Primary v Secondary Sources

[PGL]

An eyewitness account, recorded by the eyewitness is a primary source. No ifs, no buts. You may not trust it but that does not alter the fact.

Hear, hear.

It would be doing history no service if terms like 'primary source' were constantly re-invented by every author/reader. The definition is clear and can not and should not be altered.

[Pete1052]

I agree with Tom Rutherford's definitions and many reiterations of what constitute primary and secondary sources. Several days ago when I said that doubts have been raised about the accuracy of some primary sources, particularly those written years after the fact, I was not trying to suggest that those reservations about their veracity make those sources any less primary than they already were.

To go back to Phil B's original question, in my opinion the better histories make a greater use of primary sources than the lesser ones, mainly because secondary sources are at least one time removed from the original evidence. About 30 years ago I read a discussion that compared and contrasted British and American styles of scholarly historical writing. Its main thesis was that British scholars are more prone to emphasizing their interpretations of the evidence, whereas American scholarship is more wedded to documenting everything with footnotes or endnotes. The point being made was that American empiricism, which was probably imported from Germany in the 19th century, sometimes turns into a rote exercise of documenting the obvious and well-known when the practice is taken to extremes.

[PhilB]

If a historian refers to 2 or 3 different primary sources and then arrives at a conclusion different to any of them, does that then constitute a new primary source?

[Pete1052]

No, emphatically not.

[geraint]

Having re-read my last post; I ommitted the word 'worthwhile' before 'primary evidence'. No change in the definition of 'primary' and 'secondary' - it's a question about the values attached to both.The fact that 'he was there' doesn't make that primary evidence of better value.

[Pete1052]

Yale University defines primary sources as follows:

Primary sources provide first-hand testimony or direct evidence concerning a topic under investigation. They are created by witnesses or recorders who experienced the events or conditions being documented. Often these sources are created at the time when the events or conditions are occurring, but primary sources can also include autobiographies, memoirs, and oral histories recorded later. Primary sources are characterized by their content, regardless of whether they are available in original format, in microfilm/microfiche, in digital format, or in published format.

The subject is further discussed in the Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct of the American Historical Association:

We honor the historical record, but understand that its interpretation constantly evolves as historians analyze primary documents in light of the ever-expanding body of secondary literature that places those documents in a larger context. By "documents," historians typically mean all forms of evidence--not just written texts, but artifacts, images, statistics, oral recollections, the built and natural environment, and many other things--that have survived as records of former times. By "secondary literature," we typically mean all subsequent interpretations of those former times based on the evidence contained in primary documents. This distinction between primary and secondary sources is among the most fundamental that historians make. Drawing the boundary between them is a good deal more complicated than it might seem, since determining whether a document is primary or secondary largely depends on the questions one asks of it. At the most basic level, though, the professional practice of history means respecting the integrity of primary and secondary sources while subjecting them to critical scrutiny and contributing in a fair-minded way to ongoing scholarly and public debates over what those sources tell us about the past.

[PhilB]

That sounds fair. It`s slightly unfortunate that the adjective "primary" has undertones of being reliable and true which "secondary" doesn`t. It`s odd that two men could write completely conflicting descriptions of an event they witnessed. So conflicting that one must be untrue and yet both merit the "primary" tag.

[John Gilinsky]

Interpertations that are very well written but FALSE compared to factually correct but practically in some cases ILLITERATE or INDECIPHERABLE handwriting for example: whose records or documents do historians working in the publish or perish world of commercial contract publishing and academic publishing do current writers prefer? Thus the semantics behind primary and secondary which owe their origins to history writers trying to disentangle themselves from contemporary biases (eg. Renaissance slavish copying of what they thought were Greco-Romanic examples of archictecture and of course historical writing as well).

The same applies to the war. If a well received, well published established academic says it is so it must be so right? Interesting to note the history of the history of the war and how shifting interpertations are influenced by anything BUT sources of ANY KIND!

John

[John Gilinsky]

Look at say the past 5 years of writings on major engagements or battles on the Western Front: How many sources have the authors consulted? A battle that could easily direclty impact on tens of thousands direct participatation yet the modern author consults perhaps 10 to 30 published memoirs if that and frequently relies (in some cases critically exclusively) on official records such as war diaries etc....

John

[PGL]

A battle that could easily direclty impact on tens of thousands direct participatation yet the modern author consults perhaps 10 to 30 published memoirs if that and frequently relies (in some cases critically exclusively) on official records such as war diaries etc....

John

A good point John which I largely agree with. However, what about incidents where there were very few eye-witnesses? Or very few published accounts? I don't think (and I don't believe you're saying) that just because an incident has few published accounts that a modern author cannot comment on it.

Lack of sources might leave the interpretation and conclusion open to question but as long as all the sources - or lack of them as the case may be - are cited, the author must surely have attempted to do the best s/he can?

[John Gilinsky]

I am just trying to point out that broad sweeping modern interpertations over especially "significant", critical or controversial events (and their previous records of same) based on the skimpiest of evidence is an all too common and also somewhat understandable occurence. There are relatively speaking very few memoirs for the war (think thousands in total with millions and millions of participants). The sheer preponderance of writing a history of the history of the history of the war becomes the ultimate product reality.

John

[MLW]

This is a fantastic and interesting discussion. Thank you very much.

Here is a document that may interest some of you - Evaluating Historical Materials, from the US Army Combat Studies Institute. What makes it unique is that it is written by military historians for military historians.

http://downloads.sturmpanzer.net/MLW/Evalu...l_Materials.pdf

Cheers, Marc

[PGL]

The sheer preponderance of writing a history of the history of the history of the war becomes the ultimate product reality.

John

Nicely put.

Of late, I'm actually becoming more and more intrigued by the "mythology" of the war and the way things are invented - stories which have absolutely no basis whatsoever. I can understand an author using evidence to fit his theory (the object might be financial ie selling books) but why does Joe Public feel the need to create myths?

Here's a possible example of the elegance of the Orwellian principle of "doublethink". A myth created by a member of the public is a secondary source - the person involved was not there and did not actually witness the event (so he can't be a primary source for that) and it's all an invention anyway. Such a story is of no value in an historical account of the war. But in a discussion of the mythology of the war, the person who was told the myth becomes a primary source - they were there when the myth was told. Of course that has no bearing on the myth's historical validity, rather it's proof only that it exists and that the person involved heard it.

So the primary source saying the myth exists is actually a secondary source for the details of the myth itself. He is wholly accurate as a primary source that says the myth exists and he was told it. Yet, at exactly the same time, he is also a secondary source for the details of the myth itself which are wholly inaccurate.

So the truth is based on a falsehood (the myth) and a falsehood contains the truth (that myths exist).

Maybe reading "1984" wasn't such a good idea after all ...

[John Gilinsky]

Marc: Thanks for the US recent article on evaluating historical sources. Intriguingly the author focuses on the personal nature as contributing to the validity of sources used (read primary). That an author personally experienced what they directly write about is of significant importance to the author of this article.

John

[peterhogg]

Marc, a very clear-headed and helpful article. Thanks for that.

I may have misunderstood one post above and if so apologize in advance but I don't read the article as putting a premium on the fact that an author may have personally experienced the events of which he writes. It is one of the indicators of the worth of a writer and his/her work but no less important than expertise, depth of knowledge, and the ability to marshal facts and data in support of his or her thesis. A strength in one area may make up for a deficit in another. I would cite the works of Beevor's books on Stalingrad and Berlin as examples of scrupulous research and sourcing combined with a command of his subject matter not borne of personal experience in those conflicts.

Sadly, as observed above, there is no shortage of sloppy, lazy writers out there, nor is there any shortage of authors fueled by a particular agenda, who are not about to let historical facts, contrary sources and evidence get in the way of a good story all tarted up as the "truth". Those sorts of books are not always easy to spot. In more cases than I want to remember or admit I've laid down the plastic for some expensive tome only to discover it's defects: on a couple of cases, such disregard for compelling sources, primary or secondary inconsistent with its thesis, that they bordered on contempt for anything approaching historical accuracy.

Agree with PGL. A good example of what PGL describes is that old chestnut about the general driven along the menin road or some road and breaking down in tears at discovering the horror of the conditions, while his driver remarks something to the effect that it gets worse further on. (That was a very quick summary) utter hogwash but cited as a true story in many works. As PGL observes, a rumour or a canard, by virtue of repetition in one book after another somehow becomes fact because no one bothers to follow up the original source of the story.

Have really enjoyed this thread and loved reading your thoughtful views. Think I've said all i could on the subject now!

cheers,

peter

[Mark Hone]

A latecomer to this discusion but, as a teacher of History, a subject I deal with a lot of the time. An interesting example from Military History which I use with GCSE students is to compare the eyewitness accounts of British survivors of the infamous Wormhout Massacre of May 1940, given to the Judge Advocate General's Office at the end of the war and recorded in Leslie Aitken's book 'Massacre on the Road to Dunkirk'. I also show the boys the BBC recreation of the massacre in the TV series 'Dunkirk', which is largely based on the recollections of another survivor, Alf Tombs. The accounts (sworn legal statements) differ profoundly in the sequence of events and also the fates of named individuals, such as the British officer who was present. All of this of course shows the difficulties of using eyewitness evidence to build up anything more than a very rough approximation of what happened in a particular incident.

It should be noted that there has recently been considerable academic discussion about the validity of the work of S.L.A Marshall, the American doyen of 'after-action' interviewing.

[Pete1052]

The doubts about the techniques of S.L.A. Marshall began to surface about 20 years ago, particularly regarding his "ratio of fire" theory that only 25 percent of U.S. infantrymen fired their weapons in combat during World War II. A discussion of the issue can be found here. Marshall also embellished his military service record during the Great War. In 1981 a battalion commander of mine said Marshall's access to the high and mighty during his trips to Vietnam made him something of a military politician. However, his practice of evaluating small-unit actions by interviewing as many infantrymen as possible soon after the engagements has not been called into question.

[PGL]

Pete, you're not talking (even obliquely) about David Hackworth by any chance?

I read his book, "About Face" and found it a fascinating read. Interestingly though, he never seems to discuss how, where or when he undertook Paratroop training which I though was a major ommission for someone who describes himself as an "Airborne stud". His treatment of the Captain "drop your bombs on my position" Carpenter incident I also found to be a bit 'unworthy' (but let's not go off-topic).

[Pete1052]

No, David Hackworth was another of the Vietnam generation who had his reservations about Marshall. He met him in Vietnam and considered Marshall to be something of a journalistic opportunist.

[MartH]

This is a most interesting thread.

I concur that eyewitness accounts written shortly after the event are primary evidence, but is there are period of time between the activity and when they are written that renders them no longer primary?

I recall once being on a Flanders Tour in the 90's and one of our tour party had been a FAA pilot in the Korean War flying Fireflys, he had disagreed with a recent published history of the events written by someone who had used the official squadron diary as part of the part of the research material. It was not as he remembered it, and he challenged the author, it turned out that the said official squadron diary had been written up by the same Firefly pilot which he did not remember, and his version of event 40 plus years apart had "changed". He used this as an example to illustrate about having several collaborative accounts.

Congnetive science reckon the brain only absorbs 15 percent of what we see, and we observe what fits/what we are trained to see. I did a fascinating course the year before last on this, where we had to watch a film of people bouncing balls, and count the number of times. Now during the film something else happens, but you miss it because you are concentrating on the b**** balls, autistic people see it, but not you and I. When the course was shown to Australian University professors, they ran the tape nearly all day, because they where so shocked, even when you know what will happen, and are counting the balls you have to really concentrate to observe correctly. Since then I have downgraded my belief that single eye witness reports get a true and complete picture, and worry about scientific research using only humans to observe the results.

[PGL]

Again, no, there is no period of time which can pass which renders an eye-witness account invalid as a primary source. If the person describing the event was there, then s/he is a primary source full stop.

Time will of course impact on the accuracy of the account. But accuracy has nothing to do with whether a source is primary or not.

I think there is a difference between what constitues a "primary source" and "primary evidence" and this is proving confusing. The word "source" merely details the origin of an account and has nothing to do with it's verasity. The word "evidence" does, however, imply some basis of truth or at least some measure of "fact-finding". These are two distinct and seperate qualities.

It may be useful to comment on the time frame between the account being given and the event itself but that does not, of itself, discredit the account. Neither does it validate it.

For that reason, IMO, it's always important to use as many sources as possible (as John Gilinsky rightly points out above).

[Mark Hone]

A fascinating British counterpart to Marshall was Lionel Wigram whose amazing story is told in the volume of Sir Denis Forman's autobiography 'To Reason Why'. This includes an astonishing example of 'shooting the messenger' by Field Marshal Montgomery whereby he apparently sacks Wigram for including a subtitle in a report which reads 'Panic and Hysteria'.

[John Gilinsky]

Re the previous statements about veracity, validity of sources focussing on primary sources: I am not going to do a CSI here! Seriously though military writers or documents written by those who participated in the events are not prima facie evidence. They are A source, admittedly a valuable source of course. The point is that such officials deliberately leave out significant information due to the very fact that they participated in the event(s) and that their own human reactions and responses will naturally distort what they choose to consciously communicate. Do such writers (overwhelmingly officers) include their eyewitness accounts of "atrocities", cowardice in the face of the enemy, or grossly illegal acts usually? For the good of the battalion, the regiment, the unit, the army, the nation, etc....is the environment in which they live, work and sometimes suffer great pain and die. Yes there are lesons learned in combat websites, professional officer courses on combat effectiveness, etc....but in reality including oddly modern technology (eg. email and discussion groups!) the same basic human psychological mechanisms are with us: self-preservation, don't let your own immediate peer group down by destructive criticism, don't jeorpardize your future career advancement by critically examining others behaviours especially your superiors, focus on other more pressing matters like staying alive and achieving your unit's objective(s), don't shame or embarras your colleagues and think of their families back home, etc..... In short there are always factors which fundamentally impinge on a RAND type immediate post-action/conflict analysis by the participants.

John

Toronto

[MartH]

Again, no, there is no period of time which can pass which renders an eye-witness account invalid as a primary source. If the person describing the event was there, then s/he is a primary source full stop.

Thankyou for your reply but if you search out there on the net there are quite a few establishments which are like the following example that are used by professional bodies:

Primary Sources

Definition:

Primary sources are original materials. They are from the time period involved and have not been filtered through interpretation or evaluation. Primary sources are original materials on which other research is based. They are usually the first formal appearance of results in physical, print or electronic format. They present original thinking, report a discovery, or share new information.

From Just one link.

This and others that I've read are giving advise to students who are judged/graded on writing reports state that it has to be from the time period involved and not filtered.

[PGL]

Thankyou for your reply but if you search out there on the net there are quite a few establishments which are like the following example that are used by professional bodies:

An eye-witness account given forty years after an event is still an account of the time the event happened despite being forty years 'late'. The fact that the original material was stored in human memory instead of some other form does not dismiss it as a primary source. It may well impact on it's accuracy however as the storage medium may have 'degraded' over time but that can be said of paper as well. In your second quote, note the use of the word "usually" - not exclusively - the first formal appearance in physical, print or electronic format.

It should be clear (or be made clear) which parts of an anecdote are pure and simple recall and which are interpreted recall.

The definition of the term "primary source" is still fixed. I fail to see why the term needs to be re-defined.

Again, it is not whether a conclusion is based on primary sources or secondary sources. It is the quality of those sources that matters and that is altogether much harder to define.