Once again, this is an important video. I wish more people were diligent about sources instead of believing whatever BS is on TikTok or Twit(ter) these days.
This is such important information, and something that I think that everybody should know. I was even taught an even stricter definition of primary sources (or, you just kept it more general): documents themselves are primary sources, but accounts are always secondary. That is to say, if person A wrote a letter talking about the events during a fire that they observed, the letter itself, the ink, the language and grammar are primary sources. But the account of the fire is secondary. I was taught this in an exercise that used three letters about the same fire from three different people (who were all present at it), and they all contained different information, since they left out things that weren't important to their own particular writer. It was such a revolutionary thought to me at the time, it kind of changed my entire view on history.
That's an interesting definition, and sounds more like a view an archeologist would have. The fact that three accounts of a fire can differ doesn't mean they aren't primary sources AS LONG AS they are all eyewitnesses. Historians deal with conflicting primary sources all the time, and there are methods for addressing such contradictions.
@@veritasetcaritas True, it has a definite archaeological feel to it. Maybe it was to keep students from trusting too much in the truthfulness of individual statements?
A great cautionary tale about diving into primary sources without understanding them is the writer Naomi Wolf. She wrote an entire book alleging that the British state executed thousands of gay men in the 19th century after reading legal judgements and seeing the phrase 'death recorded' next to people convicted under anti-sodomy laws. She assumed it meant that they'd been hanged and she wrote hundreds of pages based on that premise. She was live on air on a radio program when an actual historian who was familiar with the conventions of 19th century legal judgements informed her that 'death recorded' didn't mean what she thought at all, and was used when crimes that carried a possible death sentence were commuted to a lesser penalty. Almost all the people she'd said had been hanged had received more lenient punishments. Her book had to be pulped and extensively rewritten. She's since become obsessed with conspiracy theories and seems to be a generally very odd and unnerving person now, although who knows whether that has anything to do with her very public humiliation.
I remember that well. It's a good example of the need to examine primary sources in their original socio-historical context, and the importance of having a specific background knowledge in order to do so effectively. I think I'll use that as an example in one of my next videos.
What about when many primary accounts become lost? Like when dealing with the historiography of Alexander the Great. Many primary accounts such as Ptolemy, Callisthenes, Hieronymus of Cardia, Cleitarchus, are now lost so we must rely on the secondary sources through Arrian, Rufus, Plutarch, Diodorus and Justin. Are those accounts now primary sources? Since they reference the former lost works?
That’s just the inherent issue with ancient history. We rely a lot on those sources but there’s a reason why we work a lot using archeological data. And that’s why we work a lot using anthropological approaches. That’s why interdisciplinary approaches are always useful, specially when primary sources are scarce. But other primary sources, like artifacts, bodies, architecture, can actually help us a lot.
I find with history books that there is not always conformity with how sources are categorized. For example, one book I read divided sources into primary sources, contemporary writings and secondary sources. To me this was a new way of categorizing sources and I cannot even tell how they differentiated between a primary source and a contemporary writing. Also, I was always unsured how to classify a primary source, let’s say a letter, that has been reprinted in a journal and is accompanied by an introduction and notes written by a modern historian. Does the historian’s contribution mean that the journal article is now a secondary source or is the fact that the primary source is reprinted verbatim mean that it should be classified as a primary source.
These are great questions. In the list of references linked in my video description, I have a range of different sources all classifying primary, secondary, and tertiary sources in pretty much the same way. However, you do occasionally come across outliers, as you notice. As for your question: 1. A sourcebook is a collection of primary sources, often in translation. 2. Within that sourcebook, there are primary sources, modern copies of the historical works. 3. Wiithin that sourcebook, there is OFTEN some kind of modern scholarly commentary on those primary sources. 4. That modern scholarly commentary classifies as secondary. So within an article, you can differentiate between the original historical document being quoted (primary source), and the historian's contribution (secondary source). However, you need to be sure that the primary sources is being quoted accurately, which is why you should check the citation for the primary source, and ideally follow it up to validate the quotation.
The issue I have with classifying the aforementioned article would be where to place it in my bibliography. In my thesis I used a lot of these types of articles and when deciding where to put them in my bibliography I usually followed the example of other historians in my field. I generally, as you correctly highlighted, would go to the original source rather than relying on a reprinted version in a journal or book but unfortunately that is sometimes not possible. For example, if the original source is in a language that I do not understand then I must depend on a reprinted translation in a journal or book. My area of study is early modern Ireland and thankfully most of my sources are in early modern English but there is still plenty of material in Latin or early modern Irish, neither of which I can properly comprehend. @@veritasetcaritas
@@matthewmcginty2169 I have the same issue, especially with translated writings or original sources in another language. If I am citing a modern English translation of a text, then I cite the source of the translation as well as the primary source. So if the primary source is in Latin and I am quoting from a secondary source's English translation of the Latin, I will cite it as "[primary source name] as translated by [secondary source name]", and then cite the secondary source work's details. If I am citing an English translation in a sourcebook it's a lot easier. It will usually be something like "[primary source name] in [source book work citation, with editor and translator]". For example, this is how I cite the English translation of a Greek papyrus in a sourcebook. "The Oil Monopoly of Ptolemy Philadelphius", in A. S. Hunt and C. C.Edgar, translators & eds., Select Papyri: Non-Literary Papyri, Public Documents, vol. 2 of The Loeb Classical Library (Harvard University Press; William Heinemann Ltd., 1963), 11.
Good question. It's a secondary source. Many of my videos count as secondary sources, some of them tertiary. Others are primary literature because they contain my original research.
A youtube Channel called Fredda recommended this channel for us and I’m so glad that he did. Really good stuff.
Thank you! Fredda and I are friends, and his channel is excellent. He makes very well researched historical content.
Thank you
I appreciated this video and I’m looking forward to further instalments of this how-to series.
Thank you!
Short and clear, good vid
Thanks!
thank you. I didn't know how much I needed this break-down of sources
Once again, this is an important video. I wish more people were diligent about sources instead of believing whatever BS is on TikTok or Twit(ter) these days.
People like TIK could certainly do with an education in this area.
This was informative, thank you for your efforts.
Thank you!
This is such important information, and something that I think that everybody should know.
I was even taught an even stricter definition of primary sources (or, you just kept it more general): documents themselves are primary sources, but accounts are always secondary. That is to say, if person A wrote a letter talking about the events during a fire that they observed, the letter itself, the ink, the language and grammar are primary sources. But the account of the fire is secondary. I was taught this in an exercise that used three letters about the same fire from three different people (who were all present at it), and they all contained different information, since they left out things that weren't important to their own particular writer. It was such a revolutionary thought to me at the time, it kind of changed my entire view on history.
That's an interesting definition, and sounds more like a view an archeologist would have. The fact that three accounts of a fire can differ doesn't mean they aren't primary sources AS LONG AS they are all eyewitnesses. Historians deal with conflicting primary sources all the time, and there are methods for addressing such contradictions.
@@veritasetcaritas True, it has a definite archaeological feel to it. Maybe it was to keep students from trusting too much in the truthfulness of individual statements?
Amazing thanks
Thank you!
Great video mate
Thank you!
Very Nice
Thank you!
This video is a godssend! Thank you
Thank you!
general knowledge!! yess!!
Unfortunately I've met Masters students who didn't know this.
A great cautionary tale about diving into primary sources without understanding them is the writer Naomi Wolf. She wrote an entire book alleging that the British state executed thousands of gay men in the 19th century after reading legal judgements and seeing the phrase 'death recorded' next to people convicted under anti-sodomy laws. She assumed it meant that they'd been hanged and she wrote hundreds of pages based on that premise. She was live on air on a radio program when an actual historian who was familiar with the conventions of 19th century legal judgements informed her that 'death recorded' didn't mean what she thought at all, and was used when crimes that carried a possible death sentence were commuted to a lesser penalty. Almost all the people she'd said had been hanged had received more lenient punishments. Her book had to be pulped and extensively rewritten. She's since become obsessed with conspiracy theories and seems to be a generally very odd and unnerving person now, although who knows whether that has anything to do with her very public humiliation.
I remember that well. It's a good example of the need to examine primary sources in their original socio-historical context, and the importance of having a specific background knowledge in order to do so effectively. I think I'll use that as an example in one of my next videos.
thank you, really handy to know!!
You're welcome!
What about when many primary accounts become lost? Like when dealing with the historiography of Alexander the Great. Many primary accounts such as Ptolemy, Callisthenes, Hieronymus of Cardia, Cleitarchus, are now lost so we must rely on the secondary sources through Arrian, Rufus, Plutarch, Diodorus and Justin. Are those accounts now primary sources? Since they reference the former lost works?
That’s just the inherent issue with ancient history. We rely a lot on those sources but there’s a reason why we work a lot using archeological data. And that’s why we work a lot using anthropological approaches. That’s why interdisciplinary approaches are always useful, specially when primary sources are scarce. But other primary sources, like artifacts, bodies, architecture, can actually help us a lot.
They were secondary.
I find with history books that there is not always conformity with how sources are categorized. For example, one book I read divided sources into primary sources, contemporary writings and secondary sources. To me this was a new way of categorizing sources and I cannot even tell how they differentiated between a primary source and a contemporary writing. Also, I was always unsured how to classify a primary source, let’s say a letter, that has been reprinted in a journal and is accompanied by an introduction and notes written by a modern historian. Does the historian’s contribution mean that the journal article is now a secondary source or is the fact that the primary source is reprinted verbatim mean that it should be classified as a primary source.
These are great questions. In the list of references linked in my video description, I have a range of different sources all classifying primary, secondary, and tertiary sources in pretty much the same way. However, you do occasionally come across outliers, as you notice. As for your question:
1. A sourcebook is a collection of primary sources, often in translation.
2. Within that sourcebook, there are primary sources, modern copies of the historical works.
3. Wiithin that sourcebook, there is OFTEN some kind of modern scholarly commentary on those primary sources.
4. That modern scholarly commentary classifies as secondary.
So within an article, you can differentiate between the original historical document being quoted (primary source), and the historian's contribution (secondary source). However, you need to be sure that the primary sources is being quoted accurately, which is why you should check the citation for the primary source, and ideally follow it up to validate the quotation.
The issue I have with classifying the aforementioned article would be where to place it in my bibliography. In my thesis I used a lot of these types of articles and when deciding where to put them in my bibliography I usually followed the example of other historians in my field.
I generally, as you correctly highlighted, would go to the original source rather than relying on a reprinted version in a journal or book but unfortunately that is sometimes not possible. For example, if the original source is in a language that I do not understand then I must depend on a reprinted translation in a journal or book. My area of study is early modern Ireland and thankfully most of my sources are in early modern English but there is still plenty of material in Latin or early modern Irish, neither of which I can properly comprehend.
@@veritasetcaritas
@@matthewmcginty2169 I have the same issue, especially with translated writings or original sources in another language. If I am citing a modern English translation of a text, then I cite the source of the translation as well as the primary source. So if the primary source is in Latin and I am quoting from a secondary source's English translation of the Latin, I will cite it as "[primary source name] as translated by [secondary source name]", and then cite the secondary source work's details.
If I am citing an English translation in a sourcebook it's a lot easier. It will usually be something like "[primary source name] in [source book work citation, with editor and translator]". For example, this is how I cite the English translation of a Greek papyrus in a sourcebook.
"The Oil Monopoly of Ptolemy Philadelphius", in A. S. Hunt and C. C.Edgar, translators & eds., Select Papyri: Non-Literary Papyri, Public Documents, vol. 2 of The Loeb Classical Library (Harvard University Press; William Heinemann Ltd., 1963), 11.
What kinda source is this vid?
Good question. It's a secondary source. Many of my videos count as secondary sources, some of them tertiary. Others are primary literature because they contain my original research.
Here in 2024 RUclips Tertiary is the new Primary 😑
wrong - it's BBQ, Ketchup, and Ayn Rand.
Ayn Rand was a Soviet spy!
Your intro is still a bit too loud (compared to your voice)
Hey, im up to debate now if you'd still like to do so. Id message you on twitter but you blocked me there