Peter Stewart wrote:
You really are getting beside yourself, Renia. You wrote "I'm afraid"
then I referred to your fear and you ask "what fear is that?". Cranky.
For what little in your message is worth any response, the medieval
period stretched back to ca 500 and forward to ca 1500 - for most of
this period across most of Europe written records were in Latin, which
most of the participants in legal transactions couldn't read even if
they were literate in their own vernacular. They were mostly written by
clerks and alter lay scribes whose names we cannot even know.
Irrelevant diversionary tactic while teaching grandma to suck eggs. You
really are struggling to divert the issue away from your error.
Picking
out a few highlights in British history and official papers as if these
cover the field for your purpose is simply inane.
Inane? Who is being inane? The field "for my purpose" - the discussion
of what constitutes a primary or a secondary source - is the whole of
history, from pre-history to ten minutes ago. A primary source is a
primary source is a primary source, no matter which era in history it
was produced. Stonehenge is a primary source. So is yesterday's Hansard.
Have you looked into
the cartularies and muniments of all Europe to see how many documents
are there, compared to the smaller number of later-medieval English
manorial and court records?
What has that got to do with the price of sucking eggs? More irrelevant
chatter to divert readers from the issues.
So far you have told us that "primary" sources must be "contemporary"
and are literally just the original document itself, not what it says,
and also that these should be evaluated without regard to their
contents anyway.
Nope. You still haven't got it.
For the umpteenth time, there can be more than one primary source to
tell us about an event. Therefore, there is not always "just the
original document itself". You have used the definite article "the",
specifying one particular document. You are still thinking in terms of
the FIRST document.
The term "primary source", in this discussion, does not mean "first
source". It is a technical term to denote a source created
contemporaneously with the event it concerns. A secondary source, in
this discussion, does not mean "second source". It is a technical term
to denote a source created by using primary sources.
I honestly can't imagine a more stupid set of shifting
statements than yours in this thread, setting out alleged principles of
your training that NO reputable historian could ever follow except to
the unemployment line.
Well, there you have it, folks.
I can only quote from the University of California Berkley:
Q
I. Definitions
WHAT ARE PRIMARY SOURCES?
Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to
what actually happened during an historical event or time period. A
primary source reflects the individual viewpoint of a participant or
observer.
WHAT ARE SECONDARY SOURCES?
A secondary source is a work that interprets or analyzes an historical
event or phenomenon. It is generally at least one step removed from the
event. A recent article that evaluates and analyzes the relationship
between the feminist movement and the labor movement in
turn-of-the-century England is an example of a secondary source; if you
were to look at the bibliography of this article you would see that the
author's research was based on both primary sources such as labor union
documents, speeches and personal letters as well as other secondary
sources. Textbooks and encyclopedias are also examples of secondary sources.
UNQ
Or the University of Washington:
Q
What are Primary Sources?
Primary sources are the evidence left behind by participants or
observers of a given event or during a particular period of time. They
are the "leavings, the shards, the remnants of people who once lived and
don't live any more." Primary sources allow us to make personal
connections to the past. And finally, primary sources are the evidence
used by historians to support an interpretation of the past.
What are Secondary Sources?
Secondary sources are accounts of the past created by people writing
about events sometime after they happened (this could be a few years
later or centuries later). In other words, secondary sources are what
historians (and History Day participants) create.
UNQ
Or the University at Albany:
Q
Sometimes, the same source might be a primary source for one research
paper and a secondary source for another. It all depends on the
relationship of the source to your research question. For example, if
you are researching Franklin Roosevelt's life, the book No Ordinary
Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II by
Doris Kearns Goodwin would be a secondary source. If you were
researching the literary style of Ms. Goodwin, it would be a primary source.
UNQ
Or try this, from the National History Day website:
http://www.nationalhistoryday.org/02_co ... a3_1d.htmlQ
A Research Roadmap
by Jodi Vandenberg-Daves, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse
What's a "primary source" and why would I want to find one?
So many participants in National History Day get hooked on history
because history becomes real to them. How does this happen? The key to
making exciting discoveries about the past is interacting with primary
sources.
What's the difference between a primary source and a secondary source
when you're doing historical research? Sometimes this can be a
complicated question, but here are some general written by an author
who is not an eyewitness or a participant in the historical event or
period. For example, high school history textbooks and other history
books about a particular topic are secondary sources. So are biographies
and reference books, such as encyclopedias. The most basic definition of
a primary source is: material written or produced in the time period
students are investigating. A letter written by President Lincoln in
1862 is a primary source for a student researching the Civil War era.
The memories of a person who was part of Cesar Chavez's labor union
movement also can serve as a primary source, even if you conduct an oral
history interview with the person in 2001. He or she was an eyewitness
to and a participant in this historical event at the time.
Like professional historians, History Day students must ask questions
about their topic's significance in history, and they must creatively
interpret primary sources in order to answer questions about their
research topics. As you participate in National History Day you will be
defining, identifying, getting your hands on, and interpreting primary
sources, as well as doing background research in secondary sources. As
you do this, you are making history! We have created this roadmap to
give you some ideas of the logistics involved and to help you start
stretching your brain for the marathon ahead.
Now, to get started on your research. . . .
1. Secondary sources give you background and lead you to the primary
sources.
It's important to start your research journey by looking at some
secondary sources. This will help you understand how to place your topic
in the larger historical context. History books and other reference
materials help you understand why your topic is important and how it
relates to economic, social and political developments of the period. A
good National History Day project draws on several kinds of secondary
sources, in addition to your own original interpretation of primary
sources. Look at monographs as well as general reference books to get
background on your topic. You will discover that professional historians
bring their own biases to the topics they research, and you should seek
more than one perspective on the issues you are researching.
UNQ
I can't see any purpose in continuing the
discussion.
Have your last word, Renia.
No, I'll leave that to the Universities and Historical bodies I have
quoted from.
Renia