Primary source: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:37, 10 August 2025

Latest revision as of 03:13, 10 August 2025

(10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)

Line 3:

{{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]]).]]

[[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.

Line 13:

{{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>

Line 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 [the [[author]] may proceed to make use of secondary sources."<ref name=Cipolla>{{Cite book|last=Cipolla|first=Carlo M.|title=Between Two Cultures:An Introduction to Economic History|page=27|publisher=W. W. Norton & Co.|year=1992|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GIqRTlepwmoC&q=cipolla|isbn=978-0-393-30816-7}}</ref> Sreedharan believes that primary sources have the most direct connection to the past and that they "speak for themselves" in ways that cannot be captured through the filter of secondary sources.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Sreedharan|first=E.|title=A Textbook of Historiography, 500 B.C. to A.D. 2000|year=2004|publisher=Orient Longman|isbn=81-250-2657-6|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AIGq85RVvdoC&q=historiography+%22primary+source%22+%22secondary+source%22&pg=PA302|page=302|quote=[I]t is through the primary sources that the past indisputably imposes its reality on the historian. That this imposition is basic in any understanding of the past is clear from the rules that documents should not be altered, or that any material damaging to a historian's argument or purpose should not be left out or suppressed. These rules mean that the sources or texts of the past have integrity and that they do indeed 'speak for themselves', and that they are necessary constraints through which past reality imposes itself on the historian.}}</ref>

===Other fields===

In scholarly writing, the objective of classifying sources is to determine the independence and reliability of sources.<ref name=Kragh/> Though the terms ''primary source'' and ''secondary source'' have often been used when discussing ideas and matters related to [[historiography]], it can also be applied to many other fields. For example, these ideas may be used to trace the history of scientific theories, literary elements, and other information that is passed from one author to another.

{{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&section=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 [[Scientific journal|letters]] written by [[Intellectual|intellectuals]]; these intellectuals may include [[Historian|historians]] whose books and essays are therefore considered primary sources for the intellectual historian, though they are secondary sources in their own topical fields. In [[religious history]], the primary sources are [[religious texts]] and descriptions of religious [[ceremonies]] and [[rituals]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://researchguides.library.tufts.edu/content.php?pid=60919&sid=447878|title=Primary Sources – Religion|website=Research Guides at Tufts University|date=26 August 2014|access-date=15 January 2014}}</ref>

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 [[photograph]]s, [[newsreel]]s, [[coin]]s, [[painting]]spaintings or [[building]]s created at the time. Historians may also take oral reports and interviews into consideration. Written sources may be divided into three types:<ref>{{Cite book | last1 = Howell | first1 = Martha C. | last2 = Prevenier | first2 = Walter. | title = From reliable sources: an introduction to historical method | year = 2001 | publisher = Cornell University Press | ___location = Ithaca, N.Y. | isbn = 0-8014-8560-6 | pages =20–22}}</ref>

* '''[[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 [[diary|diaries]], films, biographies, leading philosophical works, and [[scientific works]].

* '''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.

Line 47:

==Finding primary sources==

Although many primary sources remain in private hands, others are located in [[archives]], [[libraries]], [[museum]]s, [[historical societies]], and [[special collections]]. These can be public or private. Some are affiliated with universities and colleges, while others are government entities. Materials relating to one area might be located in many different institutions. These can be distant from the original source of the document. For example, the [[Huntington Library]] in California houses many documents from the United Kingdom.

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 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 [[memoir]]smemoirs, autobiographies, or oral interviews that were taken years later. Sometimes the only evidence relating to an event or person in the distant past was written or copied decades or centuries later. Manuscripts that are sources for [[Classics|classical texts]] can be copies of documents or fragments of copies of documents. This is a common problem in [[classical studies]], where sometimes only a summary of a book or letter has survived. Potential difficulties with primary sources have the result that history is usually taught in schools using secondary sources.

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 archives and special collections for the purpose of finding useful primary sources. A work on history is not likely to be taken seriously as a scholarship if it only cites secondary sources, as it does not indicate that original research has been done.<ref name=Handlin/>