Novie's deck

• History is defined as a chronological record of significant events, often including an explanation of their causes
• The term 'history' is derived from the Greek word 'historia,' which means 'inquiry or knowledge acquired by investigation'
• Historiography refers to how, what, and why history is written, including the methods and practices used in producing history
• Historiography involves the critical examination of sources, the selection of particular details, and the synthesis of details into a narrative
• Prehistory refers to the period where information of the past was recorded in materials other than written documents, such as artifacts, drawings, paintings, and sculptures
• The demarcation line between the Philippines' prehistory and history is marked by events until April 21, 900, as indicated on the Laguna Copperplate Inscription (LCI)
• The Laguna Copperplate Inscription (LCI) is considered the first legal document recorded in the Philippines, containing the release of Namwaran's children from their obligation
• Studying history helps understand people, societies, change, moral understanding, identity, and is essential for good citizenship
• Skills developed in studying history include assessing evidence, conflicting interpretations, and past examples of change
• Primary sources are original records of events by those who experienced or witnessed them, while secondary sources are based on primary sources and provide evaluation and interpretation
• The use of primary sources is important for direct contact with original records, critical thinking development, fostering learner-led inquiry, understanding different perspectives, and bringing stories back to history
• Historical method refers to the process of probing primary sources used in writing history, including source criticism which studies the external and internal validity of sources
• Source criticism asks questions like when, where, by whom, from what material, in what form, and what is the evidential value of the source
• Historians determine the authenticity of sources by examining the date, locale, creator, analysis, and integrity of the historical sources, ensuring consistency
• External criticism helps historians determine the credibility of a source by studying its content for truthfulness and historical precision
• Internal criticism examines the meaning in context, whether it's an eyewitness or secondhand account, internal consistency, and literal meaning
• Principles for determining reliability in source criticism include: relics are more credible than narratives, indications of originality increase reliability, proximity to the event enhances trust, primary sources are more reliable than secondary or tertiary sources, multiple independent sources strengthen credibility, and sources' tendencies should be minimized
• Principles of Source criticism for Determining Reliability:

  • If multiple independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased
  • The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing bias, which should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations
  • If a witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias, the credibility of the message is increased
• When two or more sources are used to prove a historical event, the following procedure is applied to examine contradictory sources:

  1. If sources all agree about an event, the historian can consider the event proved

  2. Majority does not rule; critical textual analysis is necessary even if most sources relate events in one way

  3. A source whose account can be confirmed by outside authorities in some parts can be trusted in its entirety

  4. When two sources disagree, the historian will prefer the source with the most "authority"

  5. Eyewitnesses are generally preferred, especially when dealing with facts known by most contemporaries

  6. If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is enhanced

  7. When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, historians choose the source that seems to accord best with common sense
• Question evaluating primary sources or Eyewitness:

  • Is the real meaning of the statement different from its literal meaning?
  • How well could the author observe the thing he reports?
  • How did the author report and what was his ability to do so?
  • Are there additional clues to intended veracity?
  • Do his statements seem inherently improbable?
  • Are there inner contradictions in the document?
• Indirect eyewitnesses or Secondary sources:

  • From whose primary testimony does the secondary witness base his statements?
  • Did the secondary witness accurately report the primary testimony as a whole?
  • If not, in what details did he accurately report the primary testimony?
• Oral Traditions As A Source Of History:

  • Broad conditions for accepting oral traditions as history sources
  • Particular conditions for accepting oral traditions as history sources