Reading primary sources: An

introduction for students

BY KATHRYN WALBERT

Primary sources are sources that were created during the historical period that you are
studying. Just about anything that existed or was created during that time period can count
as a primary source a speech, census records, a newspaper, a letter, a diary entry, a song,
a painting, a photograph, a film, an article of clothing, a building, a landscape, etc. Primary
sources are documents, objects, and other sources that provide us with a first-hand account
of what life was like in the past.
Determining what is a primary source and what isnt can get tricky what do you do,
for example, with a recent recording of your aunt talking about her experiences during the
Civil Rights Movement? It wasnt created at the time, but its still a first-hand account.
Eyewitness accounts like oral history interviews and memoirs or autobiographies, even
those recorded recently, are considered primary sources because the memories that
eyewitnesses reveal in those sources were created in that historical time period, even if
those memories were not talked about or formally recorded until much later.
It can get even trickier. The movie Gone With The Wind is not a primary source about
the Civil War and Reconstruction, even though it is a movie about that time period. It
wasnt created during that time period and it is purely a work of fiction and therefore it
cant provide us with any credible information about that era. It could, however, be used as
a primary source for the Great Depression since the movie and the book on which it was
based were both produced during that period. A fictional film produced in 1930s can tell us
nothing credible about the 1860s, but it could certainly tell us a lot about what people were
interested in during the 1930s their fantasy world, their dreams, their view of history,
and their tastes in film. If you were writing a paper about American culture in the
Depression, this would be an excellent primary source, but for a paper about slavery, it
would be horrible!

Copyright 2004 Kathryn Walbert. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoncommercialShare Alike 2.5 License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/. The
original web-based version, with enhanced functionality and related resources, can be found at http://learnnc.org/
lp/pages/745.

Why bother reading primary sources anyway?

Because they are first-hand accounts of life in the past, created during the time period that
you are interested in, primary sources provide you with windows into the past a chance
to catch a glimpse at the world youre trying to understand through the words, pictures,
artwork, and objects of the people who lived in it. This window is especially important for
historians because, unlike other scholars who study people and societies such as
psychologists, sociologists, or anthropologists, historians cant use direct observation and
experimentation to prove their arguments at least not until the time machine is
invented! Instead, historians must rely on the records left behind by the people were trying
to understand.
Of course you could learn about the past by reading your textbook or the conclusions
of other historians and reading those secondary sources can be important, but reading
secondary texts is no substitute for immersing yourself in the first-hand accounts of
primary sources. When you read a secondary source, you are essentially taking someone
elses word for what happened and trusting them to approach the subject objectively,
interpret the evidence thoughtfully, and report their findings in interesting and appropriate
ways. But you can never know whether what that other person wrote about the past is valid,
accurate, or thoughtful unless youve explored the evidence for yourself.
In short, primary sources allow you to be your own historical detective, piecing
together the puzzle of the past by using materials created by the people who lived it. When
you start reading primary sources, you stop just learning history and start doing history. It
can be a challenging task, but in the end youll find that its much more rewarding and
interesting than just passively accepting the conclusions of others.

So how do I approach primary sources?

In order to fully understand a primary source, youll want to identify it, contextualize it,
explore it, analyze it, and evaluate it. The questions below will help you do all of those
things, and understand why its so important to do them.
1. IDENTIFY THE SOURCE
What is the nature of the source?
Youll want to know what kind of source it is a newspaper, an oral history account, a
diary entry, a government document, etc. because different kinds of sources must be
considered differently. For example, you might think about a description of a Civil War
camp differently than you would think about a photograph of one, or you might have
different questions about census data regarding poverty in the 1930s than you would about
oral history interviews with people who were poor during the Depression. Knowing that
type of source youre dealing with can help you start to think about appropriate questions.

2 | LEARN NC www.learnnc.org

Who created this source, and what do I know about him/her/them?

Knowing something about who created the source youre using can help you determine
what biases they might have had, what their relationship to the things they described in the
source might have been, and whether or not this source should be considered credible.
Keep in mind that someone doesnt have to be famous or need to have played a dramatic
role in history to be a credible source in terms of understanding the experience of World
War I, for example, the writings of a regular soldier in the trenches may be as valuable or
even much more so than the recollections of President Wilson or a general.
Knowing who wrote the source can also help you figure out the angle or perspective
that the source will convey. For example, the description of a Revolutionary War battle
might be very different if it was written by a soldier in the Continential Army, by George
Washington himself, by a British soldier, or by an American loyalist. You might wonder
different things about the account depending on who wrote it, so knowing the author
would definitely help you start to ask the right questions.
When was the source produced?
Knowing when the source was produced can help you start to put it into historical
perspective. A discussion of womens rights in America, for example, would obviously be
very different in the 1820s (one hundred years before women could vote), the 1920s (when
women first got the vote), the 1970s (when the feminist movement was thriving and the
Equal Rights Amendment was debated), and 2004. If you dont know when a source was
written, you cant start to put it into its historical context and understand how it connects to
historical events.
If youre using a first-hand account that was written some time after the events that it
describes, you might also take the passage of time into account in your later analysis. For
example, you might view the diary of a settler moving west in the 1870s that was written
during her travels in a different way than you would view the memoirs of that same settler
written fifty years later for her grandchildren.
Where was the source produced?
Just as it is important to situate the source in time, its also important to identify the place
where the source was produced. If you found an editorial in a newspaper discussing the
Montgomery Bus Boycott, for example, you would want to know where the newspaper was
published a newspaper from Montgomery might be considered very differently from
one published in Boston, Massachussetts, Mobile, Alabama, or Washington, D.C.
2. CONTEXTUALIZE THE SOURCE
What do you know about the historical context for this source?
Once you know when, where, and by whom the source was created, you can start to place it
in its historical context . What was going on in the place and time that this source was
created? What significant local, regional, or national events might this source relate to? You
can look for information about the historical context for your sources in many places.
Sometimes sources are packaged along with descriptive information that can help you

Reading primary sources: An introduction for students | 3

contextualize them this is often true of web-based collections of resources in which the
website compiler might provide you with a written introduction to the sources to help you
place them in context. Similarly, libraries and archives often provide collection descriptions
or finding aids for their materials that can provide context. You can also consult secondary
sources to learn more about the time and palce in which the source was created.
What do I know about how the creator of this source fits into that historical context?
Once you know the historical context of the source, youll want to think further about the
person(s) who created the source. How were they connected to that historical context? If its
a source about the Civil Rights Movement, for example, you may have already figured out
the persons location, their race, their sex, and some other basic information but what
do you know about his connection to the Movement? Was he an activist? Was he opposed?
Was he involved in the race riot that he describes in the source and, if so, what was his
role? Figuring out how this person fit into their historical context, individually, can help
you think more critically and creatively about what he or she had to say.
Why did the person who created the source do so?
Youll also want to know the motivations of the person who wrote the source, which may be
easier to guess after you know their historical context. Do you think this source was created
as a private document, or was it intended for others to view? How do you know that? If
there was an intended audience, who was that audience? Family? The general public?
"Future generations?" What did the creator of the source intend for that audience to get out
of it? Was she trying to persuade people to a particular point of view? Was she simply
recording daily events? Was she intentionally trying to deceive the audience? Was she
trying to make herself look good?
3. EXPLORE THE SOURCE
What factual information is conveyed in this source?
Some sources can provide us with valuable factual information about what happened in the
past. As you read, think about what information in the source is presented as fact. But, of
course, things that are presented as fact are not always accurate, so you will also want to
think about whether the facts presented in the source can be verified. Where else might
you look to check and make sure that those facts are accurate? How will you decide
whether you believe this persons accounting of the facts to be accurate?
What opinions are related in this source?
Since primary sources are first-hand accounts that often convey only a single persons point
of view, they will likely contain a fair bit of opinion. Identify sections of the source that
seem to be opinion and ask yourself why the creator of the source might hold that opinion.
Who else might share that opinion? Is it an opinion that you find compelling? Why or why
not?

4 | LEARN NC www.learnnc.org

What is implied or conveyed unintentionally in the source?

People dont always spell out what they are thinking when they write a letter, a diary entry,
or a newspaper column. Intentionally or unintentionally, there may be ambiguities or
vagueness in the source places that require the reader to "fill in the blanks" and use the
authors tone, rhetorical strategies, and attitude to make inferences about meanings that
are not spelled out. For example, in a letter to the editor in a newspaper criticizing a
particular politician, the author may never spell out his or her beliefs about the role of
government or how the government should handle particular kinds of issues, but based on
their criticisms, you can probably infer or make an educated guess about those questions.
What is not said in this source?
Sometimes what isnt said in a source can be as interesting as what is said. Ask yourself,
what did I expect to have seen here that I didnt see? For example, it would seem odd to
find a letter written the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor that didnt mention that event
you might wonder, "Why didnt this person write about the Pearl Harbor attack? Did
she not know about it? Was it not important to her or to her audience? Was it so much on
everyones mind that she didnt feel a need to write about it?" You may have no good
answers to these questions, but thinking about what seems missing can help you imagine
the writers frame of mind and motivations a bit more clearly.
What is surprising or interesting about the source?
Once you know what is and isnt in the source, take a minute to think about what was
interesting or surprising. What did you learn that you didnt know before? What details
were interesting to you? Was the perspective revealed by this source one that you hadnt
thought about before? What did you not expect that you found here and what did you
expect that wasnt here after all?
What do I not understand in this source?
Are there words that were unclear to you? Are there events or people referred to that you
arent familiar with? Does anything not make sense? Think about where you might go to
clarify these issues so that you can understand the source fully. You might look up
unfamiliar vocabulary in the dictionary or do an online search to find some basic historical
information about an event that the source writer described. Doing these simple things can
help you make sure that you get the most out of each source.
4. ANALYZE THE SOURCE
How does the creator of the source convey information and make his/her point?
Sometimes its important to not only think about what the author said, but how he said it.
What strategies did the writer/artist/etc. use to convey information? In the case of written
or oral sources, did he use humor? Sarcasm? An appeal to patriotism? Guilt? An appeal to
religious principles? Logical arguments? Tugging on heartstrings?

Reading primary sources: An introduction for students | 5

How is the world described in the source different from my world?

Think about the time and place in which this source was created. What did the author and
people around her believe? What was their world like? What significant differences are
there between that world and your world today? How would you feel if you were in the
authors shoes? What would be reasonable to expect of the author, given his or her
historical context?
How might others at the time have reacted to this source?
Would the ideas and perspective revealed by this source have been universally accepted by
others? Would certain individuals or groups have disagreed with the account in this
source? Why or why not? Imagine an individual who might have disagreed with something
in this source how would that persons account be different? What might they convey in
their own source, and how? (For example, if youre reading the diary of a plantation owner,
how might a source giving the perspective of an overseer, an abolitionist, the owner of a
bigger or smaller plantation, or a slave be different?)
5. EVALUATE THE SOURCE
How does this source compare to other primary sources?
Have you read other sources like this one? What did they say? Does the account in this
source seem to mesh will with those, or does it depart dramatically? Remember that if your
source doesnt say exactly what other sources say, it may still be entirely truthful. It could
be that the other sources were wrong. It could also be that all of the authors of your sources
told the truth as they saw it, but that their own individual perspectives gave them different
views and therefore different accounts. It may also be that the author of your source had a
unique experience that wasnt like most peoples experiences, but it happened that way just
the same. For example, some people remained very wealthy during the Great Depression
they were not in the majority, to be sure, but their stories are still true and can offer
valuable insights into the diversity of experiences during that era in American history.
Consider all of the possible reasons why this source may differ from other primary sources
before you decide to reject any of your sources as "untrue" or "useless."
How does this source compare to secondary source accounts?
Youll also want to think about how your source compares to secondary sources that you
have read such as your textbook and accounts written by historians. Does this source seem
to fit with the interpretations presented in those secondary works? In what ways does it fit
and in what ways does it differ? Keep in mind that just because it differs from what your
book says, that doesnt mean that the source isnt accurate. It may be that this source offers
an insight that the secondary text authors didnt know about. It may also be that this source
presents information that the secondary source authors werent interested in or chose not
to include for a variety of possible reasons. Consider all of the possible reasons why this
source may differ from the secondary source account before you decide to reject one or the
other completely.

6 | LEARN NC www.learnnc.org

What do you believe and disbelieve from this source?

Based on everything you know about the historical context and from reading other
accounts, what elements of this source do you take as credible and believable? What does
the weight of the evidence suggest to you about the believability and historical usefulness
of the information and attitudes conveyed in this source? Does anything in this source
seem unbelievable, exaggerated, deceptive, or simply mistaken? Think about why you are
willing to believe certain parts of the source but not others what are your reasons for
accepting some evidence and rejecting other evidence? If you found some parts of the
source to be less than credible, do you think that this assessment in any way taints other
parts of the source?
What do you still not know and where can you find that information?
After assessing your source thoroughly, youll want to take stock of what you do and dont
know after reading it. What are you still wondering about? What gaps did this source leave
in your understanding of the topic at hand, and what new questions did it raise for you?
Think, too, about where you might turn to find out what you still dont know. What kinds
of primary sources would help you fill in the blanks, and what kinds of secondary sources
might you consult to answer some of your broader questions?

On the web
More from LEARN NC
Visit us on the web at www.learnnc.org to learn more about topics related to this article,
including history, inquiry, primary sources, reading, and reading comprehension.

About the author

KA T H R Y N WA LB ER T
Kathryn Walbert holds a Ph.D. in United States History from the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill. She directs LEARN NC's efforts to develop instructor-led and self-guided materials for
professional development in a range of topics in United States and North Carolina history. She has
developed and taught online courses on "The Civil Rights Movement in Context" and "North
Carolina American Indians." She is also the author of several articles for LEARN NC, including a
series on using oral history in the K-12 classroom and "Beyond Black History Month."
A long-time associate of the Southern Oral History Program, Walbert has been using oral history in
her own research and training others in the craft for over ten years. Her doctoral research focused on
Southern women, both black and white, who became teachers after the Civil War, and the role of
teaching in shaping their identities. From 2001 to 2003, she was an academic skills instructor at
Duke University. She now serves as a consultant on U.S. history, oral history, and academic skills to
LEARN NC and other organizations.

Reading primary sources: An introduction for students | 7