Zuzana Kraemerova wrote: > "That is, they are the least likely to do things like assume > that original sources are always 100% accurate and unbiased, that > secondary sources are always useless, and so on." > > I must disagree. You definitely cannot rely on secondary sources,
What I meant is that you can't unthinkingly _rely_ on any source whatever, primary or secondary. They all have to be viewed analytically, with attention to their limitations, biases, intent, and so on. I was educated as a historian and believe me, historians spend a great deal of time not only analyzing but creating secondary sources. Many reenactors think that if someone "in period"--whatever period it is--said something, that of course they are knowledgeable, unbiased, and truthful. Not so. It is also "not so," that anyone who writes a secondary source, that is one that relies on primary sources, is automatically full of BS. One way to look at it is, to give an example: Suppose you analyze half a dozen newspapers and find ads for fabrics/materials for sale, which is the kind of primary-source research many reenactors do. OK, maybe you've found out something. Now, suppose someone else spends several years combing hundreds of newspapers for such ads published in a certain geographic area and during a certain time period, and compiles a statistical study that includes every single ad they found in those papers. They also do research to study why certain materials were more popular, for example, was it the local climate? Was it the price? Was it availability? Was it current fashion? and other factors. By the time they finish this study-- they know a lot more than you found out by reading half a dozen newspapers. Furthermore, if you didn't have several years of your own time available to do such a study, then you never would have found out all this without reading that secondary source. Granted, its author might have made what you believe to be misinterpretations--though the whole idea of "misconceptions" and "errors" is often not as black-and-white as many reenactors assert. You might however analyze the study and find certain things. For example, that the researcher only studied newspapers from large cities, and perhaps the patterns of textile purchase in small towns might have been different. On the other hand, many studies will openly say this, since some limitations are always placed on every researcher by available resources, which include not only research sources but their own time and research budget. So this lack would not be an "error" on the researcher's part unless they extrapolated to things they did not study without enough evidence for doing so. It would merely mean that at some point it would be a good idea for someone else to study small-town newspapers for that time period, geographic era, etc. It would however probably be perfectly legitimate for the researcher of big-city papers to read a few small-town papers, and say that on the basis of that limited research the patterns of textile purchase in small towns in their area seem to have been the same or different in certain ways, or admit that they are speculating or extrapolating to this or that, as long as they make it clear that they are doing so. Fran Lavolta Press http://www.lavoltapress.com _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list [email protected] http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
