0
Do you think primary sources or secondary sources are more valuable to modern historians and why?
Wiki User
∙ 9y ago
Primary sources are more valuable to modern historians because they are more reliable.
Wiki User
∙ 9y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Are primary sources or secondary sources more valuable to modern historians?
secondary
What tools do historians use?
Primary sources, secondary sources, and oral history.
Are primary sources or secondary sources are more valuable to modern historians?
secondary
What are the two sources that historians use?
primary sources and secondary sources.
What tools do historians?
historians use primary soucres and secondary sources
Are secondary sources important to historians?
They summarize conclusions about primary sources.
Why are secondary sources important to historians?
They summarize conclusions about primary sources.
What two types of sources that historians have?
The two different sources are primary and secondary sources
DO you think primary sources or secondary sources are more valuable to modern historians?
Primary sources are the most valuable sources of information to modern historians and to ancient historians. Primary sources are ironclad proof and can stand alone on their own. They include such things as birth, death, and marriage records; wills; property records; legal documents; charters; firsthand accounts; tombstones; censuses; surveys; letters; personal records; military service records; baptismal records; official court records (as in royal court/king's court); rolls of all kinds; registers. Historians love primary sources because it makes their work much easier and more credible. Secondary sources are not as ironclad as primary sources. Historians use these sources when primary sources aren't available or known. Secondary sources include things like chronicles and narratives written by monks/concurrent historians, hearsay, old pedigrees, church records; tradition, and records or written information that have no solid, underlying proof. No matter how many secondary sources someone might use to bolster a statement, it is not considered to be foolproof evidence. It's similar to the idea of proof in a trial: Eyewitness testimony and documentation are believable; whereas hearsay and opinions aren't.
Why do historians have to evaluate the primary and the secondary sources they used to answer their questions?
to be happy
Why do historians have to evaluate primary and secondary sources they use to answer their questions?
to be happy
Why do historians have to evaluate the primary secondary sources they use to answer their question?
to be happy
