Dr. Matt Kuefler

6. INTERPRETING SOURCES CRITICALLY

What does it mean to interpret sources critically?

Even though we must rely on historical sources for the facts that we use for interpretation, we should not be misled into thinking that these sources provide simple and unbiased facts. All writers, whether of the past or present, are limited by their knowledge of the subject about which they are writing, limited by the subconscious assumptions they hold because of their background, and limited by the conscious biases they add for political or moral reasons into their writings. It is essential to consider all of these limitations when interpreting a historical source.

How can I interpret my sources more critically?

This is a skill that historians develop throughout their careers, and is perhaps one of the most essential to good historical method. The most important thing, perhaps, for a student of history is to realize that sources must be interpreted critically, and to begin to think about the reliability of information provided in historical sources.

Think about what type of source it is. Is it descriptive or prescriptive? That is, does it attempt to describe something, as witnessed or as experienced, or does it attempt to prescribe something according to how the author thinks things should be? Diaries, travel accounts, and newspapers are often descriptive. Law codes and religious treatises are often prescriptive. Descriptive sources are often limited by the reliability of the facts presented by the author reporting the events. Was a diarist being truthful or remembering things accurately? Was a traveler understanding what he or she saw correctly? Was a newspaper writer aware of all the facts and free to report them as he or she saw them? Were these descriptive sources even firsthand accounts, or were they written long after the events being described or by someone not present at the events, someone who had to rely on secondhand information? Prescriptive sources are also limited in the facts they present, but in different ways. If a law code prohibits a certain kind of behavior, does it mean that such behavior was rarely practiced and almost universally condemned, so that all or most contemporaries would have agreed with the writer of the proscriptive source, or does it mean that such behavior was commonly practiced and condemned only by the author of that source, who was trying to change public opinion? Is a religious treatise presenting widely practiced beliefs or beliefs held only by the author of that treatise?

Even if you cannot be sure about the answers to any of these questions, you can think about and read about the limitations of the sources for historical events, and add in statements that let's your reader know that you are aware of some of these problems.

Example without any comment about the sources: Many details have been preserved of Alexander the Great's conquests from various historical accounts.

Example with a comment about the sources: Many details have been preserved of Alexander the Great's conquests, since Alexander employed a professional historian to follow him and record his military accomplishments. Even though this account has since been lost, it was used by Roman historians in later centuries as the basis for their own accounts of Alexander.

Example with critical comment about the sources: Many details have been preserved of Alexander the Great's conquests, since Alexander employed a professional historian to follow him and record his military accomplishments. Of course, we cannot be sure how much interest Alexander took in censoring this historical account, or what role he might have played in deleting less than glowing comments. In addition, this account has since been lost, and although it was used by Roman historians in later centuries as the basis for their own accounts of Alexander, we do not know what was omitted in these later summaries. Still, these later accounts are all that survive to tell us about Alexander.

Think, too, about the author of the source. Is the author a reliable source of information. What is known about the background of the author? Is this someone with particular credentials, such as a particular type of education or a political or social position of some sort, that gives him or her a better chance of reliability to write about the subject? Was the author an eyewitness to the events he or she is describing, or a personal acquaintance of a person he or she is describing, or if not, does the author tells us where the information for the account came from? Are there certain biases or assumptions that seem obvious in the author?

Again, this is a skill that historians spend their lives refining. But even a few comments here and there in a history essay can alert your reader to your awareness of this issue.

Another example:

Good statement: Marco Polo's travel account provides interesting details about many Asian cultures. [From there, you begin to describe some of these details.]

Better statement: Marco Polo's travel account provides interesting if sometimes unbelievable details about many Asian cultures. [From there, you begin to describe some of these details, but you have to remember to tell your reader which details you think are reliable and which ones are not.]

Even better statement: Marco Polo's travel account provides interesting details about many Asian cultures. These details are sometimes unreliable, though, either because Polo was ignorant of the cultures he was describing, or because his account was only dictated by him to another man, who in setting the stories to paper may have misunderstood Polo's words. Nonetheless, these details at least tell us what a medieval European found curious or noteworthy about exotic cultures. [From there, you begin to describe some of these details, and your reader knows perfectly well that you aren't vouching for the accuracy of the details yourself, but simply describing what Polo found interesting.]