The Historian and the Sources
The Historian and the Sources
This domain asks you to explain what history is, to classify evidence, and to judge how far a source can be trusted. Questions usually present two or three short sources and ask about their strengths and weaknesses, or ask you to name a type of source and say what a historian learns from it.
Primary and secondary evidence
- A primary source comes from the time being studied: a letter, diary, newspaper, photograph, treaty, gravestone, coin, building, or an interview with a witness.
- A secondary source is produced after the event by someone who was not there: a textbook, biography, documentary or museum panel.
- The distinction is about origin, not age. An autobiography written in 1980 about 1916 is still primary, though memory may have faded or been reshaped.
Judging a source Apply the same tests every time: who made it, when, for whom, and why? Then ask what it leaves out and whether another source agrees (corroboration). A biased source is not a useless source: propaganda reveals what a government wanted people to believe, which is itself evidence.
Worked example Source A is a letter written by a Volunteer in Dublin in May 1916; Source B is a textbook chapter from 2010. Reasoning: A is primary and close to events but written under censorship and with a personal purpose; B has hindsight and research but no direct experience. Neither is simply 'better' - corroborate A against a second witness and against official records.
Traps Writing that a biased source is worthless; treating 'old' as a synonym for 'primary'; assuming a documentary is neutral; describing a source without saying what it tells us about the past.