Types of Sources
What types of sources provide the ‘truest’ view of the past? Sources in all there forms are essential for building up a view of the past. ... There are several different types of sources available to historians. Firstly there are written sources which can be divided into primary and secondary. Secondly there are oral sources; and thirdly there is the use of objects and images. ... Written sources have to be treated with care when used as historical evidence, taking into particular consideration the bias’ that may be involved. It needs to be pointed out that many sources have survived purely by accident, they are often destroyed by fire and flood and often destroyed wilfully or merely neglected. ... This illustrates how our perception of a source can change and how sources can be carefully shaped by editing to fit a certain ideology. ... Traditional written sources have be divided into ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’. Primary sources are the original documents, the direct evidence from the era being studied, while secondary sources are created by historians and others often commenting on these primary sources. ... The nature of sources is complicated, they often shift there status from primary to secondary. For example a project on the development of the historical profession would use writings about the past, conventionally designated secondary sources as primary sources . This illustrates how it is not possible to make a rigid distinction between between primary and secondary sources. Often with primary sources, the content of the document can be of relatively little importance. ... This extends where possible to studying a source in its original language, there is “no substitute for reading sources in their original language” There is a stigma that surrounds primary and secondary sources. Primary sources are considered better as they lie closer to the past, they provide a better view of the past; secondary sources in this respect are considered weaker. At a simple descriptive level primary sources are better than secondary; a first hand description of a medieval castle is going to be more reliable than a second hand one . ... They will shape the evidence so it best serves their purposes, “Being very close to something can also mean that you see it less clearly” Secondary sources although written in hinds sight are not totally objective.