UNIT FOUR

THE NATURE AND VARIETY OF HISTORICAL SOURCES

Historians come to their work with a deep curiosity about the past; to satisfy that

curiosity, they ask questions; who, what, where, how, when? All these questions are

designed to elicit “the facts”. To answer their questions, historians, just like detectives,

look at clues, sift through numerous fragmentary and scattered evidences to make their

own interpretations. These are usually called the “sources” and can be documentary, oral

or archival materials. All the material which has a direct bearing or can be of any

assistance in constructing the history of a particular period, are termed as “sources”.

These sources fall into two broad categories: primary and secondary sources. To study

history and write history, you will need to know how to work with both kinds of sources.

a) Primary sources

Primary sources are materials produced by people or groups directly involved in the

event or topic under consideration, either as participants or as witnesses. A testimony of

an eye witness or device/materials which was present at the time of the occurrence of an

event. A primary source is closest to the event, person, idea or period that you are

studying. In other words, a primary source is produced in conditions of proximity (in

time & space) to the events described. Because they are “raw”, it is the job of the historian

to convert these, sometimes, “difficult” and “uncoordinated” primary sources into

coherent, intelligible secondary sources. No historian, who has not himself/herself

worked with primary source materials be regarded as a competent historian.

Primary sources can be divided into two; unwritten and written primary sources.

Unwritten primary sources refer to sources of historical information that were not written

down. They include oral history, remains of material culture such articles of clothing/

1
bones, forms of architecture, archaeological evidence, folklore, traditional knowledge,

visual artifacts such as photographs, audio-visual sources, such as film/tape-recordings.

These forms of unwritten primary sources provide valuable insights into the lives, beliefs,

and practices of people in the past.

Written primary sources are sources of historical information that were created during

the time period being studied. They are valuable for historians because they provide first-

hand accounts of events, people, and cultures from the time period being studied. These

sources can provide valuable insights into the social, political, economic, and cultural

conditions of the past. They can further be divided into two major categories: manuscript

sources and published sources. For historians, a manuscript is any handwritten or typed

record or communication that has not been printed or otherwise duplicated in significant

quantities for public dissemination. It can be anything, from a laundry list to the minutes

of a clan meeting. Usually manuscript materials were intended for private, or at least

restricted use, although something like the notes for a speech that was never delivered

would also be considered a manuscript source. A manuscript can be something as

intensely personal as a diary, or something as institutional as a roster of cleaners. There

is virtually no kind of written record that has not been used, or might someday be used,

as a primary source. As social history and other new approaches to the past continue to

evolve, even the seemingly most trivial or mundane remnants may acquire significance.

Published primary sources can be divided into two categories: a) manuscript materials

such as letters, diaries and memoranda, usually intended as private, sometimes intimate,

documents, often published after the death of their authors; and b) materials that were

intended from the outset to be printed and made public – for example newspaper articles,

parliamentary debates, autobiographies, Census reports, periodicals, literary works

historical accounts, religious texts etc.

2
However it is important to note that a primary source may contain some secondary data.

For example a headmasters’ communication in parents meeting may be, for most part, a

primary source, but most of the details contained in the communiqué may be secondary

because most of the information provided by the communiqué may come from his

deputies and teachers. Similarly, the newspapers are usually considered primary source,

but the information provided by the newspapers is not all based on primary sources. For

example, certain incidents reported by the paper may be such which the correspondent

saw or in which he actually took part, while certain other information may be based on

‘official sources’ or sources usually considered reliable

b) Secondary Sources

The secondary source on the other hand is the testimony of someone who was not present

at the time of occurrence of the event, but discuss and analyze primary sources. At some

distance in terms of space and time, he/she creates a historical account. For example, a

historical text book on French Revolution, written by someone who did not

experience/witness the French Revolution. He instead draws on primary sources, on the

recollections/reports of those who actually participated in/ witnessed the revolutions.

These are called “secondary sources” because they are at least one step removed from the

primary source. The book written by a historian is a “secondary source”, on which a large

number of people, interested in problem with which it deals, rely. The secondary source

is also of great historical importance to the historians. A historian embarking on some

topic of research should master all the existing secondary material (books and articles of

other historians). In short, the secondary source is itself dependent on primary sources.

Secondary works or sources also come in a great variety as well – from multi-volume

books to short essays, from general histories to the most specialized monographs.

Drawing a distinction between primary and secondary sources Prof. Marwick says:

3
“The primary source is the raw material, more meaningful to the expert historians than to the

layman; the secondary source is the coherent work of history, article, dissertation or book, in which

both the intelligent layman and the historian who is venturing upon a new research topic, or

keeping in touch with new discoveries in his chosen field or seeking to widen his general historical

knowledge, will look for what they want.”

There are various sources of history, each of which can be used in different ways

depending on what the research question is. The types of historical sources available to

historians include primary & secondary sources, & oral & documentary sources. It can be

said that the sources, whether they are primary or secondary, are important to the

historian because they contain primary particulars.

Analyzing and interpreting historical sources

If sources always told the truth, the historian's job would be much easier - and also rather

boring. But sources, like witnesses in a murder case, often lie. Sometimes they lie on

purpose, telling untruths to further a specific ideological, philosophical, or political

agenda. Sometimes they lie by omission, leaving out bits of information that are crucial

to interpreting an event. Sometimes sources mislead unintentionally because the author

was not aware of all the facts, misinterpreted the facts, or was misinformed.

Many are biased, either consciously or unconsciously, and contain unstated assumptions;

all reflect the interests and concerns of their authors. In any case, historians' sources often

conflict; two different sources may tell two very different stories. As a result, one of the

challenges you will face in writing a history paper is evaluating the reliability and

usefulness of your sources. One way in which historians evaluate primary sources is to

compare them; a fact or description contained in one source is more likely to be accepted

as trustworthy if other sources support or corroborate it.

4
Another technique historians use to evaluate the reliability of a source is to identify the

author's biases. We might be less inclined, for example, to believe Polydore Vergil's

assertion that Richard III killed his nephews if we realize that he was the official court

historian for Henry VII, who killed Richard in battle and seized the throne for himself.

Historians also read their sources carefully for evidence of internal contradictions or

logical inconsistencies, and they pay attention to their sources' use of language, since the

adjectives and metaphors an author uses can point to hidden biases and unspoken

assumptions. Secondary sources may also contradict each other. Several historians can

examine the same set of materials and interpret them in very different ways.

Similarly, historians can try to answer the same questions by looking at different kinds

of evidence or by using different methods to gather, evaluate, and interpret evidence.

You can use the same techniques to evaluate a secondary source as you would use to

evaluate a primary source. Compare your source with other secondary sources, identify

biases and unconscious assumptions, and look for logical inconsistencies.

Most important, however, you should return wherever possible to the primary sources

and consider whether the author uses and interprets the sources appropriately. The study

of the ways in which historians have interpreted the past is called historiography, and

knowing how to read and evaluate the work of other historians is so important that some

professors may ask you to write a historiographic essay. In any case, to get the most out

of your reading of secondary sources, you will need to study a variety of interpretations

of historical events and issues and learn how to read carefully and critically.

5
 REVISION QUESTIONS

1. Explain the difference between a primary source and a secondary source in history?

2. Discuss some of the methods that a historian use to verify the accuracy of a primary
source?

3. How do primary sources provide a more accurate portrayal of historical events than
secondary sources?

4. How do historians evaluate the credibility of secondary sources to ensure the accuracy
of their historical research?

5. Examine some of the challenges that a historian may face when interpreting primary
sources?

6. How do historians use both primary and secondary sources in their research to create
a more complete picture of history?

7. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using secondary sources in historical

research?

8. In what ways can secondary sources influence our understanding of historical events?

END