Is a passage from the Malay Annals translated into English a primary or secondary source?
Now I don’t really know what the Malay Annals are, but if the passage is a first-hand account (any recordings or description from a person who’s been there) then it’s a primary resource. Secondary resources are usually when a scholar (who has never been a first-hand witness for the things he’s writing) refers to other sources and summarizes a particular topic in a book. If the document is translated from quote to quote, then technically it’s still a primary resource (although you should talk to your instructor/teacher about that, because some other people might not think that way).
