Historical Sources and Evidence
Distinguish primary and secondary sources, source documents for point of view and purpose, and use evidence to support historical claims.
A lesson of World History, in Historical Thinking and Early Civilizations, about 10 minutes.
By the end of this lesson, you will be able to distinguish primary from secondary sources, apply HAPP analysis to primary documents, understand how historians construct arguments from evidence, and recognize the limits of historical knowledge.
History as an Argument
History is not just a list of facts — it is a discipline that constructs arguments about the past from incomplete, partial, and often contradictory evidence. Historians argue about causation, significance, and interpretation.
The central question of historical method: How do we know what happened in the past? What counts as evidence? How do we evaluate it?
Primary vs. Secondary Sources
Primary sources: created by participants in or witnesses to historical events; or produced at the time of the event under study.
Examples: speeches, letters, diaries, photographs, newspapers of the period, artifacts, laws, treaties, official documents.
Secondary sources: created after the fact by historians and scholars who analyze and interpret primary sources.
Examples: textbooks, academic articles, biographies, documentaries.
The distinction matters: primary sources are closer to the event but require more contextual interpretation; secondary sources provide interpretation but reflect the historian's perspective and time.
HAPP Analysis (Primary Source Analysis)
When analyzing a primary source, apply HAPP:
H — Historical Context: What was happening when this was created? What do you need to know to understand it?
A — Audience: Who was this created for? Does the intended audience shape the content or tone?
P — Purpose: Why was this created? What was the creator trying to accomplish?
P — Point of View: What perspective does the creator represent? What might they leave out or distort?
Example — Applying HAPP
Document: A letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787, arguing for including a Bill of Rights in the Constitution.
Historical context: The Constitution was being ratified; there was significant debate about whether individual rights needed explicit protection.
A trusted fellow statesman; Jefferson assumes shared context and can be frank.