Chiming in on the Primary Source Discussion

Print | Hits: 14323
ptlogo2I read with interest the feature article published in early November on Passed Time. The article is called "George Sonnenleiter's Mugshot and the Importance of Primary Sources." As a true believer in the importance of primary sources, I want to say how glad I am to see such an article and I want to share some misconceptions about what primary sources are.
 
Someone recently defined primary sources and secondary sources according to whether or not the sources were handwritten or printed. The anonymous author said primary sources are mostly church and civil records, but secondary sources are items like "birth announcements, remembrance cards, newspaper obituaries, and printed funeral sermons."
 
That's not exactly accurate. Whether or not a source is printed does not make the difference. We know of many totally printed 18th, 19th, and early 20th century family registers that we consider primary sources. We also know of printed broadsides that detail genealogically significant information. We consider these as primary sources.
 
The difference between primary and secondary sources is that secondary sources present data extracted from earlier records, no matter how that first source was created. It might have been an orally presented story that was written down from a taped interview or from memory. A primary source might have been a tombstone inscription or a notation made on a cocktail napkin. The birth announcement or printed funeral sermon that the author suggested were secondary sources were contemporary with the event they record, and therefore can be considered primary sources. Even obituaries are primary sources, but when information from the obituary is transcribed and inserted into another document, then it becomes a secondary source.
 
The Passed Time article is important in that it points out that many primary sources exist. They are the most accurate and trustworthy records family historians can use. Because the primary source is contemporary with the event or recorded in some fashion soon after by eye-witnesses or someone privy to the event, it is considered a reliable source. Although there are occasional instances where the primary source was wrong, there is greater danger in a secondary source that the person extracting information introduced errors in data or assumptions that turn out to be false.
 
The bottom line, as the Passed Time article points out, is that primary sources exist and should be PRESERVED! Contributing Author for Passed Time, November 8, 2015, 
 
*I received this as an email and asked the author if it could be turned into an article for PT and Voila'. If you have any genealogy notations or ideas for articles or an article, we can always use it. One of our readers sends me bible records to post, if you have any you would like to share, we are always grateful. 
 
 

Leave your comments

Post comment as a guest

0
terms and condition.

People in this conversation

Comments (150)

Load Previous Comments
Powered by Komento