-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        Re: terminology
Date:   Mon, 9 Aug 2004 16:10:19 EDT
From:   [log in to unmask]
To:     [log in to unmask]



     As a former map librarian with a Ph.D. in history, I have been
somewhat bothered by the way terms like "historical sources" and "old
sources" are thrown around.  These terms are used very loosely, and have
no specific technical meaning.  For an historian the terms "original
sources" or "primary sources" have a precise meaning--an original source
is the testimony of a participant or an eye witness, or a contemporary
document.  An old map, or a letter about the map by someone involved in
making it would be examples of original sources.  "Old sources" or
"historical sources" mean pretty much the same thing, but are often used
more broadly--these expressions are sometimes used to refer to such
things as old history books, which to an historian would be "secondary
sources" rather than "primary sources" or "original sources," and which
may or may not be reliable accounts.

      I should add that old books or newspaper articles can be either
primary or secondary sources, depending on the context.  I would be very
cautious accepting accepting at face value a claim that is based on "old
sources" or "historical sources" if there are no references indicating
precisely what the sources are.  Is this as clear as mud?

David Allen
Stony Brook University, retired