24/7 writing help on your phone
Save to my list
Remove from my list
There are many kinds of history sources, and they each have their own strengths and weaknesses. Ancient historians are faced with a complex array. There are many kinds of sources for ancient history. Some are more valuable than others. The historian should not just study sources; he or she must also consider the method of evaluating historical evidence.
There are a number of reasons why some sources may be more valuable than others. Some of these reasons include:
If a person was alive at the time when an event took place and records what happened, his or her account is likely going to be reliable and accurate. This is because he or she would have had first-hand knowledge of events and people involved in them.
If a writer has an agenda or pre-conceived notions about what happened, their writing will likely reflect those biases instead of being objective and impartial; this would make their work unreliable as evidence for determining how things really unfolded during your chosen topic period (and therefore not useful).
Each of these systems tend to give different points.
Let's say you're trying to get a hold of an ancient history source. You find one, and it talks about how the Egyptians built pyramids.
Well, the historians have different ideas about what that means. One says: "The pyramids were built by slaves." Another says: "The pyramids were built by free people".
Another historian might say: "The pyramids were built by slaves who called themselves 'free' people," because they thought they had rights as humans despite their slavery status.
Or maybe another historian would say something closer to: "The pyramids were mostly built by free people but with some forced labor in the form of conscripted workers and some slave labor."
As a historian, you should not just study sources. You should also study the history of the sources. In fact, to really understand a source, you have to not only consider its content and context, but also how it was preserved and transmitted. A good example of this is Plutarch's biography of Alexander the Great (356 - 120 BC). Plutarch wrote his book at least 600 years after Alexander's death in 323 BC—and yet we still rely on it as one of our main sources for studying Alexander today because no contemporary historical accounts survived intact from ancient times.
There is no single unified method for evaluating historical evidence. You can't just read a history book and expect to learn about the past. You have to pick up on clues and make your own judgements about what's true, what's not true, and how reliable the source is.
The first thing you need to do when evaluating historical evidence is consider the source itself—who wrote it? Who published it? When did they publish it? What was their background in regard to writing history? Did they have any biases or ulterior motives for writing this particular piece of evidence (or for not writing certain evidence)? These are all important questions that historians must ask themselves in order to evaluate a source.
Next, one should consider context: where does the text come from, what other kinds of texts were being produced at around the same time as this one (and why), who might have wanted people reading this text rather than other ones written in other places at different times and with different agendas (such as using propaganda techniques), etc.
Sources of history can be classified in two ways. Sources can be either primary or secondary. Primary sources were written by people who were present during the events they describe, such as letters or diaries. Secondary sources are historical works that analyze and interpret primary sources and other secondary materials (these may include books, articles, journals, etc.).
Primary sources provide an opportunity to reconstruct past events and the lives of people who lived in them; however they do not necessarily prove anything about those events or those people's lives. For example: If you read a newspaper article about what happened during your child’s birthday party last weekend it could help you remember details about what went on at the party but it won't tell you whether or not there was really a pinata (you'll just have to trust me when I say there was).
This is why it’s important to study the sources and evaluate them critically. There are many kinds of history sources, and each one has its own strengths and weaknesses. The historian should not just look at just one source but rather consider multiple sources from different time periods in order to get a broader picture of what happened during those times.
What Are The Sources Of Ancient History. (2022, Dec 08). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/what-are-the-sources-of-ancient-history-essay
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.
get help with your assignment