Primary vs. Secondary sources

[samina_]

What would the values and limitations of using a primary/ secondary source for your history IA be?

[IB_taking_over]

In some regard, it's hard to come up with values and limitations that apply to all primary/secondary sources. The value and limitation of a source are often influenced by what you, the historian, are trying to use it for. However, I will attempt to provide some examples below. If you have further questions, please feel free to post them here or pm me.

• Primary:
  • "The Treaty of Georgievsk, 1783" (Treaty of Friendship signed between the Russian Empire and the Kingdom of Georgia.)
• Value:
  • Because it was written in 1783 it demonstrates that Russia promises to protect Georgia from its non-Orthodox neighbors.
  • Because it the treaty states the the King of Georgia asked for Russia's protection, it indicates that Georgia believed it could not defend itself against its neighbors. 
• Limitation:
  • Because it is a treaty, it does not indicate if Russia followed through on the terms of agreement. 
  • Because it involved the rulers of the two countries, it does not take into account how the subjects of either country felt about this agreement. 

 

• Secondary:
  • Georgia: Pawn in the New Great Game (Per Gahrton, 2010)
• Value:
  • Because it was written in 2010, the book examines examines the role of Russian/Soviet hostilities in the current relationship between Russia and Georgia. 
• Limitation: 
  • Because Gahrton is a Swedish politician, I cannot learn what a Georgian thinks about the same issues.