Analysing a historical source means judging it in relation to the question, using its provenance (who made it, when, why), its content, and your own knowledge of the context. Avoid generic comments about bias; instead assess what the source is useful for and how reliable it is for a specific purpose.
Source analysis is its own skill
Analysing a source is different from writing an essay. It is about evaluating a piece of evidence — what it can tell you, how far you can trust it — in relation to a specific question.
Treating source questions with the right technique, rather than as mini-essays, is what earns the marks. The skill is evaluation of evidence, not narration.
Start with provenance
Provenance — who produced the source, when, where and why — is the foundation of analysis. It shapes what the source can reliably tell you, and considering it first frames everything else.
Reading the provenance carefully, before diving into the content, is a habit that consistently improves source answers.
Use the content
The content of the source — what it actually says or shows — is evidence to be interpreted, not just summarised. Consider what it reveals, and what it might leave out or distort.
Engaging with specific details in the content, and what they suggest, is stronger than a general impression of the source.
Apply your own knowledge
Your knowledge of the historical context lets you judge the source — whether it is accurate, typical, or one-sided. A source is evaluated against what you already know about the period.
This use of contextual knowledge is essential and often what separates strong source answers. The source does not stand alone; you assess it in light of the history.
Avoid generic bias comments
A common weakness is dismissing sources with generic statements like 'it is biased'. All sources have a perspective; the question is what the source is useful for despite, or because of, that perspective.
Rather than labelling a source biased, analyse how its viewpoint affects its usefulness for the specific question. That is the sophisticated response.
Judge for a purpose
Usefulness and reliability are always relative to a purpose. A source may be unreliable for one question but very useful for another — a piece of propaganda reveals a great deal about the propagandist.
Framing your judgement around what the source is useful for, in relation to the specific question, is exactly what the mark scheme rewards.
Read the provenance first
The attribution line above or below the source is not decoration — it is often where most of the marks are. Who wrote it, when, in what role, for what audience and purpose.
Read it before the source itself. Knowing that something is a private letter written thirty years afterwards changes how you read every sentence in it.
'Biased' is not an argument
Every source has a perspective, so noting bias by itself says nothing. Examiners see this constantly and it earns little.
The useful move is to say what the bias tells you. A propaganda poster may be unreliable about facts and extremely valuable as evidence of what the government wanted people to believe — which is a genuine historical judgement.
Usefulness depends on the question
No source is useful in the abstract. A partisan speech may be useless for establishing what happened and excellent for understanding attitudes at the time.
Always tie your judgement to the specific enquiry: useful for what, exactly? That phrase alone lifts many answers a band.
Bring your own knowledge
Source questions expect you to test the source against what you know. Does it fit with the wider context? Does it omit something significant? Is it representative of views at the time?
This contextual knowledge is usually the difference between describing a source and evaluating it, and it is where many students under-perform.
Cross-reference where asked
When given several sources, compare them. Where do they agree, where do they conflict, and can the differences be explained by who produced them?
Explaining disagreement through provenance is exactly the historical reasoning being assessed, and it is more valuable than listing similarities and differences.
Reach a judgement
Finish by answering the question directly. Which source is more useful, and why? How far do the sources support the statement? An answer that evaluates without concluding leaves marks behind.
Be specific about the limits too: useful for this, less so for that. Qualified judgements read as historically literate rather than evasive.
Frequently asked questions
How do I analyse a historical source?
Judge it in relation to the question using its provenance (who made it, when, why), its content, and your knowledge of the context. Assess what it is useful for and how reliable it is for a specific purpose.
What is provenance and why does it matter?
Who produced the source, when, where and why. It shapes what the source can reliably tell you, so considering it first frames the rest of your analysis and consistently improves source answers.
Should I just say a source is biased?
No — generic bias comments are a common weakness. All sources have a perspective; analyse how that viewpoint affects the source's usefulness for the specific question instead of just labelling it biased.
How do I use my own knowledge?
To judge the source — whether it is accurate, typical or one-sided — against what you know about the period. The source does not stand alone; you evaluate it in light of the historical context.
What does 'useful' mean for a source?
Useful is always relative to a purpose. A source may be unreliable for one question but very useful for another — propaganda reveals much about the propagandist. Judge usefulness for the specific question.
What does provenance mean?
Where a source came from — its author, date, type, audience and purpose. It is usually stated in the attribution line, and it is often where the majority of evaluation marks sit.
Can a biased source still be useful?
Very much so. A biased source is often the best evidence available for attitudes, propaganda aims or the beliefs of a group. Its unreliability about facts is a separate question from its usefulness.
Should I use my own knowledge in source questions?
Yes, and most mark schemes require it. Testing the source against wider context is what turns description into evaluation.
