| People study history in an attempt to better understand what
really happened in the past. This study involves the use of
written records that were created at a previous time and contain
information that pertains to the topic being studied. A problem
exists, however, because it is common for historical sources to
disagree or conflict about the details of events. This conflict
occurs because the historical records which are available do not
give the complete story. For example, in writing diaries and
letters, people may have made statements which may have been
clear to them but are not clear to us. We read their statements
and misunderstand what they were saying. Thus, our perspective
of their history becomes distorted.
The accuracy of our historical perspective depends upon two
things, the accuracy of the information in the records which are
available to us, and our ability to correctly understand the
records from the viewpoint of the persons who recorded the
information. Thus, as we study history, we need to continually
ask ourselves if the records we are reading have accurate
information and if we understand that information within the
context of the events being described.
In order to do this, we need to do two things:
1. Understand the strengths and limitations of the historical
records.
2. Understand the "whole picture" rather than the limited
picture presented by individual records.
|
| In order to understand the strengths and limitations of the
historical records we are reading, we need to understand (a)
whether the information is accurate, and (b) whether the
information is reliable. As an aid to helping us gain this
understanding, historians and other people such as genealogists
characterize records into two types, Primary and Secondary.
Primary Historical Records
--------------------------
Primary records are of most value, because they contain
information that is the most likely to be accurate. Primary
records have the following characteristics, and both features
*must* be present.
o Written by an observer of the event.
o Written either during the event or shortly afterwards such
that the information recorded has a reasonably high
likelihood to be accurate.
An entry in a diary made by a person who attended a meeting would
be a primary record, for example, *if* the entry was made on the
day of the meeting or shortly afterwards.
Secondary Historical Records
----------------------------
Secondary records have less value than primary records because
they contain information that has a higher chance of being
inaccurate. Secondary records have at least one but not
necessarily both of the following characteristics.
o Written by persons who did not observe the event, even if
they were written on the day of the event or shortly
afterwards.
o Written by persons who observed the event, but a lengthy time
lapse occurred before the records were made.
Obviously, a record can not be both primary and secondary. If a
record does not fulfill both characteristics required for
primary, it automatically is a secondary record.
Primary Records versus Secondary Records
----------------------------------------
Primary records have a higher likelihood of being accurate,
because they were made by people who participated in some way in
the event and who recorded their observations and feelings while
the event was still fresh in their minds. We need to keep in
mind, however, that not all participants had the same degree of
involvement, and the observations of various participants will
vary.
Not all primary records have the same value. For example, an
observation of a mob-lynching made by a small boy would probably
be of less value than an observation made by an adult. Another
factor that must be considered is the viewpoint or bias of the
persons making the record. A third factor is the ability of the
person to accurately preserve the information.
Secondary records have a lower probability of being accurate.
This is because they were either made by persons who did not have
direct involvement in the event and thus had to get their
information from others, or by persons who were involved but
recorded their information at a much later time, thus allowing
for the information to become distorted through memory lapses.
Secondary records do not all have the same value, and the
differences between them are usually much greater than the
differences between primary records. For example, if one
secondary record was written by a spouse of a participant of an
event while another record was written by a person who read of
the event from a newspaper, we would probably consider the first
record as having more value. This is because we would likely
assume that the spouse got the information directly from the
participant. The second record came a newspaper reporter who got
his information from unknown (to us) sources.
|
| Original Records versus Commentaries
------------------------------------
So far in this discussion, we have been discussing "historical
records" from the perspective of "original" records such as
diaries, town records, etc. Another type of historical record is
a commentary, biography, etc. which is written at a later date
to discuss the events. These explanatory records can also be
classed as primary or secondary. Thus, the remainder of this
discussion will talk about "records" with the intent that that
term apply to both original records and explanatory records.
Understanding the Bias of the Records
-------------------------------------
Not all historical records present information in a fair,
unbiased way, because the author may have been biased in
recording the information. For example, two records might
describe a mob-lynching, one made by a member of the mob and one
by the spouse of the person who was lynched. We would expect
that the two records would give very different viewpoints of the
event, even though both records might be primary records.
It is important, therefore, that as we study historical
documents, we attempt to understand who the authors were and why
they recorded the information.
Understanding the Whole Picture
-------------------------------
Individual records were kept to present or preserve certain
information from a particular viewpoint. If one's research is
limited to a subset of the available records, it is likely that
that person will obtain a distorted understanding of what really
happened. It is necessary and very important that one use all
available sources in his or her studies. In so doing, he or she
can piece together a more complete picture of what really
happened and why it happened.
In studying and comparing the sources, the person will encounter
differences. This is natural in historical research. The key
question is whether such differences have significance in the use
and interpretation of the data. Hopefully, the study will allow
him or her to see patterns in the information and determine which
differences are important and which are not.
|