2007-05-25 23:48:23 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
If by this you mean primary sources--photographs, letters, newspaper accounts, speeches, and interviews of participants in an event--as opposed to secondary sources, complete with bibliographies and end notes, historians do prefer primary references.
Of course, historical reconstructions (such as Williamsburg, Mount Vernon, Shakespeare's birthplace, or another National Trust property, or your local historical society's restored houses) all attempt to imperfectly recreate what life was like at a certain point in time.
2007-06-02 03:53:39 · answer #1 · answered by Ellie Evans-Thyme 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sources which actually come from the people who were there are closest to the truth....no middle people to enhance the story....we have all played the game of sending a message around the room and I expect have all had the same result. rwfm
2007-05-26 07:25:29 · answer #2 · answered by rwfm 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Written and oral sources -- as opposed to what? Artifacts?
Your question isn't very clear. Can you clarify?
2007-05-26 07:08:33 · answer #3 · answered by Jack 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What other sources would you throw into the mix?
2007-05-26 06:57:09 · answer #4 · answered by iansand 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋