Reconstructing the Past: Evidence, Authority, and Corroboration | History SHS 2 SEM 1 WEEK 1 (WASSCE & NaCCA Aligned)

The Historian’s Core Challenge: What is Evidence?

The study of the past is not built on guessing; it is built on evidence. This evidence takes the form of ‘sources,’ which are the foundational pieces of information that historians analyze, interpret, and arrange to construct a coherent narrative. The initial, critical skill for any aspiring historian is mastering source categorization. Without this skill, we cannot assess the reliability or the authenticity of the information presented. In essence, historical inquiry starts with an investigation into the origin and nature of the source itself.

Categorizing Sources: Primary vs. Secondary

Historical sources are primarily grouped into two fundamental categories based on their proximity to the event being described. This distinction hinges entirely on the time of creation and the direct involvement of the creator.

• Primary Sources: These are the original, firsthand, and raw materials that were created at the time under study or by someone who directly experienced the event. They offer the most direct window into the past.
• Secondary Sources: These are accounts, analyses, or interpretations that were created later, often using primary sources as their foundation. They are “one step removed” from the original event, offering perspective and synthesis.

Deep Dive: Characteristics of Primary Sources

Primary sources are diverse, ranging from physical objects to oral accounts. For Ghana, a letter written by a missionary during the colonial era, a photograph taken during the Independence declaration, or an old Ghana Cedi note from the 1980s are all primary sources. Why is the Cedi note primary? Because it is an artifact from that economic period, not a commentary about it. The key features of primary sources include:

• Original documentation (e.g., The Bond of 1844).
• Physical artifacts (e.g., ceremonial stools, Kente cloth, ancient pottery).
• First-hand testimony (e.g., recorded oral traditions from elders who witnessed major events, like the establishment of the Volta River Authority).

The strength of a primary source is its immediacy, but its weakness often lies in its narrow perspective or potential bias. A colonial governor’s private diary, for example, is primary evidence of his feelings and actions, but it may contain severe prejudices against the local population, requiring careful reading and critical evaluation.

Deep Dive: Characteristics of Secondary Sources

Secondary sources provide the necessary structure and context for interpreting raw primary evidence. While textbooks are the most common example, they also include biographies written decades after the subject lived, academic journal articles analyzing a war, or museum exhibits explaining a culture. Their value lies in:

• Synthesis and interpretation of multiple primary sources.
• Providing context and connecting disparate events.
• Offering specialized analysis by professional historians.

The weakness of a secondary source is that its interpretation can be influenced by the historian’s own time and perspective. A history book written about the Gold Coast in 1950 will hold a vastly different ideological view than one written in 2020. Both are secondary, but both require scrutiny.

The Historian’s Lab: Authentication and Analysis

It is insufficient merely to categorize a source. A critical step in historical inquiry is authentication—determining if the source is genuine and reliable. Historians use two main methods, often referred to as internal and external criticism.

• External Criticism (Authenticity): This addresses the ‘fakeness’ of the source. Is the document a forgery? Was the pottery dated correctly? Does the physical artifact show signs of being recently manufactured?
• Internal Criticism (Reliability): This addresses the ‘truthfulness’ within the text or object. Assuming the source is genuine, does the author have motive to lie or exaggerate? What biases or cultural limitations might affect their reporting? For instance, when analyzing an oral tradition about a succession dispute, we must consider the speaker’s lineage—does their family benefit from this specific account?

Furthermore, sources must be contextualized and corroborated. Contextualization means placing the source firmly within the political, economic, and social environment of its creation. Corroboration involves verifying the information in one source against information found in others. If three independent primary accounts mention a massive drought in 1910, that fact is strongly corroborated. If only one highly biased source mentions it, the information remains questionable.

In the final analysis, neither source type is inherently superior. A secondary source written by a leading professor is useless without the foundation of authenticated primary sources. Conversely, a pile of primary documents—diaries, receipts, and old coins—lacks meaning until a secondary source provides the analytical framework to weave them into a historical tapestry. Both are integral to the rigorous and demanding task of reconstructing Ghana’s rich and complex past, ensuring that our historical narratives are grounded in verifiable, critically evaluated evidence. (850 words)

NaCCA ALIGNED
For Teachers: Premium Prep Package. For Students: Premium Handouts.