Scribd
Upload
32 views10 pages

What Are Historical Sources' and How They Can Be Misinterpreted?

Primary sources are first-hand accounts created at the time of an event by direct witnesses or participants. They provide raw information but can be biased. Secondary sources are interpretations created after the fact by historians using primary sources. They analyze and synthesize information but also introduce more bias. Both have value for historians but primary sources are considered more authoritative as original accounts. Researchers must consider the context and potential biases in all sources to accurately understand historical events.

Uploaded by

Boluwatife Fapohunda
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
32 views10 pages

What Are Historical Sources' and How They Can Be Misinterpreted?

Primary sources are first-hand accounts created at the time of an event by direct witnesses or participants. They provide raw information but can be biased. Secondary sources are interpretations created after the fact by historians using primary sources. They analyze and synthesize information but also introduce more bias. Both have value for historians but primary sources are considered more authoritative as original accounts. Researchers must consider the context and potential biases in all sources to accurately understand historical events.

Uploaded by

Boluwatife Fapohunda
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 10

https://www.theaustraliatoday.com.

au/what-are-historical-sources-and-how-they-
can-be-misinterpreted/
OPINION

What are ‘Historical Sources’ and How


they can be misinterpreted?

Picture Source: Twitter @HinduHistory


There is no historical record that can be considered as entirely objective, as it is
written by someone present at the time of the event that carries his/her personal
biases
UPDATED 28 August 2021
BYContributing Author

Currently, Afghanistan is in a state of flux, but being a researcher and historian to find the
reasons for this havoc, one has to depend on primary and secondary sources, but many
readers do not know the difference between these sources and usually get carried away
with misinformation or misinterpretation.

Therefore, in order to understand a historical event at any given point, the historian
implies its historian craft to find answers to six questions that are 5 Ws (what had
happened? when the event happened? where did it take place? why did it happen? who
was it about) and an H (How did it happen).

These questions are of prime significance if one needs to determine whether they are
primary and secondary sources. In order to determine the distinction between them, the
‘time factor’ of authoring that event plays a prominent role, e.g. first hand is usually
immediately following the event whereas second hand is conveying the experience and
opinion of others.

- Advertisement -

Although the categorisation of both primary and secondary sources are not fixed, it
depends on the study or research is was/is undertaken. This op-ed enlightens the readers
on the understanding of these two sources and their usage.
Picture Source: Twitter @HinduHistory
First-hand/Original Contemporary Accounts: Primary Sources
Historical research is highly dependent upon the primary sources, as it is written at the
time or soon after the historical event had occurred. The author/s of these sources is
someone who has experienced or witnessed the event in question.

These first-hand/original accounts are considered valuable/more authentic historical


records, and it belongs to the period under the study by the historian, and they are not
filtered by interpretation or any assessment. For example, memoirs and autobiographies,
old newspapers, autobiographies, archaeological artefacts, original accounts, journals,
manuscripts, oral accounts, government records, census records, letters, oral histories,
speeches and diaries, photographs, manuscripts, sketches etc.

It is mainly included as raw data, new observations or experiments that are published,
reported or recorded for the first time. These records can be produced later by
eyewitnesses or even by the participants.
Picture Source: Twitter @HinduHistory
A historian heavily depends on primary sources for history writings and explaining the
causation of any event at a particular time and space. Researchers may use the primary
source to come much closer to the original ideas, events and empirical research. These
sources are considered more authoritative in historical value, as they represent original
thinking, thoughts, reports, or events, that are usually created at the time the event had
occurred.

- Advertisement -

Thus, if one is researching about the past that is not directly accessible due to lapse of
time, so the researcher has to depend on the primary sources that were written at the time
of an event by the participant or witnesses. When research is period-based rather than
event-based, the breadth of potential primary sources expands significantly.

Reproductions of original materials continue to be important for many research


objectives. Some characteristics are dependent more on the source’s viewpoint and the
context in which the source is utilised by the researcher. Though primary sources are
considered of high historical value, these sources are most widely scattered and
accessibility of these large number of documents sometimes become challenging, as
historians have to visit archives, documentation centres, old libraries, excavating sites or
archaeological evidence.
Even the primary sources have biases and objectivity because every document is biased,
whether intentionally or unintentionally, by the author of that source; it is mostly one
point of view and may contain a person’s bias or prejudice towards an event. Another
problem with primary source is that it may not cover all the information on a particular
theme, which the researcher is researching, e.g. a traveller’s record may give diverse
kinds of information on various themes that may not be of use of research who is
studying on a particular theme.

Second hand: Secondary Sources

A secondary source is a work that interprets, analyzes, explains, synthesis, evaluates, or


restatement of primary sources.

These sources are written or documented many years after a historical event or
phenomenon. It is authored by another historian/researcher, who may not witness that
historical event. For example, most of the scholarly and popular books, reference books,
textbooks, monographs, encyclopaedias, literature reviews, biographies, journals and
magazines, dissertations, newspaper editorials, opinion pieces, research articles.

It is not firsthand information, but it is gathered by using primary sources as a source of


evidence. The usage of primary sources can be made differently by secondary authors to
argue a contention or persuade the reader to convince the author’s arguments. These sets
of sources are usually not considered as original evidence but rather a commentary on,
interpretation of an event or discussion of evidence.

In the secondary source, the research need not be an expert but only need to comprehend
the primary authors’ interpretation and develop an opinion on a primary source.
Picture Source: From Hinduphobia to Hindumisia.
Subject Classification

Various research fields/subjects have different primary and secondary sources, every
researcher needs to be aware of these differences. Sciences consider a finding of the test,
experiments, observations, discoveries, statistical data, and other original research as a
part of a primary source, whereas the interpretation and discussion of the results or test
data in books and journals are considered secondary.

The literature considers novels, plays, short stories, poems, diaries, films and
performances, and autobiographies as primary sources, whereas journals articles,
biographies, reviews, secondary books, and articles are secondary.
Social sciences consider the physical objects, archaeological records, numismatics,
inscriptions, memoirs, travellers records, newspaper records, original writings,
government records, court records, legal texts, speeches, interviews, sculptures, original
work of arts and paintings, photographs, statistical records, datasets while commentary
and evaluation of reports, documents, books, journals and articles as secondary.

Conclusion

There is no historical record that can be considered as entirely objective, as it is written


by someone present at the time of the event that carries his/her personal biases to
write/record the primary source, whereas this prejudice becomes even higher when the
secondary sources are written based on the biasness of the primary source.

Author: Dr Sakul Kundra, A.HOD Department of Social Science, College of Humanities


and Education, Fiji National University.

Dr Sakul Kundra; Picture


Source: Supplied
Disclaimer: The views expressed are his own and not of The Australia Today or his
employer. For comments or suggestions, email. [email protected]

You might also like