A few days ago
Anonymous

why is it important for historians to be able to analyze primary sources? Give an example.?

I am doing reasearch

Top 2 Answers
A few days ago
thatguyjoe

Favorite Answer

Let me give you an example. You should be able to figure out why it’s important from that.

All the way through high school I learned how Christopher Columbus took an orange and demonstrated to the educated elite of Europe how the earth is round and how if you sail around the earth you won’t fall off, as the smart guys all thought, but, rather, return to your point of origin.

Where in the primary sources does this story come from? Which primary source shows us that the educated people of 1492 thought that the world was flat? An examination of the primary sources shows that everyone Columbus was speaking to knew the world was round. They just thought it was bigger than Columbus thought it. He was wrong.

It’s harder work to look at all the original sources and come up with your own conclusions. But is it better history to rely on what other people tell you the sources say?

0

A few days ago
Civis Romanus
Primary sources are those closest in time to the event or period of history concerned. They best indicate how people actually spoke/wrote, thought, and behaved at that time. Of course, the historian must examine a variety of primary sources and be aware of any inherent bias. (For instance, a medieval serf would not think the same way as his lord.) Also, the historian must see the primary sources in some kind of perspective. People at any given time of history cannot know how future generations will view them, or how the world will change after they are gone.

I am currently reading a book called “Blood and Roses”, about 15th century England, during the Wars of the Roses. The author, Helen Castor, is a fellow in history at Cambridge University. She bases her book on a collection of 1,000 letters written by three generations of a family known as the Pastons. That’s a rare and valuable find!

0