When that 92 Year Old Halloween Newspaper Article ISN'T a Primary Source

What makes something a primary source? Before I attended the Library of Congress Summer Institute, I thought I knew, but a definition by the Library of Congress, has helped me evolve that definition.

The Library of Congress gives three descriptors when defining a primary source. They describe primary sources as the "raw materials of history." To further define this, they also describe them as "original documents and objects which were created at the time under study" and differentiate them from secondary sources which were "created by someone without firsthand experience." I revisited this definition recently when preparing a Halloween activity for fifth grade students.

http://cdn.loc.gov/service/pnp/acd/2a07000/2a07300/2a07327r.jpg

Students like looking back in time. What was Halloween like 50 years ago? 100 years ago? Primary sources can provide answers to those questions. For this activity, I focused on a 1896 drawing of a woman, her hand resting on candle and looking into a mirror with a reflection of a man. I had looked at the image many times and it made little sense to me. I thought it might be a reference to a ghost or deceased loved one, but her lack of expression confused me.

Recently, I explored Chronicling America for newspaper articles on Halloween. I found a 1922 article titled Mischief Night which may explain the photo. The article references a superstition that on Halloween a woman could hold a candle to a mirror and see her future husband's face. The article implies that she must be walking down the stairs backwards when doing this, but the general idea is portrayed in the drawing. I felt it helped to shed light on the drawing and it was short enough that I could use it as part of a lesson on this lost superstition.

As I prepared to use the article, I asked the question, was this a primary source? If I was asking myself what Halloween was like 120 years ago, this newspaper writing didn't qualify. It was written 92 years ago, a generation after the drawing was created. In addition, the article read, "Time was, when Hallowe'en..." when describing the superstition with the mirror, referencing something that existed in the past. In this context, this article was a secondary source.

Did I still use the article? Absolutely. Students analyzed the drawing and, in small groups, came to consensus on what the illustrator was trying to portray. They then read the article and had an opportunity to revise their thinking. The lesson went wonderfully and as part of that lesson, the students and I had a great discussion about what makes something a primary source. Finally, I asked the students what I could do if I wanted to confirm this account from 25 years after the drawing. A couple of students suggested that finding a newspaper from 1896 that referenced Halloween could be a solution. From there I was able to briefly share two primary source articles, one from 1891 and another from 1895, that referenced Halloween as a night to "reveal your future spouse's face" and when "maidens try to find out who will wed them."

Something being "old" doesn't make it a primary source. Instead, looking at the time period you are studying will help to define if that image, map, document, or object is a primary or secondary source and while that doesn't determine whether you will use it or not with your students, it can impact how you approach using the resource.