It was in a way a religion, they made it to help understand the unknown.
hell... how am i supposed to no
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.
Answer this question… Comparing many different descriptions and images of the flood
no, Daedalus as like all of the rest of the Greek Gods and Goddess were made up in the olden days to help the people understand why things were like they were
a Charleston Mercury editorial published in 1860
a Charleston Mercury editorial published in 1860
A primary source is a source from someone who was there. A diary, or letters from a soldier, for example, help us understand the war from his specific point of view.
a Charleston Mercury editorial published in 1860
Dictionaries
Dictionaries
Primary sources that are thoughtfully selected can help to bring history and cultures to life for students. Most basically, they are defined as the direct evidence of a time and place that you are studying - any material (documents, objects, etc.) that was produced by eyewitnesses to or participants in an event or historical moment under investigation. Primary sources are interesting to read for their own sake: they give us first hand, you-are-there insights into the past. They are also the most important tools an historian has for developing an understanding of an event. Primary sources serve as the evidence an historian uses in developing an interpretation and in building an argument to support that interpretation. You will be using primary sources not only to help you better understand what went on, but also as evidence as you answer questions and develop arguments about the past. Primary Sources do not speak for themselves, they have to be interpreted. That is, we can't always immediately understand what a primary source means, especially if it is from a culture significantly different from our own. It is therefore necessary to try to understand what it means and to figure out what the source can tell us about the past.
an oral history dictated by a soldier's adolescent son
Primary sources (in history) are things such as documents produced at the time. A secondary source is something written later by a historian. Good examples of primary source documents are legal notices, letters, diaries, newspapers, maps, flags, important documents, clothes, and even furniture.
Yes, a map can be considered a primary source if it was created at the time of the events or period being studied. It provides firsthand geographical and spatial information that can help researchers understand historical context.
Words may have more than one meaning.
the primary source was power...... i guess im not that good in social studies...go on wiki their a great source to help u