READPHI REVIEWER * Unfortunately, original sources has become common among

PPT 1 – Meaning of History and Historical Sources historians, and it is desirable to define its usage accurately.
Definition of History * It is best used by the historian in only two senses –
✓ Gk: historia – learning/knowing by inquiry 1. to describe a source, unpolished, uncopied, untransilated, as it
✓ Aristotle: systematic account of a set of natural phenomena issued from the hands of the authors
✓ Latin: Scientia –used regularly to designate non-chronological 2. a source that gives the earliest information (i.e. the origin)
systematic accounts of natural phenomena; history – became regarding the question under investigation because earlier
reversed for accounts of phenomena in chronological order sources have been lost.
✓ Past of mankind * Primary sources need not be original in either of these two
✓ Cannot be reconstructed ways.
* Fortiori – experience of generation long dead, left no records, * Sources need to be to “original” only in the sense of underived or first-
* Reconstrction of the past is totally unattainable hand as to their testimony
* Ruins, artifacts=survive from the past= testimony=facts of meaning * When analyzing sources, historians=interested chiefly in particulars
Objectivity and Subjectivity and that he asks particular whether it is based on first-hand or second-
✓ Objectivity - Independent existence outside of the human mind hand testimony.
✓ Subjectivity – can’t be sensed, illusory, symbolic, no objective * Sources are important to the historian bc they contain primary
reality, biased, untrue particulars.
✓ Prejudice against Sub. knowledge as inferior to obj. knowledge The particulars they finish are trustworthy not because of the book or
History as the Subjective process of Re-creation article or report they are in, but because of the reliability of the narrator
* Historian grasp history-as-actuality; H can be mental images based on as a witness of those particulars.
application of his own experience The Document – written source of historical information (contrasted by
* Historian tries to get as close an approximation to the truth oral testimony, artifacts, pictorial survivals, archaeological remains)
* Historian’s responsibility shifts FROM: obligation to acquire a ✓ signified any process of proof based on any kind of source
complete knowledge of the irrecoverable past through surviving ✓ document is synonymous source
evidences TO re-creating a very similar image of as much of the past as ✓ Human document – account of individual experience
the evidence makes recoverable ✓ Personal document – self-revealing record that intentionally or
*Historian: history only becomes part of human past which can be unintentionally yields info about structure, dynamics &
meaningfully reconstructed from the available records & inferences functioning of the author’s mental life
Recollections ✓ Legal Document – states some contractual relationship or
✓ Don’t have existence outside the human mind grants some right (birth certificate, passport, license, will)
✓ Basis of history, written/spoken testimony PPT 2 – The Problem of Authenticity/External Criticism
Static, Dynamic, Descriptive, Inrepretative Data Definition of Terms
Dynamic - the becoming Authenticity –undisputed origin; genuine; made traditionally/originally
Static - the being or the become Hoax – humorous/malicious deception
Interpretative - explaining why and how things happened/are Forgery –forging/producing copies of a docu, signature, art, bank note
interrelated Fraud – wrongful/criminal deception to result in financial/personal gain
Descriptive - telling what, when, where, who Forged/Misleading Documents * historical documentns are fabricated bc
* Descriptive data as can be derived directly from surviving ✓ [F] Used to bolster a false claim/title
artifacts are only a small part of the periods to which they belong ✓ [F] To less mercenary considerations (political propaganda)
Objects Artifacts (as sources of history) ✓ [M] some genuine docus are intended to mislead certain
✓ relics of human happenings can be found contemporaries
✓ other piece that historians can study (objects), aside from ✓ [M] result from editors’ tricks
recollections * The circumstances of the F/Misrepresentation of historical docus may
✓ never the happenings themselves; artifcats - mere results of often themselves reveal important political, cultural, and biographical
events; written documents – records of events information – but not about the same events or persons as if they were
1. Manunggul Jar – 710-890 BC – National Cultural Treasure genuine.
Palawan, burial jar, represents souls sailing to the afterworld Test of Authenticity (common in police/legal detection)
2. Callao Man – (67,000 years old) – 2007 – oldest – Cagayan ✓ Is the material not anachronistic? (belonging to a period other
3. Excavations in Calagatan Batangas – 14th-15th AD – 505 than that being portrayed)
burials, 521 assorted ceramics, porcelains & stoneware jars from * Anachronistic Style (idiom, orthograpgy, punctuation) –can
China, Vietam, Thailand (Asian Tradeware midm-Ming Dynasty) be detected by specialists familiar w/ contemporary writing
Historical Method and Historiography Defined *Anachronistic references to events – too early/too late/too
Historical method - process of critically examining and analyzing remote or dating of a docu at a time when the alleged writer
the records and survivals of the past could not possibly have been at the place designated (ALIBI)
Historiography - the writing of history; imaginative reconstruction * Unhistoric grammar – errors mechanics wise; spelling,
of the past from the data derived by that processing propernames, signatures
*Both help historians to reconstruct as much of the past as possible Garbled Documents – docus that are a result of a deliberate effort to
*Historian must be sure that his records really come from the past and deceive = hard to evaluate but is less trouble than slightly unauthentic
are in fact what they seem to be and that his imagination is directed documents
toward re-creation and not creation. ✓ Result, not of studied falsehood, unintentional error
*These limits distinguish history from fiction,poetry, drama & fantasy ✓ Is frequent in copies of docus where the orig have disappeared
Primary and Secondary Sources ✓ Made to deliberately modify, supplement/continue the original
✓ Primary – main text/work you are discussing; actual ✓ Occur generally due to error of omission, repetition, addition
data/results; historical documents; firsthand testimony *textual critixism – technique used by histories borrowed from
*Testimony of eyewitness/senses like Dictaphone philologists & Bible critics
*Must be made by a contemporary of the events it narrates Restoration of Texts -
*Does not have to be original It is found that some contain words or phrases or passages that are not
✓ Secondary – records generated by an event but written by non- contained in others
participants, based on primary sources; are When the style and contents of passages under discussion may be
interpreted/analyzed; testimony of anyone who is not an attributed to the author, it is safe to assume that they were parts of his
eyewitness original manuscript but were omitted by later copyists; and when they
Conditions of Original cannot be attributed to the author, it is safe to assume that they were not
1. it contains fresh and creative ideas; parts of his original manuscript.
2. it is not translated from the language in which it was first In some cases, a final decision has to await the discovery of still more
written; copies. In many instances the original text can be approximately or
3. it is in its earliest, unpolished stage; entirely restored.
4. its text is the approved text, unmodified & untampered with;
5. it is the earliest available source of the information it provides.
Identification of Author & Date 3. Is the primary witness accurately reported w/ regard to the
Some guess of the approximate date of the document and some detail under examination?
identification of its supposed author form an essential part of external 4. Is there any independent corroboration of the detail under
criticism. examination?
Otherwise it would be impossible to prove or disprove authenticity by *Any detail (regardless of what the source or who the author) that
anachronisms, handwriting, style, alibi, or other tests that are associated passes all four tests is credible historical evidence.
with the author’s milieu, personality, and actions. *Ability to to tell the truth rests in part upon witness’ nearness to the
Having established an authentic text and discovered what is author event. Nearness is here used in both a geographical and a chronological
really intended to say, the historian has only established what the sense.
witness’s testimony is. He has yet to determine whether that testimony is * all witnesses, even if equally close to the event, are NOT equally
at all credible, and if so, to what extent. That is the problem of internal competent as witnesses
criticism. * Competence depends on degree of expertness, state of mental &
PPT 3 | The Problem of Credibility or Internal Criticism physical health, age, education, memory, narrative skill
* Degree of attention – important factor in the ability to tell the truth
• In general, inability to tell the truth leads to errors of omission, rather
than commission, because of the lack of completeness or lack of balance
in observation, recollection, or narrative.
Conditions Favorable to Credibility
1. When the purport of a statement is a matter of indifference to the
witness , he is likely to be unbiased.
2. More dependably, when a statement is prejudicial to a witness,
his dear ones, or his causes, it is likely to be truthful. That is why
What is a Historical Fact? confessions, if not forcibly extracted and if deposed by those in
✓ Verisimilar (very close to true)at a high level good mental health, are considered excellent testimony.
✓ Connotes something more than merely not being preposterous 3. Facts are so well-known, that the witness would be unlikely to
in itself, plausible, be mistaken or to lie about them.
✓ Accurately descriptive of past actuality (WTF) 4. Even when the fact in question may not be well-known, certain
✓ particular derived directly or indirectly from historical kinds are both incidental and probable to such degree that error or
documents and regarded as credible after careful testing in falsehood seems unlikely.
accordance with the canons of historical method 5. When the thought patterns and preconceptions of a witness are
* elementary data of history is subject to proof known and yet he states something out of keeping them – in other
* The problem of credibility is not that what actually happened, but that words, if statements are contrary to the witness’s expectations or
is close to what actually happened as we can learn from a critical anticipations , they have a high degree of credibility.
examination of the best available sources.
* Contradict no other knowledge available to us, seem otherwise Hearsay & Secondary Evidence when historian uses secondary witness,
logically acceptable, and avoiding generalization, deal with single he asks
instances. (WTAF pag di ko gets kinocopy paste ko lang) 1. On whose primary testimony does the secondary witness base
Doubt - even simple & concrete statements are subject to doubt/question his statements?
* Doubt regarding concrete particulars is likely to be due, however, to 2.  Did the secondary witness accurately report the primary
lack of testimony based on first-hand observation rather than to testimony as a whole?
disagreement among the witnesses. 3. If not, in what details did he accurately report the primary
* In general, on simple and concrete matters where testimony of direct testimony?
observation is available, the testimony can usually be submitted to tests *Hearsay evidence would be discarded by the historian. It is
of reliability that will convincing either pro or con to most competent unacceptable only in so far as it cannot be established as accurate
and impartial historians. reporting of primary testimony.
* As soon as as abstractions, value judgments, generalizations and other Corroboration
complexities enter into testimony the possibility of contradiction and *A primary particular that has been extracted from a document by
debates enters with them the processes of external and internal criticism so far described is not yet
Interrogative Hypothesis (Who, what, why, which, when, how, where) regarded as altogether established as historical fact.
✓ can be noncommittal; “Did Saul try to assassinate David?” *Where any 2 witnesses agree, it may be that they do so because
✓ can be full-fledged/implicit; “Can the Jews be held responsible they are testifying independently to an observed fact, but it is possible
for the cruxification of Jesus?” that they agree only because one has copied form the other, or because
The Quest for Particular Details of Testimony both have copied from or been unduly influenced by a third source.
Four Aspects of Historical Subject *Unless the independence of the observers is established,
1. biographical agreement may be confirmation of a lie or of a mistake rather than
2. geographical corroboration of a fact.
3. chronological
4. occupational/functional
* With a set of names, dates, and key-words in mind for each of these
aspects, the historical investigator combs his document for relevant
particulars.
* It is generally wise to take notes whether or not it seems credible.
* Even false/mistaken testimony has relevance to an understanding of
one’s problem.
* The investigator must then separate the credible from the incredible.
* The general reliability of an author, in other words, has significance
only as establishing the probable credibility of his particular statements.
* From the process of analysis emerges an important general rule: for
each particular of a document the process of establishing credibility
should be separately undertaken regardless of the general credibility of
the author.
Identification of Author
* it is possible to learn much about the author w/o knowing who he was
(style of writing)
General Rules Any detail of testimony is credible if it passes the ff
1. Was the ultimate source of the detail (primary witness) able to
tell the truth?
2. Was the primary witness willing to tell the truth?