How to read like an historian

How to read like an historian
by Robinson M. Yost

Historians traditionally divide the evidence they use into two categories: primary & secondary.  Usually coming from the time being examined, PRIMARY sources are written by people who experienced or took part in the events described.  For example, a letter written by a soldier who fought in the Battle of the Bulge in WWII or a monk’s chronicle describing a Viking raid in medieval England would be considered primary sources.  In contrast, SECONDARY sources are written by those who did not directly experience the events or who examine them from a later period.  For instance, an historian’s analysis of the origins of the First World War or an article describing Abraham Lincoln’s attitudes toward slavery would be secondary sources. 

Of course, the distinction between primary and secondary sources is not always clear-cut or simple.  Is an account written by someone who watched the Apollo 11 lunar landing of July 1969 on TV a primary or secondary source?  It depends on how the source is used and what sorts of questions are being asked.  Our eyewitness account of Neil Armstrong setting foot on the moon is secondary if we want to know about the experiences of the astronauts.  But it is a primary source if we are investigating how Americans experienced Apollo 11 on television in the late 1960s.  To further complicate matters, an account written later by Buzz Aldrin could be a primary source if he’s writing about his experiences on the Apollo 11 mission.  However, if he is writing more generally about the history of the U. S. space program, it is a secondary source too.    

It should be mentioned that history textbooks are usually neither primary nor secondary sources.  They are TERTIARY or third-hand accounts based on the conclusions drawn largely from what other historians have written.  In any case, to truly understand history, students must examine many different types of sources. Historical understanding cannot come from just reading primary sources or examining a textbook.  Primary sources are not all equally reliable or useful.  They do not “speak for themselves”.  There is no such thing as having “just the facts” or “all the facts”.  Consider the following comments:

A collection of historical documents and artifacts provides a vital supplement to the textbook, but it also has problems.  First, the sources, mostly not intended for us to read and study, exist for the reasons that prompted some people to create them and others to preserve them.  These reasons may include a measure of lies, self-deception, or ignorance about what was really happening and being recorded.  So we must ask the following questions about any document or object—a treaty, contract, painting, photograph, poem, newspaper article, or sculpture: Why does it exist?  What specific purpose did it serve when it was done?  Who is its author?  What motives prompted the creator to produce this material in this form?

The second major problem is that we, the editors of this collection, have selected, from millions of possible choices, these particular documents and objects, and not others.  Even in this process, because of the limitations of space and our own personal experiences, we present a necessarily partial and highly selective view of Western civilization (also because of space limitations, it has been necessary to delete portions from some of the longer sections) . . .

Because historical evidence is complex and ambiguous, there are many things to keep in mind when reading primary sources.  Most sources were not written in English, they have undergone translation.  For example, the Old Testament of Christianity was written in ancient Hebrew— a very different language from modern English.  There is no such thing as an “exact translation” because different languages reflect the culture and times of the people using them.  Someone who says “I don’t interpret the Bible, I just let it speak for itself” does not show an understanding of these inevitable problems.  Another associated problem is that even the same language changes with time and place—the Elizabethan English of William Shakespeare’s England is obviously quite different from modern American English. 

In addition to considering the problems of translation and changing language, historians cannot take their sources at face value.  Because sources are created by human beings, they are by their very nature imperfect and incomplete.  There is no such thing as perfect or complete testimony.  Therefore,

[this] evidence, like any other, must be examined for flaws, contradictions, lies, and what it tells us that the writer did not necessarily intend to reveal.  Like a patient detective, we must question our witnesses with a full awareness of their limited and often-biased perception, piecing together our knowledge of their history with the aid of multiple testimonies and a broad context.  Consider the document, whatever it is, as testimony and a piece of a bigger puzzle, many of the remaining pieces of which are missing or broken.

Critically examining primary sources is absolutely essential for understanding what historians do.  Furthermore, these skills can be transferred beyond the classroom to evaluating any information one comes across on TV, newspapers, radio, or online.

1. Give examples of a specific primary and secondary source for a particular historical event.  Explain the main differences between the two sources.
2. Give a specific example of a source that could be considered both primary & secondary.  Explain.
3. Why can’t sources (either primary or secondary) be read in a straightforward literal way?  Explain and give examples.