On Evidence: Primary and Secondary, and the Kennewick Man
Primary source evidence, which is that form of evidence deduced from sources which are primary rather than sources which are secondary in order to support a claim, is more valuable than secondary source evidence to the historian who is trying to figure out what actually happened in the past, this is due to primary source evidence being more tangible and coeval with the historical subject being analyzed by the historian and therefore yielding a higher probability of historicity. Primary sources and secondary sources are, respectively: (1) that type of source which is coeval with a historical subject which is being analyzed, and (2) that type of source which came long after the time of a historical subject which is being analyzed.
E.g., the Kennewick Man — the remains of a Caucasoid man found on the bank of the Columbia River in Kennewick, WA which are supposed to date to ~9,000 BCE — is primary source evidence which was used to deduce that Caucasoids inhabited North America for far longer than was previously supposed; the oral traditions of several Native American Tribes around the Kennewick area which do not provide any account of Caucasoids around the Kennewick area are secondary source evidence which were used to deduce that Caucasoids did not inhabit North America for far longer than was previously supposed.
Again, primary sources are more valuable than secondary sources to the historian trying to figure out what actually happened in the past as primary sources bear more fruit for the historian embarking on a chain of critical reasoning, asking questions such as, “What sorts of historical artifacts will allow me to perform empirical experimentation in order to date events more accurately? Surely not words such as oral traditions which convey mere potentialities, but actual human remains which convey actualities, or at least more probable potentialities will allow me to perform empirical experimentation in order to date events more accurately … depending on who you ask.”
To other historians, this type of primary-source-dependent critical reasoning may induce wariness as it may lead to conclusions which do not conform to their wishful thinking, whether it be revisionist or anti-revisionist, depending on the subject at hand and the effect it’d have on popular consciousness. E.g., it is my assumption that some historians were wary of even discussing the Kennewick Man because of the effects it’d potentially have on popular consciousness — destroying Native Americans claims to indigeneity — so they attempted to use the NAGPRA (North American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act) as a pretext for halting any further research on the Kennewick Man, but that is just my assumption, and it is in no way possible for me to know with certainty that this was the case.
To conclude: the differences between primary source evidence and secondary source evidence have been firmly demonstrated, and that primary source evidence rests hierarchically above secondary source evidence as being more providing of fruit for the historian embarking on a chain of critical reasoning trying to figure out what actually happened in the past, has also been firmly demonstrated, and that some can be wary of primary source evidence because of the potential effects it’d have on popular consciousness has also been firmly demonstrated.
