0
For a historian performing research or simply reading a book about history, the most valuable sources are primary ones. These may be eye-witness accounts, or letters written about a topic the writer has first hand knowledge of. In the US Civil War, for example, the Confederate Constitution would be a primary source. In comparison, a secondary source would be, and once again using the US Civil War as an example, if for some reason a former Confederate general had joined the British army after the war, and the source of this information was that in a newspaper editorial of the time, and the editorial criticized such an action and the source was , "we have learned that a former Confederate general, name unknown, has joined the British army", That editorial would be secondary and not of great value.
The primary source has more validity and is more useful for the historian.
Problems can develop for the historian when primary sources conflict with each other.
What else can I help you with?
Is a historian's account of Julius Caesar's victory against Spain a primary or secondary source and why?
A historian's account of Julius Caesar's victory against Spain is a secondary source not a primary source. Secondary sources analyze and explain primary sources. Primary sources are documents or objects that were created during the time being studied.
Advantages and disadvantages of primary and secondary sources of information?
Primary sources of information are great because they are first hand information from someone who was there. Secondary sources are based on primary sources, and may be biased.
Which best explains how a historian synthesized evidence to reach a conclusion?
The historian makes comparisons among multiple primary and secondary sources.
Which best explains how a historian synthesizes evidence to reach a conclusion?
The historian makes comparisons among multiple primary and secondary sources.
What two main types of sources does a historian use?
A historian uses primary sources, which are firsthand accounts or original documents from the time under study, to gain a direct understanding of historical events. They also use secondary sources, such as books or articles written by other scholars, which interpret and analyze primary sources to provide context and a broader understanding of the historical period.
What advantages do primary sources have over secondary sources?
Primary sources provide firsthand accounts or direct evidence of events, while secondary sources interpret or analyze information provided by primary sources. Primary sources are often more reliable and can provide unique perspectives that may not be found in secondary sources. They can offer a deeper understanding of historical events or issues.
What best describes the difference between primary and secondary source?
Primary sources are accounts or descriptions based on a first hand, one sided experience. A secondary source is created by some-one (normally a historian) who has gathered up primary sources and sometimes some other secondary sources, then written what they perceive as a more reliable, detached account.
What two types of sources that historians have?
The two different sources are primary and secondary sources
What is the correct name for a historian's 'clues'?
The correct name for a historian's 'clue' is sources.
How do you determine whether a source is primary or secondary?
To determine if a source is primary or secondary, consider if it is firsthand information or a commentary on primary sources. Primary sources are original documents or data, while secondary sources analyze or interpret primary sources.
Which of the followinf describes the advantages that secondary sources have over primary sources of historians?
Secondary sources offer analysis and interpretation of historical events, providing a broader understanding. They also help to corroborate information found in primary sources, adding context and perspective. Additionally, secondary sources can present differing viewpoints and theories, enriching the historical narrative.
How would a secondary sources be beneficial to a historian studying a particular event?
Secondary sources provide historians with interpretations and analyses of primary data, offering context and insights that may not be immediately apparent from original documents alone. They synthesize information from various primary sources, helping to highlight trends, differing perspectives, and scholarly debates surrounding the event. Additionally, secondary sources often include citations and references that can guide historians toward further research and primary materials. Overall, they enrich a historian's understanding by situating events within broader historical narratives.
