Primary v Secondary Sources

[truthergw]

Although many valid points have been made in this thread we are in danger of over complicating an essentially simple matter. A primary source is a record made by a witness. A secondary source is one which relies on those primary sources for data. It is not for us to decide which to regard as primary , it either is or is not. The author is either describing something at first hand or he is not. It is possible for a primary source to be in error. It is possible for a secondary source, through astute analysis, to demonstrate a new and important fact.

[PhilB]

A small addition. I believe a primary source is, by some definitions, one written close to the event in question. It would be interesting to ponder as to where the transformation from primary to secondary source comes among the multitude of WW1 reminiscences and memoirs. 1920?

[truthergw]

Is that close in space or close in time? Neither applies, I am afraid. If I describe my first day at school, it will be a primary source . It may be lies from start to finish, it may be criticised as having been written long after the event and for describing a school many miles away in another city but it will be a primary source. I will be describing an event which I witnessed. A book which uses it as a part of a collection of very bad writing will be a secondary source as far as what happened at my school, that day.

[PhilB]

According to some definitions you are correct, but I`ve seen others that include a time factor. That does seem reasonable. Old men`s tales do have to be taken with a pinch of salt.

[Rockdoc]

Time must come into it but is probably a movable feast. Memories of a thoroughly hectic few days written even a few days later may be inaccurate because of a combination of the delay in recording the events and the confusing nature of what is being recalled. Memories of quiet periods and singing songs in the local estaminet are likely to be much more accurate for a longer period of time. Nevertheless, corroboration of any fact is something to strive for, IMO.

For example, my father, who's 84, has always said that his Grandfather moved from Burslem to Langley Mill and walked from there over th fields to work at the Denby Pottery near Ripley. I can show, from birth and census records, that the family moved from Burslem to Ripley about 1890 and moved again to Langley Mill, where my Great-grandfather worked at Lovatt's Pottery, by 1891. As he died when Dad was about 10, the memories of their chats are coming from a long way back and the details have been muddled. Dad's recollections may be a primary source but they're not correct, however much he insists that's what he was told.

Keith.

[truthergw]

This is a continuation of the confusion I pointed out some posts back. Whether a source is primary or secondary has absolutely no relation to it's accuracy. There are no definitions of primary, secondary which refer to when the report was recorded. That would be a commentary on its reliability not whether it was primary or secondary. These definitions are very simple and straightforward. Either the author was a witness or he was not. Long and interesting debate can be had as to how trustworthy a report is but there is no room for confusion as to whether it is a primary source or not. Rockdoc is an engineer. If he records a series of measurements in the field, the lab or the workshop his notes are a primary source. If his boss collates a report based on these and similar sets of measurements by other engineers, that would be a secondary source. If I am investigating the phenomenon, I would be interested to read first the secondary report with its wide data base and possibly the individual reports, the primary sources, if I thought that the boss' interpretation was mistaken. In the same way, when, in 1930s, the Official Historians approached ex-officers for their recollections of events in the Great War, they were supplied with primary source material. When I refer to the OH, for the date of a man's death, I am consulting a secondary source.

[PhilB]

It all depends which definition you accept:-

http://www.knowledgecenter.unr.edu/instruc...lp/primary.html

What is a Primary Source?

A primary source is a document, speech, or other sort of evidence written, created or otherwise produced during the time under study.

[dycer]

Phil,

I feel I have to be careful here.

In relation to WW1 primary documents, are written Command Orders distributed, instructing particular Divisions,Brigades,etc their objectives and timings to achieve.

Beneath this are the primary documents,issued by the Artillery Support,giving fire instructions e.g target,time of when to increase/decrease range to support attackers.

Primary documents for attacking Battalions will comprise,timings of when to move off from current location,rest points,equipment to be loaded on vehicles,equipment to be carried and final destination point.For the attack itself Battalion Orders will specify objectives to be attained,equipment to be carried,and even itemize how thirst should be quenched e.g. Chewing Gum.

Secondary evidence will decree,whether all the planning was effective down to whether the chewing gum was useful.

My concern,we live in a 21st Big Brother Country,and it would appear the State,is monitoring our debates,as the Soviets monitored my radio traffic,many years ago,and which I was conscious of.

George

[Robert Dunlop]

Phil, the definition you referred to should not be interpreted as 'a primary source is written at the time', IMHO. You are at liberty to restrict a definition in that way, but further down the page there is a definition of secondary source that further refines (implicitly) the definition of a primary source:

Secondary sources provide interpretation and analysis of primary sources.

Secondary sources are one step removed from the original event or "horse's mouth."

If you extend the concept of 'time under study' to mean 'anything written by an observer with "an inside view of a particular event" [as per the second part of the defintion]', ie within the lifetime of any individual with an inside view, then the definition conforms.

Robert

[SiegeGunner]

Surely a primary source is a person (or persons), not a document. In the case of memoirs, for example, the writer is a primary source but may also describe events and experiences that he did not personally witness. Biographies of senior commanders written by their aides, would fall into the same category - partly personal experience, partly reference to records or the accounts of others. Someone giving an account of their reaction to contemporaneously reported events would be a primary source as to how the events were reported at the time and what impact the reports had.

[Anthony Gorst]

Lots of good points and some confusion here - part of the problem maybe that different disciplines/professions use 'primary' in different ways - as Phil asked for a historical definition and this is a historical (and historic) forum then can I suggest having a look at some of the myriad books on theories and methodologies of history - try John Tosh The pursuit of history, Arthur Marwick The New nature of History and Jeremy Black and Donald(?)Macraild (can't remember the title) for chapters on sources and methodologies. Oh and if you really want to tie yourself in knots over what is a primary source - try postmodernism and history: see keith Jenkins Rethinking History and for a counterblast to post modernism see Richard Evans In defence of History.

[PGL]

Surely a primary source is a person (or persons), not a document.

Not always. A photograph, or series of photographs, taken of an event as it happens is a primary source.

[dycer]

PGL,

But clearly "the Battle of the Somme" Film shown to Home audiences,in 1916 was received with rapture and pathos.

Does it stand up,after 90 plus years,as an accurate depiction of the truth?

George

[truthergw]

Surely a primary source is a person (or persons), not a document. In the case of memoirs, for example, the writer is a primary source but may also describe events and experiences that he did not personally witness. Biographies of senior commanders written by their aides, would fall into the same category - partly personal experience, partly reference to records or the accounts of others. Someone giving an account of their reaction to contemporaneously reported events would be a primary source as to how the events were reported at the time and what impact the reports had.

Siege Gunner has raised an important point. I have been lax in referring to sources. It is a shorthand manner of referring to a source of information. A witness of an event needs to report that event to be a source. His report is a primary source of knowledge, it is primary data. It is the nearest a non-witness can get to actually being there. Whether the report is verbal or written is legally different but as far as an investigator is concerned, they are the same thing. A report of an incident by one who witnessed it. A secondary source provides information which was obtained at second hand. It is derived from other sources of information. When we read a memoir, we need to differentiate between the writer's own experience and his account of others experiences. This is not normally a problem area in memoirs which were well written. Where we need to be vigilant is in the references which an author gives. Are these references from eye witnesses and participants or are they being quoted from another author. That is when we need to know what the status is of these sources of information to help us rank their probable usefulness.

[PGL]

PGL,

But clearly "the Battle of the Somme" Film shown to Home audiences,in 1916 was received with rapture and pathos.

Does it stand up,after 90 plus years,as an accurate depiction of the truth?

George

Good point. But also irrelevant.

Statements made by eye-witnesses can also be incorrect, irrelevant or just plain wrong. Bias can be introduced, wittingly or unwittingly and the same can be said of documentary images.

As for the film "The Battle of the Somme", parts of it do constitute a primary source - those "genuine" parts filmed during, and of, the battle. The re-enacted or "staged" parts are not primary sources but interpretations.

As Truthergw has consistently pointed out, and clarifies in his lastest post, a primary source is anything that witnesses an account first-hand. I would add that it does not need to be a person but can be a camera.

Accuracy or objectivity have nothing to do with whether a source is primary or not and vice versa. It would be a very general statement to say that accuracy increases with the number of sources and their origin but this is not always the case.

Again, as Truthergw points out, the source of information is important in indicating it's usefulness, particularly if used in supporting any conclusion drawn (reference in particular to "The Battle of the Somme" as a case in point).

[PhilB]

Accuracy or objectivity have nothing to do with whether a source is primary or not and vice versa. It would be a very general statement to say that accuracy increases with the number of sources and their origin but this is not always the case.

I`m not aware that there is a definitive definition (?) of Primary & Secondary in this context (Is there one?). However, the above comment by PGL indicates that the terms actually mean very little in practical terms. It would have been better to have called a source primary if it was virtually unimpeachable - a pre-battle plan for instance. All others are, in effect, secondary, particularly those written after the event with an axe (large or small) to grind - regimental histories, personal memoirs eg.

[bmac]

A primary source is a record made by a witness. A secondary source is one which relies on those primary sources for data.

As a succinct description of the differences I think Tom's above just about covers it. As it applies to the Great War, however, 'primary sources' present many problems. For example, is a War Diary a primary source? As they apply to actions in which officer casualties were heavy then it may be impossible to say as it is quite often impossible to determine the author of any account within the diary. They author may well be a new Adjutant drawn from amongst the 10% reserve whose account is drawn from recollections of survivors. Primary? Not really.

Apparently 'verbatim' accounts of battle by an individual soldier were often the results of interviews (with leading questions? Who knows?) by officers quite often not involved. Primary? Not really but how do you tell?

Written accounts of action were those of men traumatised and exhausted whose recollection were, perhaps, hazy or confused. For example, I have accounts of the death of a CO from the 46th Division from three or four eyewitnesses all of which are different in both the manner and means of death. Primary? Certainly, but accurate, that's another matter.

If one were to generate a text in which the contemporaneous notes/reports/etc. of an action were set together in a time frame one would soon see how different the reality was at the various levels and those not only caused by the delays in information reaching the various levels of command. On their way reports have been filtered, interpreted, amended which change the appearance of the progress of battle the further up the information reaches. These contemporaneous notes are all primary sources but often significantly at odds with one another.

Which is why, I suppose, that people are still analysing all types of sources from the Great War and still, nearly 100 years later, coming to a great variety of conclusions about events.

So treat all sources with caution however much they say what you want to hear

[PGL]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ May 5 2009, 09:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I`m not aware that there is a definitive definition (?) of Primary & Secondary in this context (Is there one?). However, the above comment by PGL indicates that the terms actually mean very little in practical terms. It would have been better to have called a source primary if it was virtually unimpeachable - a pre-battle plan for instance. All others are, in effect, secondary, particularly those written after the event with an axe (large or small) to grind - regimental histories, personal memoirs eg.

It certainly would have been better to define a primary source as "unimpeachable" but that is not the case. A primary source is (to all intents and purposes) an eye-witness account and does not have to be accurate in it's substance - it is a report from a certain point of view (albeit there and then, on the spot). Primary and accuracy are not the same thing (much like accuracy and precision not being the same thing).

A pre-battle plan might be considered as a primary source of the intended plan of attack. It might also, in that context, be considered an unimpeachable record of the intented attack. Was it followed though? Or were there last minute changes which were not recorded by going back and altering or anotating the original plan? In that instance, it is not a wholly accurate source for how the battle was actually carried out - it is an inaccurate protrayal of the actual event. That does not mean that it lacks substance and a good historian will highlight this by comparing and contrasting the sources describing the intention with the sources describing the actuality.

Statistics on casualties are another good case. They might be collected from casualty lists, rolls and medical reports days, weeks or even months later (years in some cases). Because the stats collect data from other sources, the stats themselves are secondary sources. But they can still be accurate - if collected and used properly. (Case in point - compare and contrast contemporary reports of aircraft losses during the "Battle of Britain" with modern, revised stats. The 1940 stats are inaccurate and for very good reason - propaganda purposes.)

I think that is the important point here. Sources, no matter what their origin, need to be handled with care.

[truthergw]

I promise, this is my last post here. We have slightly lost the point in our attempts to define the exact meanings of words. What is important is the use to which these words are put. Classifying our sources of information into primary or secondary is simply an aid to how they should be approached and understood. In a bibliography, a list of primary sources will imply that they are ' raw data' and have to be assimilated and collated. A list of secondary sources will already have undergone that process, the books will be easier to read but will carry the authors bias, whatever that is. That is the real difference as far as we readers are concerned.

[Pete1052]

Probably the ultimate primary source in the area of military history is The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies published by the U.S. Army Adjutant General's Department from 1880 to 1901. Consisting of more than 100 books of original wartime documents and correspondence, it makes the contemporary records of the Civil War much more accessible to the general public than their storage in government repositories and archives.

During World War II when the U.S. Army presented its plans for the preparation of its official history of the war to a group of distinguished historians, Douglas Southall Freeman, biographer of Lee and author of Lee's Lieutenants, strongly objected because he wanted the army to publish the original documents, even if the official history ran to hundreds of volumes. The army did not follow his advice, but as it turns out the U.S. Army history of WW II was extremely well done.

My only caveat about the OR, the short title used to refer to the series, is that its editors corrected the grammar, punctuation, and spelling of the original documents. Although educated men were probably much better writers in the 19th century than they are now, one could get an exaggerated idea of their overall literacy if one were to base one's judgement on the documents in the OR.

http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/moa/browse....raphs/waro.html

[PhilB]

I think we all understand what is currently meant by primary and secondary sources. Does anyone know how the distinction first arose, who coined the expressions and what the inventor meant to convey?

[Rockdoc]

For example, is a War Diary a primary source?

Interesting point. In general terms, I would say that a WD is a primary source but, as we've said before, not an automatically unimpeachable one. I tend to imagine an officer in a dug-out with the form on his knee scribbling away shortly after the event. One of the Diaries I'm working on was obviously dictated, perhaps to a batman who was a clerk in civvy street, but it was only an obvious, minor slip that alerted me to it. There had been a been a number of missions by British planes over the enemy's lines that had been engaged by enemy AA guns and the Diary is recording this. Most were BE2-series planes so there are references to the BE2C, BE2D and BE2E. One is subtly different but phoenetically identical: BE to E. Does that affect the the record? It's hard to tell but it makes me all the more glad that I'm working on all the A Section Diaries for Salonika so that I have cross-references to many events.

So treat all sources with caution however much they say what you want to hear

In the proverbial nut-shell!

Keith

[Len Trim]

Fascinating topic. As a history graduate and teacher can I just say that how you approach a source is just as important as the sources provenance. My 14/15 year old pupils are taught to use the following aide memoire; Who? What? Why? Where? When?

Self explanatory but if you address each of these questions ie. Who wrote/ created the source, what is it and why etc. you should be dealing with the source in at least a logical manner. Other people like to use; OPCR. Origin of source? Purpose of source? Content of Source? Recall ie how does it fit in with other facts I know? A hint to us never to use a source in isolation.

Len

[bootneck]

An interesting thread.

As an ‘amateur’ historian, three books that I have found useful over the years, for various reasons, have been Richard Marius, A Short Guide To Writing About History, 2nd ed. (New York, 1995), Arthur Marwick, The Nature Of History, 3rd ed. (London, 1989) and Michael A Williams, Researching Local History: The Human Journey (London, 1996). All of them discus both primary and secondary sources, their uses and the various pitfalls, etc and having provided a structure towards my various projects, how I approach them, research them and then present them.

One of my major areas of interest is into the Marines during the period 1740 to 1763 and has to be carried out using primary sources as it is an subject that has been little studied and in the main glossed over. In my opinion as my research continues, what secondary sources there are for this period, particularly the various Corps histories, are flawed, and at best only provide a framework for further research.

To my mind, it is whether the source material used, whether it is of a primary or secondary nature, has been evaluated and understood correctly, that is of more importance. But, I like many others would be extremely disappointed if a new 'groundbreaking' or 'revisonist' study of a particular subject turned out to be just a tired rehash of the usual secondary sources than an original piece of research.

regards

Bootneck

[PGL]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ May 6 2009, 11:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think we all understand what is currently meant by primary and secondary sources. Does anyone know how the distinction first arose, who coined the expressions and what the inventor meant to convey?

I don't know if the terms were actually "invented" by a single person but it would seem likely that the strict meaning evolved over a (small?) period of time.

I know that when I was consulting sources for a thesis on spectral perception that the terms 'primary' and 'secondary' sources were in use in scientific works as far back as the 1880's. Interestingly, I was looking at previous research carried out in Germany and France and the translations for both languages included the 'primary source' and 'secondary source' terms. So it seemed that it was a standard term with an agreed international meaning by that time.

From the scientific point of view, I think the terms may have evolved simply to distinguish work carried out by an author himself as opposed to original work re-interpreted by someone else.