history? And why urge many
students to study even more history than they are required to?”
He also added the following importance of history:
a. History helps us understand people and societies.
b. History helps us understand change and how the
society we live in came to be.
c. History contributes to moral understanding.
d. History provides identity.
e. Studying history is essential for good citizenship.
Reference:
Candelaria, J.L. et. al. (2018) Readings in Philippine
History. Rex Book Store. Manila.
CONTENT AND CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS
OF SELECTED SOURCES IN PHILIPPINE
HISTORY
I. Objectives:
• To be able to familiarize oneself with the primary documents in different
historical periods of the Philippines.
• To be able to learn history through primary sources.
• To be able to properly interpret primary sources through examining the
content and context of the document.
• To understand the context behind each selected document.
STUDY THE FOLLOWING TOPICS:
1. First Voyage Around the World” (“Primer Viaje en
Torno del Globo”)
2. “Customs of the Tagalogs” (Relacion de las
Cosutmbres de Los Tagalos)
3. “Kartilya ng Katipunan”
4. “Mga Gunita ng Himagsikan”
5. “Acta de la Proclamacion de la Independencia del
Pueblo Filipino”
THE FIRST VOYAGE
AROUND THE WORLD
BY: ANTONIO PIGAFETTA
Who is ANTONIO PIGAFETTA?
• Known by the name of Antonio Lombardo
or Francisco Antonio Pigafetta.
• Famous Italian traveler
• Born in Vincenza around 1490
• Died in the same city in 1534
• Studied astronomy, geography and
cartography and during his younger years,
he worked in the ships owned by the
Knights of Rhodes.
Who is ANTONIO PIGAFETTA?
• Joined the Magallanes – Elcano famous
expedition to the Moluccas begun in August
1519 and finished September 1522.
• Had a hand-written account of the
expedition entitled “The First Voyage
Around the World”
Out of the 5 ships, only 3 ships reached in
the Philippines. After the Battle of Mactan,
their man is enough to man two ships: Trinidad
and Victoria. Until, they returned to Spain, only
one ship survived which is Victoria, one of the
survivors was Antonio Pigafetta which kept the
journal about their expedition.
Upon the advice of Pigafetta’s associates, he
presented his account to Pope Clement VII, Philippe
de Villers I’Isle-Adam, and to Louis of Savoy to
finance its publication. But, he was unable to find a
financer.
The original journal of Pigafetta did not survived
throughout the history. What was handed to us was
just the manuscript that never came out of the press
during his lifetime. Survived in 4 manuscript versions;
1 Italian (Carlo Amoretti) and 3 French
ABOUT THE TEXT
Pigafetta’s account is the longest and most
comprehensive in describing their encounters
during the Magallanes-Elcano expedition.
WHAT WAS DISCUSSED?
• The fate of the five ships throughout the expedition.
• The challenges and unforeseen problems along the
way of the expedition such as hostility of the people
they met, shortage of food, misunderstandings
between the crew, types of diseases.
• Maps, glossaries of native words, geographic
information and descriptions of the flora and fauns of
the place they visited
CONTEXT PRESENTATION
AND ANALYSIS OF THE
IMPORTANT HISTORICAL
INFORMATION FOUND IN
THE DOCUMENT
THE TIMELINE DURING THEIR STAY IN
THE PHILIPPINES
• Arrival in “Zamal” (Samar) particularly in
the island of “Humunu” (Homonhon)
• Magellan called it “Acquada da li buoni
Segnialli” (Watering place of God
Signs)
• The district was called “Las Islas de
San Lazaro” (Islands of Saint Lazarus)
MARCH 16, 1521
THE TIMELINE DURING THEIR STAY IN
THE PHILIPPINES
• Magellan and his men landed in
Humunu and saw by native boatmen
from Suluan Island who gave them
foods.
• Transaction made through Magellan’s
slave interpreter, “Enrique” (of Malacca)
MARCH 17, 1521
Who is “Enrique” of Malacca?
Enrique became a slave of Magellan
when the Portuguese conquered Malacca in
1511. He followed the latter back to Lisbon, and
was enlisted in Magellan’s fleet set to voyage
around the earth between 1519 and 1521.
When Magellan died during the Battle of
Mactan, Cebu, the Philippines in 1521, at the
hand of Lapu Lapu, some believe that Enrique
either settled down there or returned to
Malacca or Indonesia, since his name was
missing from the list of Magellan’s surviving
crew returning to Spain.
Who is “Enrique” of Malacca?
• Although Enrique was certainly a native of the Malay
Archipelago, the truths about his origin are still debated by
historians of both naval and Southeast Asian histories.
• Ferdinand Magellan stated In his own written will and
testament, that his slave, Enrique was a native of Malacca.
In Antonio Pigafetta’s record of The First Voyage Around the
World (1519-1522), the chronicler mentioned that Enrique
came from Sumatra.
• Maximilianus Transylvanus, who published his interviews
with the survivors of Magellan’s expedition in De Moluccis
Insulis (1523), claimed that Enrique hailed from the
Moluccas; both places are in modern-day Indonesia.
THE TIMELINE DURING THEIR STAY IN
THE PHILIPPINES
• The boatmen return to Magellan’s
location and gave two boats of foods
MARCH 21, 1521
THE TIMELINE DURING THEIR STAY IN
THE PHILIPPINES
MARCH 29, 1521
• “Umangkla ang barko namin sa isla ng
Mazaua, malapit sa bahay ng Rajah nito
(Rajah Siagu) at umakyat ng barko ang
Rajah at sila Magellan kung saan sila’y
nagpalitan ng regalo.
• Nag-almusal at ipinasyal ni Magellan ang
Rajah sa paligid ng kanyang barko at
ipinakita ang kanyang mga armas.
Gayundin ako at isang kasama ay sumama
sa Rajah at sa Balanghai, kami ay pinakain
ng baboy, pinainom ng alak at pinakita ng
hari ang kanilang palasyo at nagpakain pa.”
THE TIMELINE DURING THEIR STAY IN
THE PHILIPPINES
• “Bumalik kami kasama at aming mga
barko kasama ang kapatid ng Rajah ng
Mazaua, ang Rajah ng Butuan-Calagan
na si Colambu, ang pinakamaayos na
lalaking nakita namin.”
MARCH 30, 1521
THE TIMELINE DURING THEIR STAY IN
THE PHILIPPINES
• First mass in the Philippines was
happened in “Mazaua”
• Attended
by
Magellan,
Rajah
Kolambu, Rajah Siagu (Siaui) and local
islanders
MARCH 31, 1521
THE TIMELINE DURING THEIR STAY IN
THE PHILIPPINES
• Magellan went to Zubu (Cebu) and met
Rajah Humabon
• The rajah wanted to Magellan and his
men to pay tribute to them but told his
translator Enrique that they are working
for King of Spain and threatened him a
war
APRIL 7, 1521
THE TIMELINE DURING THEIR STAY IN
THE PHILIPPINES
• Held a mass on Humabon’s place where
attended by 400 local members
• Magellan gave Hara Humamay an image
of Sto. Niño
• Humabon became “Carlos” and
Humamay became “Juana”
APRIL 14, 1521
THE TIMELINE DURING THEIR STAY IN
THE PHILIPPINES
• Rajah Zula told Magellan that Matan’s
(Mactan) chieftain Cilapulapu (Lapulapu)
refused to obey the King of Spain
• Zula requested Magellan to send him
only one boatload of men to fight
Cilapulapu but Magellan
APRIL 27, 1521
THE TIMELINE DURING THEIR STAY IN
THE PHILIPPINES
APRIL 28, 1521
• 60 of Magellan’s men set out armed with
corselets and helmets and 20-30 Balanhais
loaded by Rajah Humabon’s men went to
Matan to attack Cilapulapu. Magellan set
off at midnight with a force of 60 men.
They were accompanied by the “Christian
King” Carlos (who was Humabon before
baptism), with 20 or 30 balanghai (about
450-500 Cebuano warriors) as back-up.
• The local islanders had lances of bamboo
and stakes hardened with fire
• “Battle of Mactan” happened
“Organisado ang paglusob ng mga tiga-Mactan habang nagsisigawan.
Isang grupo kada tagiliranng mga Espanyol at isa sa harap na tila tatsulok. Nang
magpaputok ng mga kanyon at riple ang mga Espanyol, nakahanda na ang mga
kalasag ng mga ito. Gayundin, kanya-kanyang tago ang mga mandirigma upang
makaiwas, malinaw na malinaw na sila’y handa sa atake. Hindi nakayanan ng
mga Europeo ang mga pana, sibat, putik at bato na dumapo sa kanila. At
matapos nito’y iniutos ni Magellan na magsunog ng mga bahay ng mga
tagaMactan na siyang lalong ikinagalit ng mga ito. At natutunan ng mga
mandirigmang taga-Mactan na puntiryahin sa paa ang mga kalabang
nakabaluti. Tinamaan si Magellan ng panang may lason sa kanang binti, pero
sinabi nitong bumalik na sa mga barko. Sa katapusan ng laban si Magellan ay
tinamaan ng sibat sa mukha ngunit nakalaban pa, nasugatan pa braso at
nakampilan pa sa kaliwang binti. Sa kanyang pagbagsak, pinagtulungan na siya
ng mga tigaMactan. At nang makita ng mga kasama na patay na si Magellan,
sila’y nagsiatrasan, dala-dala ang iba pang mga sugatan.”
Other contents of Pigafetta’s manuscript:
• Lifestyle of early Filipinos in Visayas
• First vocabulary of Visayan words ever penned by a
European
• Description of early Visayan music
• Evidence that the world is round
• Re-discovery of Pacific Ocean
CUSTOMS OF THE
TAGALOGS
BY: JUAN DE PLASENCIA
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
• Juan de Plasencia was born in the early 16th
century as Juan Portocarrero in Plasencia, in
the region of Extremadura, Spain. He wasone
of the seven children of Pedro Portocarrero, a
captain of a Spanish schooner.
• He was a Spanish friar of the Franciscan Order.
He was among the first group of Franciscan
missionaries who arrived in the Islands on July
2, 1578
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
• He spent most of his missionary life in the
Philippines, where he founded numerous
towns in Luzon and authored several religious
and linguistic books, most notably the Doctrina
Cristiana (Christian Doctrine), the first book
ever printed in the Philippines.
• As soon as he arrived, he joined with another
missionary, Fray Diego de Oropesa, and they
both started preaching around Laguna de Bay
and Tayabas, Quezon, in Quezon Province,
where he founded several towns.
HISTORICAL
BACKGROUND OF
THE DOCUMENT
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
• In this era, during the 16th century, the Spaniards’
expeditions were very evident. With these adventures of
theirs, it is a must for them to take into accounts their
glorious journey.
• The account of Juan de Plasencia entitled “Customs of the
Tagalogs” was due to his missionary work in the Philippines.
He wrote about the culture and society of the people in
Luzon, thus such title was written. However, it was not
thorough since our customs were new to them so it lead to
misconceptions and prejudice of our ancestors.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
• His work gave descriptions of our ancestors at that
time. Most of these are through our culture, which
they think are exotic. This was mostly for the
advantage of the Spaniards to exploit our ancestors.
• “Customs of the Tagalogs” is written through the eyes
and hands of a Spaniard. It is not surprising how the
author did not fully comprehend the socio-political
status of the Luzon
CUSTOMS OF THE
TAGALOGS