Historical skills and source analysis: evidence, interpretation, bias and reliability
You are tested on how you use evidence, not on whether you like a source.
Concepts to name precisely: primary and secondary sources; provenance (author, date, place); purpose; audience; bias; reliability; usefulness; corroboration; interpretation; empathy - understanding a past mindset without excusing it.
The core distinction: reliability asks whether a source can be trusted on a particular point; usefulness asks what a source can tell you, even when it is unreliable. A colonial official's 1902 report may be untrustworthy about African grievances but highly useful as evidence of official attitudes.
Traps: (1) treating 'biased' as 'worthless' - bias is itself evidence of viewpoint and context; (2) assuming a primary source always beats a secondary one - a historian with access to archives may be far better informed; (3) retelling a source's content instead of analysing it; (4) claiming a source is 'reliable because it is a photograph' - captions, framing and selection matter; (5) ignoring silence: what a source leaves out is evidence too.
Rule of thumb: for every source, answer in this order - Who made it, when and where? Why, and for whom? What exactly does it say (cite a phrase or detail)? What does it assume or omit? How does it compare with a second source? Then judge in terms of the question: 'It is useful for X, less reliable for Y, because Z.'
Worked example: a speech by a Tswana chief in 1895 opposing Cape annexation. It is strong evidence of chiefly political argument and rhetoric, and of the language used to appeal to a British audience; it is weaker evidence of unanimous popular opinion, since the speaker represents a faction and aims to persuade. Corroborate with Colonial Office minutes and missionary letters before judging.