0
A primary source is like a diary of somebody that has experienced something or the person them self (autobiography) A secondary source is when somebody has heard the story and retells it or writes about it. (biography) A primary source is the most reliable because information can be lost or changed by a secondary source so historians favor primary sources.
Wiki User
∙ 15y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Describe three approaches that historians use to examine past events?
when you hang up a picture, you use a hammer to pound in the nail. Historians also use tools to do there job. These tools include primary sources, secondary sources, and oral history.
Why do historians have to evaluate the primary and secondary sources they use to answer their questions?
To prove that their history claims are right. Can’t say something absurd unless there’s proof!
What sources do historians use in writing about the 250 years of Indian history?
No
What sources do historians use in writing about the last 250 years of Indian history?
No
What are primary and secondary sources in history?
History is always biased, either intentionally, or unintentionally.History is an abstract term - one might think of EVERYTHING that has survived since its creation as history. A recording is history. A document from the time, a crushed soda can is history - as it tells a story of its use and something about the people of the time.In order to really learn about a historical event, its necessary to read from a variety of sources written or recorded at various times. A book about World War II written in 1943 is going to be very different then a contemporary text. Both with have biases and inaccuracies.Original letters or documents, for example. A secondary source would be an essay, for example, about the original source.____A primary source is something from the period of time, such as a piece of writing or a photograph(if possible), these are only two different examples of primary sources.A secondary source is when someone takes a piece of writing and looks at it and tries to interpret events, often several years later.An example of a primary source would be a picture taken in World War 2 of the beaches of Dunkirk when the British and French were retreating.An example of a secondary source would be of a interpretation of the beaches of Dunkirk several years later.___A primary source is an artifact, record, or recording from the era being studied. This would include letters, diaries, personal histories, official documents and so on written during the period. It would also include interviews of people who actually experienced the event or time being studied. Secondary sources are what people have written about the event, period, or era (usually after reading and studying primary sources and other secondary sources). Basically, primary sources come from people who were there, secondary sources come from people who were not.____The key thing about a primary source is that it is direct evidence, while a secondary source is indirect or later discussion.
What tools do historians use?
Primary sources, secondary sources, and oral history.
What are the two sources that historians use?
primary sources and secondary sources.
What tools historians use?
historians use primary soucres and secondary sources
What tools do historians?
historians use primary soucres and secondary sources
What source do historians use to answer questions?
They use primary and secondary sources
Why do historians have to evaluate primary and secondary sources they use to answer their questions?
to be happy
Why do historians have to evaluate the primary secondary sources they use to answer their question?
to be happy
Why do historians have to to evaluate the primary and secondary sources they use to answer their questions?
just give me the answer it isnt hard
Which historical term describes the specific primary and secondary sources that historians use to support their claims?
Historical evidence.
Describe three approaches that historians use to examine past events?
when you hang up a picture, you use a hammer to pound in the nail. Historians also use tools to do there job. These tools include primary sources, secondary sources, and oral history.
What historians think about Augustus Caesar?
There are three categories for historians and their source material: Primary: ancient historians existed at the time of the event Secondary: ancient historians existed after the event and analysed/used primary sources modern: Modern historaians who use either of the above majority of the primary sources do not criticize Augustus and idolize him, in contrast some secondary sources like Tacitus hate Augustus Overall however it is agreed(by many modern historians) that Augustus was emperor because of his freinds Marcus vipsanius Agrippa and Gaius Maecanus. The primary sources(historians) were either sychophantic or terrified of persecution by Augustus, the Secondary sources are also biased because they were hired by patrons with vested interests in Augustus's depiction. In short thereare a range of views all with their own bias.
DO you think primary sources or secondary sources are more valuable to modern historians?
Primary sources are the most valuable sources of information to modern historians and to ancient historians. Primary sources are ironclad proof and can stand alone on their own. They include such things as birth, death, and marriage records; wills; property records; legal documents; charters; firsthand accounts; tombstones; censuses; surveys; letters; personal records; military service records; baptismal records; official court records (as in royal court/king's court); rolls of all kinds; registers. Historians love primary sources because it makes their work much easier and more credible. Secondary sources are not as ironclad as primary sources. Historians use these sources when primary sources aren't available or known. Secondary sources include things like chronicles and narratives written by monks/concurrent historians, hearsay, old pedigrees, church records; tradition, and records or written information that have no solid, underlying proof. No matter how many secondary sources someone might use to bolster a statement, it is not considered to be foolproof evidence. It's similar to the idea of proof in a trial: Eyewitness testimony and documentation are believable; whereas hearsay and opinions aren't.
