The Difference Between Primary And Secondary Sources of History

The basic distinction between them is that the first is a piece of information that has been recorded by a person who is contemporary to the time the event/person it discusses. Secondary sources are recorded later and express the experiences and opinions of earlier commentators.

Primary Sources

Primary sources of history come in many forms; they can be personal information that was not intended for publication such as letters, journals, diaries or personal information that was published from manuscripts, memoirs, speeches or interviews. Primary sources can also include relics or artifacts such as pottery, furniture and buildings.

Other types include anything that gives a first hand account of something such as newspapers and magazines, (as long as the articles are about subjects or events of the time) or research reports. Works of art such as paintings, photographs, literature works and audio or video recordings can also count as first hand historical sources.

Secondary Sources

Secondary sources are interpretations of primary sources of history, that is, they are written after the event by someone who was not directly connected with it. They seek to make sense of, speculate on or draw conclusions from primary infomation and come in many forms including books, journals, television and internet articles.

The obvious disadvantage of secondary sources is that the author is relying on the reports of others and did not witness the events that took place. However writing after the fact does often afford the ability to gather more information concerning a subject matter, such as multiple eye witness accounts and secondary interpretations, which often leads to a fuller picture. (Sources that have used only secondary sources for their information are sometimes referred to as tertiary sources).

Critical Assessment of Sources

What ever type of source material is being used, critical assessment is crucial. All work is inevitably biased as it is always seen through the eye of the writer. Primary sources can be inaccurate as rather than attempting to portray the truth, they may be more concerned with portraying, for example, an individual or a country in a positive light. However with expert analysis and comparisons with other evidence, this can usually be detected.

Secondary sources provide that analyses but must be questioned from time to time by referring back to first hand accounts as new evidence and analytical techniques in a particular field may change the way they are seen.

For a great resource on historical primary sources visit: primarysourcebook.com