Based on the Wikipedia article "Primary Source". Much of this, especially "Using Primary Sources" is of direct interest and relevance for the genealogist, though the article was not written with them explicitly in mind. (Where in the text you see the word "historian", substitute "genealogist" and you will probably see the relevance.) See also Source Value
Primary source is a term used in a number of disciplines. In historiography, a primary source (also called original source) is a document, recording, or other source of information, such as a paper or a picture, that was created at the time being studied, by an authoritative source, usually one with direct personal knowledge of the events being described. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which often cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources.
Similar (but not identical) definitions are used in library science, and other areas of scholarship. A primary source could be a first-hand source from the past, such as a diary or artifact. Primary sources have been described as those sources closest to the origin of the information or idea under study. Primary sources have been said to provide researchers with "direct, unmediated information about the object of study." They may contain original research or new information not previously published elsewhere. They serve as an original source of information or new ideas about the topic. Primary and secondary, however, are relative terms, and often a given source may be classified as either primary or secondary, depending on how it is used.
The significance of source classification in various disciplines
History and historiography
The delineation of sources as primary sources and secondary sources, first arose in the field of historiography, as historians attempted to identify and classify the sources of historical writing. In scholarly writing, an important objective of classifying sources is to determine the independence and reliability of sources. In contexts such as historical writing, it is almost always advisable to use primary sources if possible, and that "if none are available, it is only with great caution that [the author] may proceed to make use of secondary sources." Many historians believe that primary sources have the most objective connection to the past, and that they "speak for themselves" in ways that cannot be captured through the filter of secondary sources.
Many scholars have commented on the difficulty in producing secondary source narratives from the "raw data" which makes up the past. Historian/philosopher Hayden White has written extensively on the ways in which the rhetorical strategies by which historians construct narratives about the past, and what sorts of assumptions about time, history, and events are embedded in the very structure of the historical narrative. In any case, the question of the exact relation between "historical facts" and the content of "written history" has been a topic of discussion among historians since at least the nineteenth century, when much of the modern profession of history came into being.
As a general rule, modern historians prefer to go back to primary sources, if available, as well as seeking new ones, because primary sources, whether accurate or not, offer new input into historical questions, and most modern history revolves around heavy use of archives for the purpose of finding useful primary sources. On the other hand, most undergraduate research projects are limited to secondary source material.Template:Fact
In scholarly writing, the objective of classifying sources is to determine the independence and reliability of sources. Though the terms primary source and secondary source originated in historiographyTemplate:Fact as a way to trace the history of historical ideas, it has been applied to many other fields. For example, this idea may be used to trace the history of scientific theories, literary elements, and other information that is passes from one author to another.
In scientific literature, a primary source is the original publication of a scientist's new data, results, and theories. In political history, primary sources reflect documents such as official reports, speeches, pamphlets, posters, or letters by participants, official election returns, and eyewitness accounts. In the history of ideas or intellectual history, the main primary sources are books, essays and letters written by intellectuals.
A study of cultural history could include fictional sources such as novels or plays. In a broader sense primary sources also include physical objects like photographs, newsreels, coins, paintings or buildings created at the time. Historians may also take archaeological artifacts and oral reports and interviews into consideration. Written sources may be divided into three main types.
In the study of historiography, when the study of history is itself subject to historical scrutiny, a secondary source becomes a primary source. For a biography of a historian, that historian's publications would be primary sources. Documentary films can be considered a secondary source or primary source, depending on how much the filmmaker modifies the original sources.
The Lafayette College Library, for example, provides the following synopsis of primary sources in several basic areas of study:
"The definition of a primary source varies depending upon the academic discipline and the context in which it is used.
Usage in Genealogy
The BCG prefers the terms "original source" and "derivative source" in place of "primary source" and "Secondary Source"
Finding primary sources
Although many documents that are primary sources remain in private hands, the usual location for them is an archive. These can be public or private. Documents relating to one area are usually spread over a large number of different archives. These can be distant from the original source of the document. For example, the Huntington Library in California houses a large number of documents from the United Kingdom.
In the US, digital primary sources can be retrieved from a number of places. The Library of Congress maintains several online Digital Collections where they can be retrieved. Examples of these are American Memory and the Prints and Photographs Online Catalog (PPOC). The National Archives and Records Administration also has such a tool, called Access to Archival Databases (AAD).
In the UK, the National Archives provides a consolidated search of its own catalogue and a wide variety of other archives listed on the Access to Archives index. Digital copies of various classes of documents at the National Archives (including wills) are available from DocumentsOnline. Most of the available documents relate to England and Wales. Some digital copies of primary sources are available from the National Archives of Scotland. Many County Record Offices collections are included in Access to Archives, while others have their own on-line catalogues. Many County Record Offices will supply digital copies of documents.
In Australia, the National Archives of Australia has digitised a number of classes of records and will produce digitised copies of suitable documents on demand.
Using primary sources
History as an academic discipline is based on primary sources, as evaluated by the community of scholars, who report their findings in books, articles and papers. Arthur Marwick says "Primary sources are absolutely fundamental to history." Ideally, a historian will use all available primary sources created by the people involved, at the time being studied. In practice some sources have been destroyed, while others are not available for research. Perhaps the only eyewitness reports of an event may be memoirs, autobiographies, or oral interviews taken years later. Sometimes the only documents relating to an event or person in the distant past were written decades or centuries later. This is a common problem in classical studies, where sometimes only a summary of a book has survived. Potential difficulties with primary sources have the result that history is usually taught in schools using secondary sources.
Historians studying the modern period with the intention of publishing an academic article prefer to go back to available primary sources and to seek new (in other words, forgotten or lost) ones. Primary sources, whether accurate or not, offer new input into historical questions and most modern history revolves around heavy use of archives and special collections for the purpose of finding useful primary sources. A work on history is not likely to be taken seriously as scholarship if it only cites secondary sources, as it does not indicate that original research has been done.
However, primary sources - particularly those from before the 20th century - may have hidden challenges. "Primary sources, in fact, are usually fragmentary, ambiguous and very difficult to analyse and interpret." Obsolete meanings of familiar words and social context are among the traps that await the newcomer to historical studies. For this reason, The interpretation of primary texts is typically taught as part of an advanced college or postgraduate history course, however advanced self-study or informal training is also possible.
The following questions are asked about primary sources:
Strengths and weaknesses of primary sources
In many fields and contexts, such as historical writing, it is almost always advisable to use primary sources if possible, and that "if none are available, it is only with great caution that [the author] may proceed to make use of secondary sources." In addition, primary sources avoid the problem inherent in secondary sources, where each new author may distort and put their own spin on the findings of prior cited authors. However, A primary source is not necessarily more authoritative or accurate than a secondary source. There can be bias and simplification of events.
"Original material may be ... prejudiced, or at least not exactly what it claims to be."These errors may be corrected in secondary sources, which are often subjected to peer review, can be well documented, and are often written by historians working in institutions where methodological accuracy is important to the future of the author's career and reputation. Historians consider the accuracy and objectiveness of the primary sources they are using and historians subject both primary and secondary sources to a high level of scrutiny. A primary source such as a journal entry (or the online version, a blog), at best, may only reflect one individual's opinion on events, which may or may not be truthful, accurate, or complete. Participants and eyewitnesses may misunderstand events or distort their reports (deliberately or unconsciously) to enhance their own image or importance. Such effects can increase over time, as people create a narrative that may not be accurate. For any source, primary or secondary, it is important for the researcher to evaluate the amount and direction of bias. As an example, a government report may be an accurate and unbiased description of events, but it can be censored or altered for propaganda or cover-up purposes. The facts can be distorted to present the opposing sides in a negative light. Barristers are taught that evidence in a court case may be truthful, but it may be distorted to support (or oppose) the position of one of the parties.
Many sources can be considered either primary and secondary, depending on the context in which they are examined. Moreover, the distinction between primary and secondary sources is subjective and contextual, so that precise definitions are difficult to make.
If a historical text discusses old documents to derive a new historical conclusion, it is considered to be a primary source for the new conclusion. Examples in which a source can be both primary and secondary include an obituary or a survey of several volumes of a journal counting the frequency of articles on a certain topic.
Whether a source is regarded as primary or secondary in a given context may change, depending upon the present state of knowledge within the field. For example, if a document refers to the contents of a previous but undiscovered letter, that document may be considered "primary", since it is the closest known thing to an original source; but if the letter is later found, it may then be considered "secondary".
In some instances, the reason for identifying a text as the "primary source" may devolve from the fact that no copy of the original source material exists, or that it is the oldest extant source for the information cited. Alternately, when a printed version of a document is made from an electronic version, the electronic version may be termed the primary document.
Historians must occasionally contend with forged documents, purporting to be primary sources. These forgeries have been constructed with the intention of promulgating legal rights, supporting false pedigrees or promoting particular interpretations of historic events. The investigation of documents to determine their authenticity is diplomatics.
For centuries the Popes used the forged Donation of Constantine to bolster the secular power of the Papacy. Among the earliest forgeries are Anglo-Saxon Charters. There are a number of 11th and 12th century forgeries produced by monasteries and abbeys to support a claim to land where the original document had been lost (or never existed). One particularly unusual forgery of a primary source was perpetrated by Sir Edward Dering who placed false monumental brasses in a local church. In 1986, Hugh Trevor-Roper "authenticated" the Hitler diaries which proved to be forgeries. Recently, forged documents have been placed within the UK National Archives in the hope of establishing a false provenance.  However, historians dealing with recent centuries rarely encounter forgeries of any importance.