The uses of sources -- HIS601 Lecture

1. HISTORIOGRAPHY:
USE OF SOURCES AND BIAS

2. What are primary and secondary
sources?
 Historians name the various sources they have used to
carry out their research.
 They providing a bibliography at the end of their writing.
 These bibliographies are usually divided into two
categories of research materials.
 Primary sources are listed first, followed by secondary
sources.
 Primary sources are regarded as the most important for
historical research.

3. Primary sources:
 . A primary source is a document written at the time
or soon after an historical event occurred
 Primary sources belong to the period under study by the
historian.
 Primary sources might be:
1. old texts held in archives and libraries, e.g. Manuscripts
2. Archaeological remains and old buildings.
3. old newspapers, film footage, recordings of interviews
from the period being studied.
4. Often, primary sources are first-hand accounts and
offer an “inside view” of what happened.
 Memoirs and oral histories are considered primary
sources, even if they are produced long after the event.

5. FORMATS OF SOURCES
 Scientific journal articles, reporting experimental research
results
 Proceedings of meetings
 Technical reports
 Sets of data
 Works of literature
 Traveler's Accounts and Diaries
 Autobiographies
 Interviews, surveys and fieldwork
 Letters and correspondence
 Speeches
 Government documents
 Photographs and works of art
 Original documents (birth certificates, transcripts)

6. Secondary sources:
 A secondary source interprets, analyzes, explains,
reviews, or describes a primary source.
 Secondary sources consist of the writings of other
historians about a particular historical topic or
event;
 they are held to have a different kind of value to
original sources (they add to a historian’s research).
 secondary sources are written or recorded many
years after an historical event.
 secondary source is used to argue a point or support a
particular opinion.
 Common secondary sources are: books,
monographs, journal articles and textbooks…

8. FORMATS OF SOURCES
 Bibliographies
 Biographical works
 Commentaries
 Dictionaries and encyclopedias
 Handbooks and data compilations
 History
 Works of criticism and interpretation
 Indexing and abstracting tools
 Newspaper and popular magazine articles
 Journal articles-particularly in disciplines other than
science

10.  The privileged status that primary sources enjoy among
historians has been true since the mid-nineteenth
century. (1850s).
 It is related to the Rankean school’s notion that “to
know the past one must first know the archive”.
 But Ranke and his contemporaries were not the first to
defend archive-based history writing;
 Ranke and his followers popularized this idea: they
adopted the critical reading of original documents as the
basis for their professional activities
Rankean definition of primary sources:

11.  At the University of Berlin, Ranke taught his students
how to critically read and analyse old medieval
documents. (Ranke School – History from Above)
 Inspired on Ranke, historians have favoured the use of
sources that were generated (temporally and
geographically) as close as possible to the event that they
describe.
 For Ranke, it was preferable to use a document written
at the time of a historical event rather than a memoir
written by an eyewitness years afterwards…
 Ranke also inspired the use of official documents held
in state (which led to a preference for high politics and
diplomacy; “history from above);
Rankean definition of primary
sources:

12. New primary sources:
 Since the early 20th C, however, the range of primary
sources regarded as valid for historical research has
expanded greatly.
 From the founding of the Annales school (1929
onwards), historians began to be more interested in
social and cultural aspects of history (not only in ‘high
politics’). (History from Below)
 As a result, they became more willing to incorporate
almost any within their research materials.
 from low-class peoples’ diaries, to the testimony of living
witnesses, to landscapes, even to cartoons…

13. New primary sources:
 This turn towards new kinds of sources is largely a
consequence of historians becoming more open
minded…
 They were changing their notions of what/who should be
regarded as ‘historical’ topics/subjects.
 If Rankeans’ had focused only of the histories of state
politics, historians in the Annales school wanted to be
able to explain how human cultures (as a whole) change.
 In their pursuit of a holistic or ‘total’ history, Annales
historians drew freely on the methods and resources
of other academic disciplines: Geography, Sociology,
Anthropology and Economics.

14. New primary sources:
 Annales historians created a revolution in the definition
and use of historical sources.
 Different from Rankean historians (who used official
state-archive sources) they focused on non-official
sources.
 These ranged from: maps, folkloric artifacts, literature,
parish records, even to manuals on interior decoration
and evidence of people’s eating habits!

15. New primary sources:
 Today, one of the reason for the expansion of new sources
is related to changes in technology.
 Think about the difference between the early printing
presses and modern databases and Internet forums.
 The amount of information generated, preserved,
processed and organised today has grown immensely.
 A problem facing contemporary historians now is the
massive volume of data that is potentially available for
their research.
 In the future: how will historians write about the year
2014 in Fiji? (how many blogs, sites, radio shows, TV
news will we have to consult?)

16. The limits of secondary sources:
 As mentioned, secondary sources are the writings of
other historians;
 Since new generation of historians tend to challenge
older generation of historians, secondary sources have a
“limited shelf life”;
 Secondary sources are interpretative: thus, they tend to
be challenged or superseded by later accounts;
 With the exception of a few classic texts, most history
books written by historians eventually pass from being
the latest version of some subject to becoming out of
date;
 Secondary sources, therefore, are normally deleted from
the publisher’s catalogue and removed from libraries.

17. Blurred definition of primary and secondary sources
 But … the division between primary and secondary
sources just described does not always apply.
 What historians conventionally regard as secondary
sources can in fact be used as primary sources.
 This depends on the nature of the project in which
they are put to work.
 If you are researching changes in historiography
(changes in how historians write about history)
 Then you can use books written by historians as
primary sources.

18.  Autobiographies and contemporary histories also create
a problem in differentiating what are ‘ primary’ and
‘secondary’ sources…
 Think about W. Churchill’s history of the Second World
War (which is part memoir, part traditional narrative
history).
 It combines the author’s eyewitness testimonies (usually
regarded as a primary source) but also his
interpretation of the events based on other sources
(usually regarded as the property of a secondary
account).
 So, there is often a problematic and artificial definition
of the primary/secondary source division.

19. Historical research standards:
 Historical research still remains tied to the critical use of
primary sources;
 The extensive use of primary sources is an important
consideration for Ph.D. examiners, editorial boards of
journals, academic book publishers and research funding
councils;
The ‘gold standard’ of history writing still is:
1- a original research monograph (a detailed study of a
subject).
2- based extensively on primary sources.
3- heavily footnoted.
4- finished with a lengthy bibliography.

20. Historical sources:
 The distinction between primary and secondary
sources is crucial for traditional (reconstructionist)
historians.
 This is because they believe that past is objectively
knowable thorough the selection and critical reading
of primary sources.
 They argue that primary sources are special because
they are the original traces or relics of the past.
 They believe that such sources are unprocessed,
authentic and unmediated – in short, ‘free’ from
interpretation. –(Objectivity).
 But not all historians agree with the traditional way of
defining and separating out primary and secondary
sources…

21. Differences between traditional and
postmodern historians:
 Postmodernist historians tend not to see the
primary/secondary distinction as crucially important.
 Instead they focus on a particular source’s relevance to their
research project.
 Those sources that are most important to the project ( upon
which the quality of their work will be judged), they regard as
primary sources.
 We will study postmodern historiography in he following
weeks…
 But Postmodern historians also argue that all sources involve
interpretation (even primary sources);
 Since every source is written from someone’s perspective, and
thus no source should be regarded as objective

22. Differences between traditional and
postmodern historians:
 Ex: documents produced in legal proceedings;
 A traditional historian would argue that such documents
are largely free from interpretation;
 Once they are a ‘true’ and ‘accurate’ account of what was
said in court;
 But Postmodernists would take a different view.

23. Differences between traditional
and postmodern historians:
 Postmodernists would argue that even legal
proceedings are as positioned (and thus ‘subjective’);
 They would say that evidence given in a court of law is
framed under the pressures of a legal framework;
 Those giving evidence were retelling events not to
friends or family but to powerful judges!
 Also to juries who had power over liberty, life and
(sometimes) death…
 Witnesses ion court, therefore, usually choose to adapt
their language or stressed different aspects of the
events they are asked to recall…

24. Differences between traditional
and postmodern historians:
 In addition, any court has its rules concerning
how/what can and cannot be said;
 The questions of the prosecutor or inquisitor, also
constrains and shape the evidence a witness could give
about their experience;
 Postmodern historians that what appears to be a
transparent recording of events – the transcription of
evidence given in court – is in fact an interpretative
act. – (not a primary source but a subjective).

25. How do historians use sources?
 Historians regard primary sources as the evidence base for
their accounts of the past;
 For traditional/reconstructionist historians: primary
sources are the closest that we have to an encounter with
the past itself;
 For them, the best way justify a statement relating to the
past is by citing an original source as corroborating
material;
 Of course, the need to cite a primary source I support of a
statement also depends on the type of claim that is being
made.
 Statements that refer to common knowledge need no
support, but ones that are not widely known will need
corroboration from primary sources…

26. How do historians use sources?
 For example, you will need to cite primary sources to
argue if Fiji’s economy improved during the nineteenth-
century;
 But you do not need to cite sources to affirm that Fiji
became independent in 1970;
 The correct use and interpretation of primary sources is a
fundamental protocol in the historical method;
 It is a key expectation of the genre of academic history
writing (historiography).

27. Remembering and forgetting:
selectivity in historical research
 The way historians use primary sources have ethical
implications;
 Historians choose to give a voice to some people in the
past but to ignore the voices of others;
 we judge that some people have left us ‘reliable’ evidence
while others are not to be trusted;
 Historians need to acknowledge our methodological
limitations (historiographical awareness…)

28. Critical use of primary sources:
 Is the source in question authentic – that is, is it really
from the time, by the author, and the type of
document that it purports to be?
 Who wrote or produced the source?
 what do we know about them that might help our
understanding of it?
 What kind of perspective does the author/producer
adopt?

29. critical use of primary sources:
 How might contemporaries have understood it?
 What does it say (and what doesn’t it say)?
 Does it say similar or different things to other sources
from the period?
 Does it cohere with other sources/evidence from the
period?
 Does it cohere with information in other histories?
 How have other historians in the field used this
source?

30. critical use of primary sources:
 Is it a translation?
 If so, how might this affect the source?
 How can we be sure that the translation is accurate?
 But more importantly, we need to recognise that the
translation will be an interpretation of the original by
the translator.

31. Arnold’s question:
How is it possible for two
contemporary historians, who were
studying the same topic at the same
time, reach such different conclusions?
John H Arnold. ‘History. A Very Short
Introduction.’ Oxford 2000

32. stuff.co.nz 10/01/13

33. stuff.co.nz 10/01/13
“Fiji's military dictatorship has slammed a draft
constitution drawn up with New Zealand aid as an
appeasement to racist divisions in the Pacific
nation.
But military strongman Voreqe Bainimarama, who
rules Fiji by decree, told the nation on Thursday
night there will be a new constitution – and
democracy restoring elections next year.
Bainimarama, who overthrew democracy in 2006,
commissioned Kenyan law professor Yash Ghai to
draft a new constitution, but after it was presented
last month, police seized copies of it and burnt
printer's proofs.“

34. Fiji Sun 15/01/13

35. Fiji Sun 15/01/13
“Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr yesterday said he
understood why the controversial Yash Ghai draft
constitution had to be modified.
In statements which boost the Bainimarama Government’s
efforts to bring true democracy for all Fijians… Mr Carr
told acknowledged that the Bainimarama Government is
working to move Fiji away from the politics of race. “They
want Fiji to move beyond the racial divisions that have
held the country back in the past and that is something we
would welcome. I think it is something the people of Fiji
would welcome.”
Commodore Bainimarama has stressed for Fiji to have true
democracy, creating a Fiji for all Fijians, it needs to move
from old ways and old politics.”

36. History of the 2006 military coup in Fiji in
2050?
Collecting evidence
 You would have your own opinions/memories of that
year;
 but far more evidence would still be needed to
construct a general history.
 Your sources: other books, newspapers, government
reports, statistics, etc
 Audio-visual sources: radio recordings,
documentaries, films, TV videos, photographs, etc…
 Oral history: testimony from eyewitnesses;
 Selecting from a mass of material is a problem.

37. History of the 2006 military coup in Fiji in
2050?
Searching for the “truth”:
 Can you trust political leaders’ accounts of their actions?
 Are newspaper reports full and accurate?
 Do people’s memories play them false?
 Have statistics been carefully selected to create a
particular impression?
 Sources of evidence have to be critically examined and
carefully interpreted.
 Will every historian interpret data in the same way?
 Evaluating sources of evidence is a problem.

38. History of the 2006 military coup in Fiji in
2050?
What about the gaps?
 Matters that are important may be missing for the
historian who wants to write a history that explains causes
and results and looks critically at what happened.
 The reasons that those involved offer may not seem
convincing.
 Data on sensitive matters may not be available.
 Filling in the ‘gaps’ is a problem.

39. History of the 2006 military coup in Fiji in
2050?
Selecting and arranging the data:
 With so many events to analyse and discuss, how would
you as a historian decide what to include, what to rate as
really important, what to treat briefly, what to leave out?
 Your research options would explain why one your final
work of history would differs from another historian;
 Every historian lives at a particular time and in a
particular place, from a specific cultural-political view.
 Would you expect that histories about the 2006 coup,
written by a Fijian, Indo-Fijian and a New Zealander to be
identical?
 Historians are individuals with their own personal beliefs.

40. “ However hard we struggle to avoid
the prejudices associated with colour,
creed, class or gender, we cannot
avoid looking at the past from a
particular point of view.”
Peter Burke, New Perspectives on
Historical Writing (1991, p. 6)