Research into the source. Everyone has an axe to grind, an angle and a purpose. Each of these will colour the viewpoint as no one is truly objective. Once you understand what the motives of a source are you can examine it more clearly. For instance, a medieval writer trying to get noticed and seek advancement from the king will want to flatter and gloss over the negative and exaggerate the positive. They may want to make the king seem more intelligent, more courageous in battle, or more fearsome so any passages written about a battle would need to be verified to be trustworthy.
If another, independent, source agrees with the sequence of events or sentiments expressed then it could be that the version is more trustworthy, as long as that second source isn't using the first as its basis or has the same set of motivations. For instance, we can know that The Battle of Hastings was fought at the place now called Battle as all sources, English and Norman agree. There also has been archaelogical evidence discovered to back it up. That will allow you to trust a the sources more. But where a source is the only one to attest something, then only examination of it can help.
It would be harder because they would have to make more coins because the population would be growing
Basically, the gods would seek vengeance on their enemies before they would kill them.
Because they needed sugar and then they would have a good time
Type your answer here... They would Sacrofice/or make them into slaves
The Ancient Egyptians would have made their clothing in their own houses. They used flax to make linen. Then, they soaked it and used the resulting fibers and spun it to make thread. They then used the thread to make robes.
If the writer's account of events was verified by an eyewitnesses
Yes. It is document detailing a person's actual journey or involvement, therefore it is exclusively a primary source. It is not an analysis of different primary sources, which would make it a secondary source and it is not an overview of a general topic, which would make it a tertiary source.
It is a source that uses information from a primary source. A movie about an event could be a secondary source should you cite it in research. I read the letters of Lincoln in a museum that would make me a secondary source if I told you about them.
It is a source that uses information from a primary source. A movie about an event could be a secondary source should you cite it in research. I read the letters of Lincoln in a museum that would make me a secondary source if I told you about them.
The use of an artifact as a primary source is different than the use of a written primary source because when you exacavate for an artifact, you may have to make guesses. However, with a written primary source, you don't need to guess as the writing inside will have the answers to your questions or guesses.
this whole question doesn't make sense....-_-"?
By definition of a historical primary source (by someone with direct knowledge from the time), a original political cartoon is a primary source. By definition of an English primary source (it is printed), it is a primary source. By definition of the final form of primary sources (see definition of primary source on www.answer.com), it is based on someone's interpretation of the time and is thus a secondary source.
Just make sure you trust who you're being honest with and then go for it!
hh
The primary source of caffeine is the coffee bean. The plant makes the poison to keep things from eating its seeds. If you were to make a straight diet of coffee beans you would die of heart failure.
It really depends on if the painting was done in the time period in question. If the painting was done in the time period, it is a primary source. But, If you are using this for an essay, make sure to consult your teacher.
To make a connection between history and today