Good explanation needed

Question

Is the bolded text below an example of a primary source or secondary source? How do you know?

The following description of the visit to Cairo in 1324 by the King of Mali, Mansa Musa, was written by Al-Umari, who visited Cairo several years after the Mansa Musa’s visit.

From the beginning of my coming to stay in Egypt I heard talk of the arrival of this sultan Musa on his Pilgrimage and found the Cairenes eager to recount what they had seem of the Africans’ prodigal spending. I asked the emir Abu…and he told me of the opulence, manly virtues, and piety of his sultan. “When I went out to meet him {he said} that is, on behalf of the mighty sultan al-Malik al-Nasir, he did me extreme honour and treated me with the greatest courtesy. He addressed me, however, only through an interpreter despite his perfect ability to speak in the Arabic tongue. Then he forwarded to the royal treasury many loads of unworked native gold and other valuables. I tried to persuade him to go up to the Citadel to meet the sultan, but he refused persistently saying: “I came for the Pilgrimage and nothing else. I do not wish to mix anything else with my Pilgrimage.”

Answer 1

Hello Londyn! The simple answer to your question is: it depends on the research you are undertaking. By definition, primary sources are sources that give first-hand accounts of events or time periods, whereas secondary sources are sources that give explanations or interpretations of a primary source.

Given this, primary sources and secondary sources are not always fixed, and one can easily become the other depending on what you are studying. For example, let's say you're looking at a newspaper film review article critiquing the film Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker. If you're exploring how Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker affected people at the time of its release, then the article would be considered a primary source. But if you're exploring instead Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker itself, then the article would actually be considered a secondary source because it would be trying to interpret the film you are studying.

So with all that said, you can ask yourself the following questions to help you determine whether your description is either a primary or secondary source:

1. What is the focus of my research or the thing or event that I am studying?
2. Am I putting this description from Al-Umari under the microscope, so to speak (if so, the description is primary source)? OR is Al-Umari's description in fact meant to be the microscope itself for the thing or event that I am truly studying (if so, the description is secondary source)?

Hope this helps!