Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Historical Sources

Options
  • 04-05-2014 3:25pm
    #1
    bobbyss
    Registered Users Posts: 5,195 ✭✭✭


    Question for you historians out there.

    If someone was going to write a biography about, say, Edward 1, there must be limited sources there. What sources would he use? Would there be any new sources made available that would add anything new to Edward's life than any previous biography would have in it.

    Aren't sources finite?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,671 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Offhand, there are the finite written records - such as in one example parish rolls or legal cases that survive from that era which had been minded by previous generations of scholars. However as well, there is always fresh archeological evidence that is literally being uncovered yearly. In addition there are fresh perspectives on the existing data. Feminist, Marxism, Post-modern methodologies provide historians new insights on how the data should be interpreted and presented to modern audiences in a way that re-interprets, as per OP, how Edward I ruled.


  • Options
    #3
    boomchicawawa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 249 ✭✭boomchicawawa


    Personally.... I have recently wondered about an individual who has had numerous bio's written about him. He fought in WW2 on the Eastern and Western front. Not having read his bio's and having only an outline of his EF record I set out to read up on it.

    To my amazement I have found that 90% of the books concerning his actions only concentrate on the WF. It appears that no one has written or researched his EF activity to any extent. Authors have just re-cited some basic 'facts' that on checking have been based on whispers, rumours, innuendoes and down right lies in the main !

    There have been primary documents cited by authors which allude to incidents that are shamefully misleading. Having accessed these myself I have seen that the authors and post war crime trials have twisted the evidence to suit this 'slant'. !

    So I'd say OP, never trust what you read in a book, even if its cited ... have a dig in the archives yourself and your interpretation may differ vastly from that which is in print and has gone down in History as the 'truth' ! Also there may be aspects of a subjects life that has for whatever reason, been totally ignored.....Its all out there waiting to be uncovered !

    Oh ps. I do believe this guy to be guilty of war crimes, but just not for the ones that have been pinned on him !!:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #4
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Short answer, yes - sources are finite, but no one knows how finite!!

    In the case of someone like Edward I, the existing sources are well known and well catalogued so unless someone finds something new (happens all the time) we have what we have.

    After that it's how the material is interpreted - what 'prism' are you going to apply to it?

    Generally it's best to go to 'the well' when writing rather than rely solely on what others have written.

    I also find it very useful to read people whose opinion / interpretation I know I'm going to disagree with, just to get a different perspective - just because I like 'my' perspective doesn't mean it's the only valid one.

    ....and if you are setting yourself a research project - pick something boring!! The chances are it's not been explored before meaning you've more scope to come up with something original.


Advertisement