primary sources and research

I was researching today for my history class and my friend asked me what a primary source is. Specifically, her question was “Why can’t any book be a primary source?” So I told her. Firstly, a primary source is defined as “an original fundamental and authoritative document pertaining to an event or subject of inquiry” (Dictionary.com). In other words, it is a reputable source of information that (usually) is from same time period as the subject being researched. A primary source traditionally includes newspaper articles, pictures/photos, memoirs, autobiographies, and now, videos. Anything that is contemporary as well as factually correct counts.

The value in primary sources lies in its ability to provide insight into the topic. A primary source does not filters the information presented. It does not press present-day prejudices and assumptions into that information. By analyzing a primary source, one can also discover the context of whatever their researching taken place in. They will not only glean information they’ve been seeking, but also knowledge of the attitudes toward that topic. As a result, the researcher is unimpeded in his work and can form his or her own conclusion. This is highly critical as otherwise the research will denigrate into nothing more than propaganda.

An example that comes to mind when talking about primary sources is the character assassination of Cleopatra. As we all know, Cleopatra was the queen of Egypt who had affairs with both Mark Antony and Julius Caesar. She suicided after the Battle of Actium and Octavian became the Emperor of Rome, etc. But much of the details we receive about her-the story of how she dissolved pearls in vinegar and drank it-are dubious, if not completely false. Since no primary source about Cleopatra exists, we must rely on her enemy, the Romans. No wonder we can’t get an unbiased story of her life.