GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2004-08 > 1093806873


From: Douglas Beahm <>
Subject: Re: Charlemagne to Agnes Harris
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:14:33 GMT
References: <db.1324c041.2e62869d@aol.com> <4131b802$0$25665$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-06.noos.net> <4131C203.8A75A175@earthlink.net> <4131d84f$0$29674$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-04.noos.net>


Pierre Aronax wrote:

>
> I suggest you consult the FAQ, particularly the passage on the difference
> between primary and secondary sources.
> http://users.erols.com/wrei/faqs/medieval.html
>
> In an historical discussion, what counts and is intended as "sources" are
> primary sources, not the factual sources of information of a particular
> poster. According to your Webster's definition, what my grandmother said me
> will also qualify as a source.
>
> Pierre

Mssr. Aronax,

I presume that most of the people who monitor or participate in
soc.genealogy.medieval are familiar with the difference
between primary sources, secondary sources, tertiary sources, etc. You are free
to use "only" primary sources for your research if you wish. However, most
genealogists and historians that I have met are content to sometimes use
secondary sources of quality like _Complete Peerage_. My comment was in
reference to your statement that Encyclopaedia Brittanica is not "a" source. It
is most definitely "a" source by any accepted definition of the word in English,
however, I agree that it is not a "primary" source. By the way, information
provided by your grandmother is also be "a"source and might be a "primary"
source if she provided the information based on first-hand experience.



This thread: