Content deleted Content added
ClueBot NG (talk | contribs) m Reverting possible vandalism by Sigma kinggg to older version. Report False Positive? Thanks, ClueBot NG. (4342990) (Bot) |
→Significance of source classification: deleted repetitive sentence Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit App section source |
||
| (44 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Short description|
{{
{{Use dmy dates|date=October 2021}}
[[File:Pompeii-couple.jpg|thumb|right|This wall painting found in the Roman city of [[Pompeii]] is an example of a primary source about people in Pompeii in Roman times ([[portrait of Terentius Neo]]).]]▼
In the study of [[history]] as an academic discipline, a '''primary source''' (also called an '''original source''') is an [[Artifact (archaeology)|artifact]], [[document]], [[diary]], [[manuscript]], [[autobiography]], recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Similar definitions can be used in [[library science]] and other areas of scholarship, although different fields have somewhat different definitions.▼
▲[[File:Pompeii-couple.jpg|thumb|right|This wall [[painting]] found in the Roman city of [[Pompeii]] is an example of a primary source about people in Pompeii in Roman times ([[portrait of Terentius Neo]]).]]
[[File:Diario de Anne Frank, Iglesia de San Nicolás, Kiel, Alemania, 2019-09-10, DD 22.jpg|thumb|right| The diary of [[Anne Frank]] is an example of a written primary source, particularly for study on [[World War II]].]]
▲In the study of [[history]] as an academic discipline, a '''primary source''' (also called an '''original source''') is an [[Artifact (archaeology)|artifact]], [[document]], [[diary]], [[manuscript]], [[autobiography]], recording, or any other [[source of information]] that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Similar definitions can be used in [[library science]] and other areas of scholarship, although different fields have somewhat different definitions.
In [[journalism]], a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document written by such a person.<ref>{{cite web |last=Peace |first=Kristin |title=Journalism: Primary Sources |url=http://infoguides.pepperdine.edu/c.php?g=287355&p=1915752 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180118181232/https://infoguides.pepperdine.edu/c.php?g=287355&p=1915752 |archive-date=Jan 18, 2018 |access-date=17 January 2018 |publisher=Pepperdine University}}</ref>
Primary sources are distinguished from ''[[secondary source]]s'', which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources. Generally, accounts written after the fact with the benefit of hindsight are secondary.<ref>"[https://web.archive.org/web/20130726061349/http://www.lib.umd.edu/ues/guides/primary-sources Primary, secondary and tertiary sources]". University Libraries, University of Maryland.</ref> A secondary source may also be a primary source depending on how it is used.<ref>"[http://www.ithacalibrary.com/sp/subjects/primary Primary and secondary sources] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160301225514/http://www.ithacalibrary.com/sp/subjects/primary |date=1 March 2016 }}". Ithaca College Library.</ref> For example, a [[memoir]] would be considered a primary source in research concerning its author or about their friends characterized within it, but the same memoir would be a secondary source if it were used to examine the culture in which its author lived. "Primary" and "secondary" should be understood as relative terms, with sources categorized according to specific historical contexts and what is being studied.<ref name=Handlin/>{{rp|118–246}}<ref name="Kragh">{{Cite book |last=Kragh |first=Helge |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OX7d7u_2rF4C&pg=PA121 |title=An Introduction to the Historiography of Science |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=1989 |isbn=0-521-38921-6 |page=121 |quote=[T]he distinction is not a sharp one. Since a source is only a source in a specific historical context, the same source object can be both a primary or secondary source according to what it is used for.}}</ref>
==Classifying sources==▼
{{see also|Secondary source#Classification of sources|Source text#Classification in levels}}
Many sources can be considered either primary or secondary, depending on the context in which they are examined.<ref name=Kragh/> Moreover, the distinction between ''primary'' and ''secondary'' sources is subjective and contextual,<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Dalton| first1=Margaret Stieg|last2=Charnigo|first2=Laurie|title=Historians and Their Information Sources|journal=College & Research Libraries|date=September 2004|volume=65|issue=5|page=419| doi=10.5860/crl.65.5.400|url=http://crl.acrl.org/content/65/5/400.full.pdf+html|access-date=3 January 2017|doi-access=free}} {{open access}}</ref> so that precise definitions are difficult to make.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Delgadillo|first1=Roberto|last2=Lynch|first2=Beverly|title=Future Historians: Their Quest for Information|url=http://crl.acrl.org/content/60/3/245.full.pdf+html|journal=College & Research Libraries|date=May 1999|volume=60|issue=3 |pages=245–259, at 253|quote=[T]he same document can be a primary or a secondary source depending on the particular analysis the historian is doing.|doi=10.5860/crl.60.3.245|doi-access=free}} {{open access}}</ref> A [[book]] review, when it contains the opinion of the reviewer about the book rather than a summary of the book, becomes a primary source.<ref name="Princeton">{{Cite web|url=http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=book%20review|title=Book reviews |access-date=22 September 2011 |publisher=Princeton |year=2011 |author=Princeton|work=Scholarly definition document }}</ref><ref name="VirginiaTech">{{Cite web |url=http://www.lib.vt.edu/find/byformat/bookreviews.html |title=Book reviews |access-date=22 September 2011 |publisher=Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University |year=2011 |author=Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University |work=Scholarly definition document |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110910082750/http://www.lib.vt.edu/find/byformat/bookreviews.html |archive-date=10 September 2011 }}</ref>▼
If a historical text discusses old documents to derive a new historical conclusion, it is considered to be a primary source for the new conclusion. Examples in which a source can be both primary and secondary include an obituary<ref name=Duffin>{{Cite book|last=Duffin|first=Jacalyn|title=History of Medicine: A Scandalously Short Introduction|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=__oDQ6yDO7kC&q=%22secondary+source%22+historiography&pg=PA366|year=1999|publisher=University of Toronto Press|isbn=0-8020-7912-1|page=366}}</ref> or a survey of several volumes of a journal counting the frequency of articles on a certain topic.<ref name=Duffin/>▼
Whether a source is regarded as primary or secondary in a given context may change, depending upon the present state of knowledge within the field.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Henige|first=David|title=Primary Source by Primary Source? On the Role of Epidemics in New World Depopulation|journal=Ethnohistory|volume=33|issue=3|year=1986|pages=292–312, at 292|doi=10.2307/481816|jstor=481816|publisher=Ethnohistory, Vol. 33, No. 3|pmid=11616953|quote=[T]he term 'primary' inevitably carries a relative meaning insofar as it defines those pieces of information that stand in closest relationship to an event or process ''in the present state of our knowledge''. Indeed, in most instances the very nature of a primary source tells us that it is actually derivative.…[H]istorians have no choice but to regard certain of the available sources as 'primary' since they are as near to truly original sources as they can now secure}}</ref> For example, if a document refers to the contents of a previous but undiscovered [[Letter (message)|letter]], that document may be considered "primary", since it is the closest known thing to an original source; but if the letter is later found, it may then be considered "secondary"<ref>{{Harvnb|Henige|1986|p=292}}.</ref>▼
In some instances, the reason for identifying a text as the "primary source" may devolve from the fact that no copy of the original source material exists, or that it is the oldest extant source for the information cited.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Ambraseys|first1=Nicholas|last2=Melville|first2=Charles Peter|last3=Adams|first3=Robin Dartrey|title=The Seismicity of Egypt, Arabia, and the Red Sea|year=1994|isbn=0-521-39120-2|publisher=Cambridge University Press|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dtVqdSKnBq4C&q=historiography+%22primary+source%22+%22secondary+source%22&pg=PA7|page=7|quote=The same chronicle can be a primary source for the period contemporary with the author, a secondary source for earlier material derived from previous works, but also a primary source when these earlier works have not survived}}</ref>▼
==Significance of source classification==
Line 15 ⟶ 26:
[[File:donfelipe.jpg|thumb|360px|right|From a letter of Philip II, King of Spain, 16th century]]
In [[Academic writing|scholarly writing]], an important objective of classifying sources is to determine their independence and reliability.<ref name=Kragh/> In contexts such as historical writing, it is almost always advisable to use primary sources and that "if none are available, it is only with great caution that
===Other fields===
{{anchor|Science}}In [[scientific literature]], a primary source, or the "primary literature", is the original publication of a scientist's new data, results, and theories.<ref>Open University, [https://www.open.edu/openlearn/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=64085§ion=4.1 4.1 Primary literature], ''Succeeding in postgraduate study'', Session 5, accessed 22 March 2023</ref> In [[political history]], primary sources are documents such as official reports, speeches, pamphlets, posters, or letters by participants, official election returns, and eyewitness accounts. In the [[history of ideas]] or [[intellectual history]], the main primary sources are books, [[essays]], and letters written by [[Intellectual|intellectuals]]; these intellectuals may include [[Historian|historians
A study of [[cultural history]] could include fictional sources such as [[novels]] or [[Play (theatre)|plays]]. In a broader sense primary sources also include artifacts like
* '''[[Narrative]] sources''' or '''literary sources''' tell a story or message. They are not limited to fictional sources (which can be sources of information for contemporary attitudes) but include
* '''Diplomatic sources''' include [[charter]]s and other legal documents which usually follow a set format.
* '''Social documents''' are records created by organizations, such as registers of births and tax records.
In historiography, when the study of history is subject to historical scrutiny, a secondary source becomes a primary source. For a biography of a historian, that historian's publications would be primary sources. [[Documentary
The [[Lafayette College]] Library provides a synopsis of primary sources in several areas of study:<ref>[http://library.lafayette.edu/help/primary/definitions "Primary Sources: what are they?"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090208191118/http://library.lafayette.edu/help/primary/definitions |date=8 February 2009 }}. Lafayette College Library.</ref>
<blockquote>The definition of a primary source varies depending upon the academic discipline and the context in which it is used.
* In the [[humanities]], a primary source could be defined as something that was created either during the time period being studied or afterward by individuals reflecting on their involvement in the events of that time.
* In the [[social science]]s, the definition of a primary source would be expanded to include [[Numerical analysis|numerical data]] that has been gathered to analyze relationships between people, events, and their environment.
* In the [[natural science]]s, a primary source could be defined as a report of original findings or ideas. These sources often appear in the form of research articles with sections on methods and results.
==Finding primary sources==
Although many primary sources remain in private hands, others are located in [[archives]],
In the US, digital copies of primary sources can be retrieved from a number of places. The [[Library of Congress]] maintains several digital collections where they can be retrieved. Some examples are [http://www.memory.loc.gov American Memory] and [[Chronicling America]]. The [[National Archives and Records Administration]] also has digital collections in [http://digitalvaults.org/ Digital Vaults]. The [[Digital Public Library of America]] searches across the digitized primary source collections of many libraries, archives, and museums. The [[Internet Archive]] also has primary source materials in many formats.
Line 47 ⟶ 58:
==Using primary sources==
History as an academic discipline is based on primary sources, as evaluated by the community of scholars, who report their findings in books, articles, and papers. [[Arthur Marwick]] says "Primary sources are absolutely fundamental to history."<ref name=Marwick>Marwick, Arthur. "Primary Sources: Handle with Care". In Sources and Methods for Family and Community Historians: A Handbook edited by Michael Drake and Ruth Finnegan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. {{ISBN|0-521-46580-X}}</ref> Ideally, a historian will use all available primary sources that were created by the people involved at the time being studied. In practice, some sources have been destroyed, while others are not available for research. Perhaps the only eyewitness reports of an event may be
Historians studying the modern period with the intention of publishing an academic article prefer to go back to available primary sources and to seek new (in other words, forgotten or lost) ones. Primary sources, whether accurate or not, offer new input into historical questions and most modern history revolves around heavy use of
However, primary sources – particularly those from before the 20th century – may have hidden challenges. "Primary sources, in fact, are usually fragmentary, ambiguous, and very difficult to analyze and interpret."<ref name=Marwick/> Obsolete meanings of familiar words and social context are among the traps that await the newcomer to historical studies. For this reason, the interpretation of primary texts is typically taught as part of an advanced college or postgraduate history course, although advanced self-study or informal training is also possible.
Line 62 ⟶ 73:
Participants and [[witness|eyewitness]]es may misunderstand events or distort their reports, deliberately or not, to enhance their own image or importance. Such effects can increase over time, as people create a narrative that may not be accurate.<ref>Barbara W. Sommer and Mary Kay Quinlan, ''The Oral History Manual'' (2002)</ref> For any source, primary or secondary, it is important for the researcher to evaluate the amount and direction of bias.<ref>Library of Congress, " Analysis of Primary Sources" [http://memory.loc.gov/learn/lessons/psources/analyze.html online 2007]</ref> As an example, a government report may be an accurate and unbiased description of events, but it may be [[censorship|censored]] or altered for propaganda or [[cover-up]] purposes. The facts can be [[distortion|distorted]] to present the opposing sides in a negative light. [[Barrister]]s are taught that evidence in a court case may be truthful but may still be distorted to support or oppose the position of one of the parties.
▲==Classifying sources==
▲Many sources can be considered either primary or secondary, depending on the context in which they are examined.<ref name=Kragh/> Moreover, the distinction between ''primary'' and ''secondary'' sources is subjective and contextual,<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Dalton| first1=Margaret Stieg|last2=Charnigo|first2=Laurie|title=Historians and Their Information Sources|journal=College & Research Libraries|date=September 2004|volume=65|issue=5|page=419| doi=10.5860/crl.65.5.400|url=http://crl.acrl.org/content/65/5/400.full.pdf+html|access-date=3 January 2017|doi-access=free}} {{open access}}</ref> so that precise definitions are difficult to make.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Delgadillo|first1=Roberto|last2=Lynch|first2=Beverly|title=Future Historians: Their Quest for Information|url=http://crl.acrl.org/content/60/3/245.full.pdf+html|journal=College & Research Libraries|date=May 1999|volume=60|issue=3 |pages=245–259, at 253|quote=[T]he same document can be a primary or a secondary source depending on the particular analysis the historian is doing.|doi=10.5860/crl.60.3.245|doi-access=free}} {{open access}}</ref> A book review, when it contains the opinion of the reviewer about the book rather than a summary of the book, becomes a primary source.<ref name="Princeton">{{Cite web|url=http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=book%20review|title=Book reviews |access-date=22 September 2011 |publisher=Princeton |year=2011 |author=Princeton|work=Scholarly definition document }}</ref><ref name="VirginiaTech">{{Cite web |url=http://www.lib.vt.edu/find/byformat/bookreviews.html |title=Book reviews |access-date=22 September 2011 |publisher=Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University |year=2011 |author=Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University |work=Scholarly definition document |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110910082750/http://www.lib.vt.edu/find/byformat/bookreviews.html |archive-date=10 September 2011 }}</ref>
▲If a historical text discusses old documents to derive a new historical conclusion, it is considered to be a primary source for the new conclusion. Examples in which a source can be both primary and secondary include an obituary<ref name=Duffin>{{Cite book|last=Duffin|first=Jacalyn|title=History of Medicine: A Scandalously Short Introduction|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=__oDQ6yDO7kC&q=%22secondary+source%22+historiography&pg=PA366|year=1999|publisher=University of Toronto Press|isbn=0-8020-7912-1|page=366}}</ref> or a survey of several volumes of a journal counting the frequency of articles on a certain topic.<ref name=Duffin/>
▲Whether a source is regarded as primary or secondary in a given context may change, depending upon the present state of knowledge within the field.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Henige|first=David|title=Primary Source by Primary Source? On the Role of Epidemics in New World Depopulation|journal=Ethnohistory|volume=33|issue=3|year=1986|pages=292–312, at 292|doi=10.2307/481816|jstor=481816|publisher=Ethnohistory, Vol. 33, No. 3|pmid=11616953|quote=[T]he term 'primary' inevitably carries a relative meaning insofar as it defines those pieces of information that stand in closest relationship to an event or process ''in the present state of our knowledge''. Indeed, in most instances the very nature of a primary source tells us that it is actually derivative.…[H]istorians have no choice but to regard certain of the available sources as 'primary' since they are as near to truly original sources as they can now secure}}</ref> For example, if a document refers to the contents of a previous but undiscovered letter, that document may be considered "primary", since it is the closest known thing to an original source; but if the letter is later found, it may then be considered "secondary"<ref>{{Harvnb|Henige|1986|p=292}}.</ref>
▲In some instances, the reason for identifying a text as the "primary source" may devolve from the fact that no copy of the original source material exists, or that it is the oldest extant source for the information cited.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Ambraseys|first1=Nicholas|last2=Melville|first2=Charles Peter|last3=Adams|first3=Robin Dartrey|title=The Seismicity of Egypt, Arabia, and the Red Sea|year=1994|isbn=0-521-39120-2|publisher=Cambridge University Press|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dtVqdSKnBq4C&q=historiography+%22primary+source%22+%22secondary+source%22&pg=PA7|page=7|quote=The same chronicle can be a primary source for the period contemporary with the author, a secondary source for earlier material derived from previous works, but also a primary source when these earlier works have not survived}}</ref>
==Forgeries==
Historians must occasionally contend with forged documents that purport to be primary sources. These forgeries have usually been constructed with a fraudulent purpose, such as promulgating legal rights, supporting false pedigrees, or promoting particular interpretations of historic events. The investigation of documents to determine their authenticity is called [[diplomatics]].
For centuries, [[pope]]s used the forged [[Donation of Constantine]] to bolster the Papacy's secular power. Among the earliest forgeries are false [[Anglo-Saxon charters]], a number of 11th- and 12th-century forgeries produced by [[monastery|monasteries]] and [[abbey]]s to support a claim to land where the original document had been lost or never existed. One particularly unusual forgery of a primary source was perpetrated by [[Sir Edward Dering, 1st Baronet|Sir Edward Dering]], who placed false [[monumental brass]]es in a [[parish church]].<ref>Everyone has Roots: An Introduction to English Genealogy by Anthony J. Camp, published by Genealogical Pub. Co., 1978</ref> In 1986, [[Hugh Trevor-Roper]] authenticated the [[Hitler Diaries]], which were later proved to be forgeries. Recently{{when?|date=July 2024}}, forged documents have been placed within the [[The National Archives (United Kingdom)#Forgeries discovered in 2005|UK National Archives]] in the hope of establishing a false [[provenance]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=Introduction to record class R4|url= http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C16525|publisher=The National Archives|access-date=8 March 2015}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Leppard| first=David|title=Forgeries revealed in the National Archives – Times Online|url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3867853.ece|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080517030209/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3867853.ece|url-status=dead|archive-date=17 May 2008|work=The Sunday Times|date=4 May 2008|access-date=4 July 2011}}</ref> However, historians dealing with recent centuries rarely encounter forgeries of any importance.<ref name=Handlin>[[Oscar Handlin]] and [[Arthur Meier Schlesinger]], ''Harvard Guide to American History'' (1954)</ref>{{rp|22–25}}
==See also==
Line 109 ⟶ 111:
==External links==
{{
;Primary sources repositories
*
*
*
*
*
*
;All sources repositories
*
;Essays and descriptions of primary, secondary, and other sources
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
{{refend}}{{Commons category|Primary Sources}}
{{Historiography}} {{Libraries and library science}} {{DEFAULTSORT:Primary Source}} [[Category:Works about history| ]]▼
[[Category:Sources| ]]▼
[[Category:Historiography]]
[[Category:Information science]]▼
[[Category:History resources]]
▲[[Category:Information science]]
▲[[Category:Sources| ]]
▲[[Category:Works about history| ]]
| |||