What are the classifications of documentation?

[Aaron]

Honest, the "Female Armourer" thread has me interested. What types of documentation are there, from the viewpoint of the historical researcher. Could you give me a short description of each?

For example, what is "third-person documentation"?

[Payn]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Aaron:
<B>Honest, the "Female Armourer" thread has me interested. What types of documentation are there, from the viewpoint of the historical researcher. Could you give me a short description of each?

For example, what is "third-person documentation"?

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Primary, been there, seen that.
Primary sources can be museum books that were done by the curator. Or a in period first hand account.

Secondary, been there, heard about that.
a book written citing examples from period are generally secondary. There are MANY secondary examples in period. I think (I may very well be wrong) that the Froissart Chronicles was written 20 or 30 years after the battles and MAY be considered secondary on some issues.

Tertiary, was in the vicinity, heard a rumor.
what I do! If I tell you something that I read from a book that cited period examples, it is tertiary and is subject to MY INTERPRETATION of the written text. Therefore... Consider it crap for most purposes.


Fritz the peasant

[Ziad]

Okay, then. I did some research yesterday - which classification? I went to a castle in Extremadura, and found several carved stone heraldic examples that proved a point. I then posted (see "heraldry... ) on this archive. Would that be 1. Primary, as I was there, did that; B. Secondary, as I was just examining the original carved stones; or III. Tertiary, as I am just a regular joe without a PhD in archaeology, and am just interpreting what I think I saw?

Anybody wanna clue me in? Academics out there? Rhia? Buehler?

Thanks
Ziad

[chef de chambre]

Hi Ziad,

What you saw was an extant object. The only thing neccessary to make that a very solid bit of evidence would be to affirm when that carving was put there. Are you sure it was in the room as it was built (1430's you said?), or is it a later addition? With luck, there are extant records listing the expenses and money paid out building the castle. An art historian could confirm whether the sculpture was genuine rather than a later addition. Then you are on the grounds of primary documentation. Heck, you might even have then name of the master carver who carved the stone (although usually researchers aren't so lucky).

------------------
Bob R.

[Ziad]

Hi, Bob, thanks for the input. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the documentation, though I am sure it is there. In archaic Spanish. (Oh, my aching head!)

It is IMHO a fairly solid bit of evidence, as the same charge was repeated in other, very weathered carvings. The Spanish Paradors are very nice, and they are Hotels first, castles second... but the restoration crews don't tend to invent things like this for decoration. Very spare and utilitarian, unless they have the originals to work from.

There were other Coats as well - one bezanty (no tinctures remaining); some quartered with Castile and Leon; and most were repeated on carvings in other places in the town. Fascinating place. I will try to arrange a return trip and ask for documentation - it is probably well-covered already. It just threw me for a loop when I saw it.

Thanks again
Ziad

[chef de chambre]

Hi Ziad,

What I'm refering to is whether it was an addition in the 'working life' of the castle, rather than a later restoration. If the castle was occupied into the 17th century, who is to say it wasn't a late 16th century decoration?

You find that sort of thing in German castles, which were often occupied well into the 20th century as private dwellings (and in some cases still are).

------------------
Bob R.

[Dwarlock]

I did weapons teasting against reproduction armour, I know the swords used, and the armour used, and the blow's force, I can be sure of my results.

I tell you about it, and you know me, my methods, and generaly trust my results

I tell you, i did weapons testing and my results, but you don't know me from jack,
even If I post all of the information about it, you can never be sure, because I might be a damn lier, or could have misinterperated somthing, or I might not be smart enough to tell high carbon, from non.

Some guy tells you a friend did testing, and gives you some results.

some guy tells you heheard of a guy who once did testing, anf got particular results, but don't remember who, or exactly what.

Those are roughly the classifications I'd use.

[Brodir]

Scenario; I share some facts about the 15th century, Aaron doesn't agree, asks for my documentation, and I tell him "Chef De Chambre told me."... being that Chef is known for having no little knowledge of the era, would this be acceptable?

[DanNV]

Ok. This is from my memory of a conversation with a historian, so I may be off a bit...

Primary = The item itself. So, the segmented breast plate in Churburg is primary documentation for that item. (This is sometimes stretched to a period representation of something where the artifact itself isn't still around.)

Secondary = an image of the item. So, you go to Churburg and do drawings of the segmented breast plate, giving secondary documentation to me who is trying to recreate it.

Tertiary = an image made from someone else’s image of the item. I redraw your drawings of the segmented breast plate, creating a tertiary source.

Photographs of the original item don't fit the categories real well since if they are done well they are almost as good as the item itself and if they are poorly done they are as bad as tertiary.

Dan

[Machiavelli]

Eh...I am an historian...and I have never heard of any valid documentation that was "third-person". Actually I only consider first and secundary statements. All else is so losely based that it is too close to myth and legends, Hearsay. But used as a statement of contemporary times a thirdperson descriptions is a valid documentation. This means that if enough persons has heard of something, the contemporay knowledge of THAT time says, that the item or event discussed is believed to have taken place/existed. The discussion of valid or invalid documentation is actually the core of the Historians Masters Degree, so it is hard to explain in 300 words what I have been taught over 5 years. You are welcome to write me for in-depth explanations.
Yours truly
Machiavelli

[Rhia]

Greetings,
as a historian & archeologist, here's my 2 c:
primary source:

a.Written documents -from a specific era relevant to the scope of given research ie. if you research a topic from the 15th c. a letter from a 19th c. Victorian antiquarian to his niece about a castle visited in France is NOT a primary source... Things like charters, chronicles, legal docs, wills, counting papers of merchants, guild papers of 14th c. German town blacksmiths...love letters of 15th c. English nobles might belong here...
b. Pictorial sources- from the relevant era again, ie. wallpainting, altarpiece, miniature, initial, sketches, scrathes, frescoes, etc.
c. Archeological sources--documented from excavations, or finds in museums with some kind of provenance and dating. Potcherds, bones, clothing swabs, rusty swords, golden goblets...

Anything else you might find ie. books, articles etc,. that REFERS to aforesaid primary sources are considered secondary.

Recommended website for more on this:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook1a.html

This is a collection of essays about how to use primary sources/why primary sources,/ how to read a document etc...--A fair warning, though-- it was written from a classic historian's point of view, and thus, it chiefly deals with written documents...

Rhia

------------------
---Soldiers live.And wonder why---

[This message has been edited by Rhia (edited 05-20-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Rhia (edited 05-20-2001).]

[Glen K]

Just another addition: Not all secondary sources are bad, unreliable, or unenterable as evidence. What it comes down to is 1) who wrote it, 2) what sources THEY used, and 3) how the arguments are... well, argued.

For example: Someone is talking to me about a particular method in period for holding a lance in a tournament joust. Did they hear it from a renfest jouster? No, but they got it out of Anglo's "Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe". Rather than saying, oh, that'd not a primary source (but knowing what it is and who the author is) I'll say, "oh, that's pretty convincing".

It also depends on what your discussing and trying to find out/argue. While not nearly as reputable in a scholarly sense, for reenactment purposes I'll also take secondary source-age and opinion depending on who it comes from. If I don't have access (or, am too lazy ) to find something about some piece of clothing and get something from Chef, or read it in one of Embleton's books, for my purposes it's pretty much acceptable because these guys are well-reputed to know what their talking about (and, if they're not sure, are very quick to point that out as well).

Surveys (books written to comment on or draw from a variety of more detailed secondary accounts of a subject rather than all primary sources, a "history of burgundy", for example) are also useful tools but not terribly great to quote from except for the most general of statements. For out-and-out academic research, though, it had all better be primary sources, or as close as you can get. Interpreting those sources is where the danger REALLY begins, so I won't go into that.


Machiavelli: "The discussion of valid or invalid documentation is actually the core of the Historians Masters Degree..."

Yes, I'm certainly finding THAT out.

[Guest]

So, where is/was the thread on women armorers? I do have some data on women blacksmith's (but I'll have to dig a bit...)

------------------
Full time civil servant, part time blacksmith, and seasonal Viking ship captain.

Visit your National Parks: www.nps.gov

Go viking: www.wam.umd.edu/~eowyn/Longship/

Hit hot iron: www.anvilfire.com