[Sca-cooks] QUESTION ABOUT PRIMARY SOURCES

[Pixel, Goddess and Queen]

Not exactly. As I understand it (and Bear will probably correct me on it
and come up with a better explanation ;-)), a primary source is original
material, a secondary source is something that refers to the primary
source, and a tertiary source refers to the secondary source. For research
purposes, facsimiles and photo reproductions are sometimes considered
primary sources. Any time you have a source filtered through someone's
interpretation, it gets pushed back a level.

Thus, the actual wall painting of a Wheel of Fortune in Rochester
Cathedral, and our slides thereof, are primary sources, while a drawn copy
would be a secondary source.

An original manuscript is a primary source. A transcription of that
manuscript is a secondary source. A translation of that transcription is a
tertiary source. Or so I understand it.

So the herald's report is, as a document, a primary source, regardless of
content. The content, or some of it, may technically be a secondary source
(I hereby report that so-and-so told me such-and-thus) but the physical
document is a primary source.

Totally confused yet? ;-)

Margaret


On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 Seton1355 at aol.com wrote:

> I think I know the answer to this, but am checking to make sure...
>
> I was reading history about Tudor England. It listed a heralds report from
> 1715 about the death of Arthur  as a primary source.  But how could it be
> *primary* if the herald wasn't there in 1502 when Arthur died?
>
> So a primary source is an account of something  that you are eye witness to??
>
> Phillipa