-------- 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