Primary and Secondary Sources of History

What is History? Why do we study past events? Who is recording the details of the past events and how authentic and unbiased are those narratives?

There are so many doubts in the minds of students that need to be pacified to make History interesting and relevant for them. History is a connection between past and present and prepares us for our future learning. We do study the past to rectify previous human errors and to proceed flawlessly. Contemporary writers through their writings prepare the historical records of what is happening in their time where they are the evidence or eyewitness to any event.

There are written narratives and archeological sources as well to construct the history of any place, person, or event. The most important thing is that whatever is written should be unbiased and should not be influenced or colored by any bias. Only then it can be trusted as genuine. 

Primary sources are the written narratives or architectural monuments or artifacts, letters, diaries, and newspapers of the period. For example, the autobiography of Mahatma Gandhi will be the Primary source of History but the biography of Gandhiji written by anyone else knowing him well, will not be the primary source.

When we construct History using the material of Primary sources and try to use other sources to cross-check the facts and then rewrite critically it becomes a Secondary source of History. If I try to get all the information about Gandhiji and his mass movements and try to find out all the descriptive narratives of that time and then paraphrase them to weave History, it will become the secondary source of History for the audience.

Researchers need to check both Primary and Secondary sources to understand the correct picture of that period. Objectivity is the chief concern of History writing. 

Hope this short illustration will guide you to understand the difference between the Primary and Secondary Sources.

Best wishes 

Picture from