Sources as evidence: fact, fiction or opinion; primary or secondary

Sources are the raw material of history - they are what history is made of. As historians we have to do some detective work to help us in our investigations, looking at sources is a major part of that detective work. By looking at objects from the past we can discover more about what was happening then. Sources can be books, toys, photographs, newspapers, sound and TV recordings, art work, diaries, government documents etc. Anything can be a source as long as it gives us some information.

There are two types of sources that a historian can use to help them find out more about the past.

Primary Sources

A primary source is one that is created at the time of the event in which the historian is interested. Here are some primary sources a historian would use to investigate the colonisation of Australia. Refer Image1

Secondary Sources

A secondary source is one that is created after the time the historian is studying. A history book from 2006 written about the colonisation of Australia is a secondary source. It may have used primary sources as a basis for what is written in it, but as it was written in 2006, over 200 years after the arrival of the first fleet in 1788, it is a secondary source.

A secondary source can be made up of lots of other sources, some that are written down like books or diaries, and others that are not written, like photos and drawings. If you use primary sources like photographs, letters and diaries to write down your family history, then you will have created a secondary source. Refer Image2

If someone lives through a period of history, but only records their memories of it years later, their account (a memoir) is not a secondary source. Because they lived through that particular time or event, their account of it is a primary source.

A primary source is not necessarily better than a secondary source just because it is from the time you are studying. A primary source may have been created by someone who was lying, or who made a mistake. You are less likely to come across these types of problems with a secondary source.

Archaeological sources

An archaeological source is any physical object that can tell an archaeologist about life in the past. The majority of archaeological sources are artefacts or organic materials. Artefacts are primary sources - they come from the time period being studied. Artefacts are man-made and can include items from stone tools to modern steam engines and early computers. Organic material is anything that has not been made by man. This can include human, animal or plant remains.

Stratigraphy is the study of strata, levels of human activity in an archaeological site. The basic principle of strata is that items located at a lower level are older than items located in a higher level. Often, the date of one object in a particular level can be used to date all the objects in that layer. Stratigraphy allows archaeologists to establish a rough chronology of the human settlement at a site.

Fact, fiction or opinion

Sources are great clues to the past as they give us lots of information, but we have to be careful when we use them. It can be tricky because we have to be sure what a source is based on. Is it?

Fact - What really happened in an event or a period of history
Fiction - An untrue account of what happened in an event or a period of history
Opinion - Someone's personal viewpoint on an event or a period of history

People from the past have left lots of stories behind them. Some of them are about great battles or heroes who did amazing things. By using primary sources historians can decide whether these stories that have come down from the past are fact or fiction. Sometimes the stories are myths or legends - they may have some basis in fact but they are hugely exaggerated or made up.

Here are two accounts of the city of Troy - one is based on the poetry of an ancient Greek called Homer, the other is based on archaeological evidence. Which do you think is fact and which is fiction?

Story 1

Troy was attacked by the Greeks, who wanted to punish the Trojans for kidnapping their king's wife, Helen. After ten years of war the Greeks were finally able to defeat the Trojans when they tricked them by building a huge wooden horse and hiding soldiers inside it. When the Greeks pretended to sail away the Trojans brought the horse into their city. That night the hidden soldiers crept out and opened the gates for the other Greeks to come in. They burnt the city to the ground and left.

Story 2

The remains of nine cities have been found on the supposed site of the ancient city of Troy. Archaeologists believe that the cities on that site were destroyed by earthquakes and other disasters. Historians and archaeologists believe that the seventh of the nine cities was the one referred to in Greek and Roman legends. They have found pottery, jewellery and other items from that time in their excavations of the site. Archaeologists believe that city was destroyed by fire some time before 1200 BC. They believe pirates were responsible.

Although the first account is more colourful and interesting, it is not factual. It is based on Greek and Roman legends and has no historical evidence to back it up. The second, factual account of the city of Troy is based on archaeology. Historians can use the artefacts (items from the past) dug up there to see if there is any truth in the legend.

Historians trying to prove the existence of Troy can compare a number of sources to make sure that they have enough evidence. Using the primary source evidence that is available from the archaeological digs at Troy, it is possible to say that the city existed and that it was burnt down. When the different sources agree it is called supporting evidence, when they do not agree it is called contradictory evidence. Both accounts do say that the city of Troy was burnt to the ground, but there is more historical evidence that pirates looting the city did the damage, not a lot of very annoyed Greeks hiding inside a wooden horse.

The most important thing to remember when investigating an event or a period of history is to never rely on just one source. It is only one side of the story and it may not be the most accurate one. It is also important to try to get a good mix of primary and secondary sources so that you will have lots of different types of information to draw upon.