A primary source is a document, object, or record created at the time of the events being studied, or by participants in those events. A secondary source is an account or analysis produced after the fact, typically by a historian working from primary sources. The distinction matters because primary and secondary sources are used differently and evaluated differently in historical analysis.

Primary sources

Primary sources include: government documents, diplomatic telegrams, speeches, diaries, letters, newspapers, photographs, films, census data, economic records, oral testimony. They are not automatically reliable — a speech is primary evidence of what was said, but it may be propaganda, self-justification, or tactical manoeuvring rather than an honest account of the speaker’s intentions. Evaluating a primary source requires analysing both its content (what it says) and its provenance (who produced it, when, for what purpose, for what audience). This is AO2.

Secondary sources

Secondary sources are historians’ interpretations — books, articles, essays that analyse and argue about the past. They are evaluated differently from primary sources: not by provenance but by the quality of their argument, the range of evidence they engage with, the coherence of their reasoning, and their place within the broader historiographical debate. Engaging critically with secondary sources is AO3.

How to use the distinction in an answer

On AO2 questions, apply provenance analysis systematically: who wrote this, when, why, for whom, and what does that tell you about its value as evidence? On AO3 questions, engage with secondary sources as interpretations to be evaluated rather than as facts to be reported. The distinction between these two types of source use — and the different analytical tasks they require — is fundamental to performing well on source-based and interpretations questions across all boards.

Further reading: Assessment Objectives Explained · How to Use Interpretations
← Back to Key Concepts