Historical source

Lore & Background

Historical sources encompass every kind of evidence that human beings have left of their past activities — the written word and spoken word, the shape of the landscape and the material artefact, the fine arts as well as photography and film. Despite this broad range, the study of history has nearly always been based squarely on what the historian can read in documents or hear from informants.

Reader's Guide

Historical sources are fundamental to the discipline of history, providing the raw material from which historians reconstruct and interpret the past. The definition has broadened over time to include non-documentary evidence such as artifacts and landscapes, yet the core reliance on written documents and oral testimony remains. The classification into primary, secondary, and tertiary sources helps scholars evaluate the proximity of evidence to events and the degree of interpretation involved. Primary sources offer direct witness, while secondary sources provide analysis and synthesis. Tertiary sources serve as indexes or consolidations without adding new interpretation. Understanding these categories is essential for critical historical research, as each type of source carries different strengths and limitations. The archive is a related concept, serving as a repository for many historical sources. The University of Cambridge Faculty of History provides further guidance on what constitutes a historical source.

Did You Know?

• Historical sources are usually divided into primary and secondary, though some historians also refer to tertiary sources.
• A primary source is a first-hand account of events by someone who lived through them, made during the historical period being investigated.

The Craft of Historical Reconstruction

The historical method encompasses the full toolkit that scholars deploy to investigate and narrate the past. At its foundation sit three broad categories of evidence: primary sources, secondary sources, and material remains uncovered through archaeology. The real artistry of the discipline emerges not in gathering these materials but in the historian's capacity to locate them, weigh their relative authority against one another, and weave their combined testimony into a coherent and trustworthy portrait of earlier events and settings. In the broader philosophical landscape, questions about whether a rigorous historical method is even possible belong to epistemology within the philosophy of history, while the study of how history gets written and the methods behind it falls under the umbrella of historiography. Despite these theoretical underpinnings, professional historians share only broad, general principles in practice. Specific canons of historical proof, as scholars have noted, are neither widely observed nor universally agreed upon. This is especially true in fields like religion, art, science, democracy, and social justice, which are inherently contested domains demanding specialized interpretive tools before any meaningful analysis can begin.

The Architecture of Source Criticism

Source criticism, also called information evaluation, is the disciplined process of interrogating any source for its validity, reliability, and relevance to the question at hand. In 1946, Gilbert J. Garraghan and Jean Delanglez laid out six foundational inquiries: the date of production, its geographic origin, the identity of its author, the pre-existing materials from which it was constructed, its original form, and the evidential weight of its content. The first four questions constitute higher criticism, the fifth is termed lower criticism, and together they form external criticism. The sixth inquiry, examining the credibility of what the source actually says, is called internal criticism. R. J. Shafer captured the functional divide neatly: external criticism serves a negative purpose, shielding the historian from false evidence, while internal criticism performs a positive role, guiding how authenticated evidence should be deployed. Louis Gottschalk reinforced a crucial caution: no document should be accepted wholesale. Even when an author is broadly trustworthy, every individual claim extracted from their work must undergo its own separate credibility assessment, with the author's general reliability serving only as a background probability rather than a blanket guarantee.

Navigating Contradictory Evidence

When sources conflict, historians need structured procedures to navigate the disagreement. In 1889, Bernheim, and later in 1898, Langlois and Seignobos, proposed a seven-step framework. If all sources concur on an event, it may be considered proven. Yet a simple majority never settles the matter; even the most widely repeated version must still survive rigorous textual analysis. A source partially confirmed by outside authorities can be extended trust in its unconfirmed portions. When two accounts clash, the historian should favor the one produced by an expert or an eyewitness. Eyewitness testimony carries particular weight, especially when the event was observable by ordinary people or when it concerns facts widely known among contemporaries. Two independently produced sources that agree on a point measurably strengthen each other's reliability. And when no other evaluative means remain, the account that best aligns with common sense takes precedence. Later formulations of historical method have sought to move beyond what critics saw as the built-in credulity of that first step, shifting focus from harmonizing reports toward assessing each individual statement's reliability on its own merits.

Principles of Reliability and Authenticity

Scandinavian historians Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén Torsten (1997) articulated a set of core reliability principles that remain central to source evaluation. Physical relics, such as a fingerprint, are inherently more credible than narrative accounts like letters or statements. Any source must be treated as potentially forged or corrupted, and strong evidence of originality bolsters its trustworthiness. Proximity in time to the described event increases a source's descriptive accuracy, and an eyewitness outranks secondhand testimony, which in turn outranks further-removed hearsay. When multiple independent sources carry the same message, that message's credibility rises sharply. The tendency of a source—its underlying motivation and bias—should be minimized or counterbalanced with sources carrying opposing motivations. Demonstrating that a witness had no direct stake in distorting the account further strengthens its credibility. For questions of authenticity, historians apply external criteria focused on authorship, attribution by other sources, and agreement among independent manuscript copies, alongside internal criteria examining an author's style, language, chronological consistency, and the source's fit within its production environment.

Gallery