Want this question answered?
A historical source can be anything. A letter, diary, painting, newspaper, anything.
No, it's a primary source historical document.
Historians will examine a second hand source of a historical event. If the second hand source matches up to other sources of information, then each source in a certain manner adds to the credibility of the historical event.
Diary...Interview...historical documents
A primary source.
You would consult a primary source for a first and personal view of an historical event. Primary sources are original materials.
You would consult a primary source for a first and personal view of an historical event. Primary sources are original materials.
A doctor
A doctor
a primary source, cause it has more details
a place or source that one may find historical information or artifacts.
Primary source: A historical document written by an eyewitness; secondary source: a historical document interpreting the accounts of eyewitnesses
A. primary source documents
When reading a primary source of historical information, you do not have to watch out for interpretations or analyses from scholars. Since primary sources are firsthand accounts or original documents from the time period being studied, they provide direct evidence of historical events without the filter of interpretation or bias from others.
Please consult a more reliable source of information than anonymous internet users for the answer to this question. You should consult you health care provider.
A diary is a primary source that provides firsthand accounts of a person's experiences, thoughts, and feelings. It offers insights into the writer's perspective during a specific period, making it a valuable historical and personal record.
How could you tell if the a Historical source is tainted with bias of a specitic agenda?