Section II: EVALUATION OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SOURCES
It is 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, in a nation where there is minimal documentation of 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 is given to primary sources, there are instances when the credibility of
these sources are contestable. Garraghan (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 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 Gotschalk (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
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 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 is 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 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 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 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
eyewitness/earwitness account or merely passing of existing information;
4. The interpretation of the document pertains to deducing the 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 is. This 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.