What is a historical source?
A source is anything that gives us information about the past. A source becomes evidence when we use it to answer a question.
- Primary sources were made at the time being studied, often by people who took part: diaries, letters, laws, coins, tools, photos, speeches.
- Secondary sources were made later by people looking back: textbooks, documentaries, historians' books and articles.
Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on your question. A 1950 history book is secondary for the 1857 revolt but primary evidence of how people in 1950 viewed it.
Kinds of sources: literary, material, oral, visual, digital
- Written / literary: chronicles, letters, epics, poems, plays, inscriptions, official records.
- Material / archaeological: buildings, pottery, coins, tools, bones, seeds, found by excavation and dated by layers (stratigraphy) or radiocarbon.
- Oral: memories, interviews, folk songs and stories passed down by speech.
- Visual: paintings, maps, cartoons, photographs, posters.
- Digital and media (key for contemporary history): film, radio, TV, websites, social media, databases.
For ancient times, material sources are often all we have. For the recent past, the problem is the opposite: too many sources, some made to mislead.
Provenance: who, when, why, for whom
Provenance means where a source comes from. Ask:
- Who made it? What position did they have? Were they there?
- When? At the time, or years later?
- Why? To inform, persuade, entertain, record, please a ruler, sell something?
- For whom? A private diary, a public speech, an enemy, a court?
Then read the content: what does it say or show? What does it leave out? How does it fit what you already know (your own knowledge)?
Reliability, bias and usefulness
Reliability: how far can we trust what the source says as accurate? Bias: a one-sided view, from loyalty, fear, interest or ignorance. Propaganda is deliberate bias to persuade the public.
Things that lower reliability: the maker was not present, wrote much later, had a reason to exaggerate or hide, or the source contradicts strong evidence. Things that raise it: an eyewitness with no reason to lie, private writing, and agreement with other independent sources.
Usefulness is different: it depends on the question. A biased propaganda poster is unreliable about facts but very useful for showing what a government wanted people to believe.
Corroboration and secondary scholars' views
Corroboration means checking one source against others. When several independent sources agree, a claim becomes stronger.
Historians build interpretations: arguments about what happened and why. Different scholars may disagree because they use different sources, ask different questions, or write in different times. To handle scholarship:
- Summarise each historian's argument in one line.
- Look at the evidence each uses.
- Compare and judge which explanation is better supported.
- Avoid saying a view is wrong only because the writer is old or foreign: test the evidence.
Writing a source commentary or essay
A simple plan for a source commentary:
- Identify: type, author, date, audience (provenance).
- Content: the main points, in your own words, with short quotes.
- Context: what was happening at the time.
- Evaluate: reliability, bias, limits, usefulness for the question.
- Conclude: a clear judgement.
In an essay across sources, group sources by argument, not one by one; use them as evidence for your own line of argument, and bring in historians' views to support or challenge it.
Exam tips
Typical questions: "How useful is Source A for…?", "How reliable…?", "Compare the views of Sources B and C", "Which interpretation is more convincing?". Always use both the content and the provenance, add your own knowledge, and end with a judgement. Do not simply say "it is biased, so it is useless".
Try it at home
Interview an older family member about an event they remember (a festival, a flood, an election day). Write down what they say. Then find one other source (a newspaper archive, a photo). Do they agree? Use step 6 of the 3D to score the memory's reliability.
Key formulas and definitions
- Primary = made at the time · Secondary = made later, looking back
- Provenance: Who? When? Why? For whom?
- Analyse = content + provenance + context + own knowledge
- Reliability ↓ bias, distance, motive · ↑ eyewitness, independent agreement
- Usefulness depends on the question asked
- Corroboration: several independent sources → stronger claim
Worked examples
1. Classify: (a) a Mughal coin, (b) a 2015 documentary on the Mughals, (c) a traveller's diary from 1620.
(a) Primary, material. (b) Secondary, visual/digital. (c) Primary, written. Step: ask when each was made compared with the period studied.
2. A victory inscription made by a king praises his conquest. How reliable is it about the size of the battle?
Provenance: made by the winner, for public display, to show his power. Motive to exaggerate, so not very reliable about numbers. But it is useful for showing how the king wanted to be seen and the reach of his rule.
3. Two sources describe a factory strike in 1920. A newspaper owned by factory owners calls the workers 'troublemakers'. A worker's diary says they asked for fair pay. How do you reach a judgement?
Both have bias (owners vs workers). Look for corroboration: wage records, police reports, other newspapers. Facts both agree on (a strike happened, pay was the issue) are probably reliable. Then judge which account is closer to the independent evidence.
4. Historian X says a revolt was a planned national movement; historian Y says it was many local uprisings. How should you handle this in an essay?
Summarise both views, look at the evidence each uses (e.g. X uses proclamations; Y uses local records showing different causes), test them against the sources you have, and decide which is better supported, or argue that both explain different areas.
Common mistakes
- Thinking primary sources are always reliable. An eyewitness can be biased or mistaken.
- Saying a biased source is useless. Bias itself is evidence of opinions at the time.
- Describing the source without evaluating it. Always judge reliability or usefulness.
- Treating a historian's view as fact. It is an interpretation; check its evidence.