Practice evaluating a primary source by identifying its author, date, purpose, and point of view before trusting its claims.
So far you have been reading ABOUT history. This week you practice reading history the way historians actually do: by examining primary sources, meaning material created at the time by people who were there -- letters, chronicles, laws, coins, buildings, and art. A secondary source, like your textbook or this lesson, is written later by someone analyzing primary sources. Both are useful, but historians always ask the same four questions of a primary source before trusting it: Who wrote or made this? When? For what purpose or audience? And what point of view or bias might they have?
Consider the Byzantine writer Procopius, who worked for Emperor Justinian in the 500s CE. In his official history, commissioned by the palace, Procopius praised Justinian's building projects and military campaigns. But Procopius also secretly wrote a very different, unpublished account, later called the Secret History, sharply criticizing Justinian and Theodora's greed and cruelty. Same author, same events, two opposite pictures -- because the audience and purpose were completely different. That is exactly why historians never rely on just one source: they compare multiple sources, and consider who benefited from each version being believed.
Mastery looks like: They can apply the who/when/purpose/point-of-view checklist to a primary source and explain why comparing multiple sources matters.
Common stumbles: Assuming a source is automatically true just because it is old or written by someone who was "there," instead of questioning its purpose and audience.