Skip to content

The basics of working with historical sources

Text: Niklas Zodel

What are sources?

Sources are “all texts, objects or facts from which know­ledge of the past can be gained.”1 This is Paul Kirn’s much-quo­ted defi­ni­ti­on of what his­to­ri­cal sources are. His­to­ri­ans the­r­e­fo­re defi­ne sources as all evi­dence of human acti­vi­ty that aro­se in the past and that is still pre­ser­ved today – in who­le, in frag­ments or in a chan­ged form. Howe­ver, such texts, objects and facts only beco­me sources through the spe­ci­fic ques­ti­ons we ask of them in our his­to­ri­cal work. This enables us to uti­li­ze the infor­ma­ti­on con­tai­ned in the sources for our rese­arch. His­to­ri­ans try to recon­s­truct the past as well as pos­si­ble with the help of as many sources as possible.

Texts, objects and facts?

His­to­ri­ans deal with their sources in a simi­lar as craft­smen do with their mate­ri­als – depen­ding on the natu­re of the mate­ri­al, the working method is adapt­ed. To make sources as fruitful as pos­si­ble for his­to­ri­cal work, we the­r­e­fo­re divi­de sources into dif­fe­rent clas­si­fi­ca­ti­ons. Depen­ding on the cha­rac­te­ristics of the sources, we can then choo­se our methods, approa­ches and auxi­lia­ry sci­en­ces for ana­ly­sing the source.

One of the criteria’s for clas­si­fy­ing sources rela­tes to their writ­ten form. We thus divi­de them into writ­ten and non-writ­ten sources. Non-writ­ten sources are par­ti­cu­lar­ly rele­vant in anci­ent and medieval his­to­rio­gra­phy, while writ­ten sources are of par­ti­cu­lar importance in the ear­ly modern peri­od and espe­ci­al­ly in modern histo­ry. Due to the ever-incre­asing spread of wri­ting among popu­la­ti­ons, seg­ments of peo­p­le who pre­vious­ly had hard­ly any pos­si­bi­li­ty to lea­ve behind sources were now able to put their per­spec­ti­ves, expe­ri­en­ces and per­cep­ti­ons on paper, giving us com­ple­te­ly new insights.

Ano­ther clas­sic source clas­si­fi­ca­ti­on jud­ges the source in terms of its inten­tio­na­li­ty. If, for exam­p­le, it is clear from the source that the aut­hor had a clear inten­ti­on in pro­du­cing the source to inform posteri­ty about a cer­tain fact, then we speak of a tra­di­ti­on source. If, on the other hand, this is not the case, as is the case with pri­va­te cor­re­spon­dence or items of clot­hing or simi­lar objects, we speak of remains.

A final means of source clas­si­fi­ca­ti­on rela­tes to the pro­xi­mi­ty of the source to the his­to­ri­cal event. If the source is cha­rac­te­ri­zed by its imme­dia­te pro­xi­mi­ty to the sub­ject of the report, or if it was part of the his­to­ri­cal event, then we speak of it as a pri­ma­ry source. Howe­ver, if it refers to ano­ther source on which it is based and is the­r­e­fo­re alre­a­dy a for­med tra­di­ti­on and an attempt­ed recon­s­truc­tion of the event, we speak of secon­da­ry sources.

It is important to empha­si­ze, howe­ver, that none of the­se source clas­si­fi­ca­ti­ons repres­ents a sil­ver bul­let. For each of the cate­go­riza­ti­ons, the­re are examp­les that can­not be cle­ar­ly assi­gned to one side or the other. Howe­ver, this is not a pro­blem for his­to­ri­cal work, as the clas­si­fi­ca­ti­on is not an aim in its­elf, but ser­ves to adapt our ana­ly­ti­cal tool to the basic material.

What can sources tell us?

The term source impli­es the 19th cen­tu­ry idea that through them we can “get to the sources” of things and find out “how it actual­ly was.” But even if all the his­to­ri­ans in the world were to eva­lua­te all the sources available at the pre­sent time, it would still be impos­si­ble to recon­s­truct a his­to­ri­cal truth. All know­ledge about the past must always be seen as rela­ti­ve, as the result of ana­ly­sing all available sources on a par­ti­cu­lar rese­arch topic and as an inter­pre­ta­ti­on and recon­s­truc­tion of the pos­si­ble past from the here and now. Howe­ver, new sources can con­stant­ly fal­si­fy, revi­se and chan­ge the con­s­truc­tions of the past. We must be awa­re that the his­to­ri­cal recon­s­truc­tion of the past is only ever a kind of key­ho­le for us. Alt­hough we can catch a glim­pse of the past through it, it will never be com­ple­te, as it depends on chan­ce for which pro­ces­ses, events, etc. we have sources for and which we do not.

References

  1. Cf. Paul Kirn, Ein­füh­rung in die Geschichts­wis­sen­schaft, Ber­lin 1968, 5th ed. [1947], 29.; Trans­la­ti­on by the author.
  2. For details on this “veto right of the sources”: Ste­fan Jor­dan, Veto­recht der Quel­len, in: Docup­e­dia-Zeit­ge­schich­te, 11.02.2010, https://docupedia.de/zg/Vetorecht_der_Quellen, acces­sed on 06.12.2022.
category search