Chef......
Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2002 1:24 pm
In the discussion on wrap shots,(I didn't wanna bog the thread down with this, it's been quite interesting!) you made the following quote-
"Vitus - I think you need to be able to examine this discussion from a more detatched point of view. By stating outright "That you refuse to believe that all primary source material is gospel" , you are placing yourself in a position that you are discrediting yourself. When it comes to documenting historical things, primary source material is the only possible way to document these things."
OK, I can see where you're coming from.....
But one has to have a certain detatchment from primary sources as well!
Taking things at face value just because they are primary source, can become rather confusing!
Just for example, I know the soldiers at the time of Christ weren't wearing milanese gothic plate.
But looking at paintings it sure seems they were......
(yeah, I know, kinda bad analogy, but get what I'm saying?)
How about when you have two primary sources that contradict one another?
Just because they are both primary sources doesn't mean that both are right.
The trouble with primary sources is that, in many cases, they have been embellished by the authors, much as hollywood does today.
This is NOT to say they aren't valuable, in fact they very much are!
But I don't take them all as gospel either.
Alot of times they omit very important details.
Take period woodcuts about the Spanish conquest in the New World.
You won't see a Spaniard in any of them covered in mosquito bites, scratching sand fleas, etc......
But, from personal experience, living in Florida (in 2002 with modern pesticides and mosquito control it can be bad, 500 years ago? I shudder at the thought of it...), I can ASSURE you they dealt with that every day.
It must have been maddening!
Accounts from the time seldom mention the sheer misery these poor bastards must have faced.(and the guys in the woodcuts look pretty clean and fresh too, clothes look pretty good, not an easy feat in 1500's Florida!)
But you really wouldn't know that from looking at primary source material from that period.
Am I making any sense here?
VvS
"Vitus - I think you need to be able to examine this discussion from a more detatched point of view. By stating outright "That you refuse to believe that all primary source material is gospel" , you are placing yourself in a position that you are discrediting yourself. When it comes to documenting historical things, primary source material is the only possible way to document these things."
OK, I can see where you're coming from.....
But one has to have a certain detatchment from primary sources as well!
Taking things at face value just because they are primary source, can become rather confusing!
Just for example, I know the soldiers at the time of Christ weren't wearing milanese gothic plate.
But looking at paintings it sure seems they were......
(yeah, I know, kinda bad analogy, but get what I'm saying?)
How about when you have two primary sources that contradict one another?
Just because they are both primary sources doesn't mean that both are right.
The trouble with primary sources is that, in many cases, they have been embellished by the authors, much as hollywood does today.
This is NOT to say they aren't valuable, in fact they very much are!
But I don't take them all as gospel either.
Alot of times they omit very important details.
Take period woodcuts about the Spanish conquest in the New World.
You won't see a Spaniard in any of them covered in mosquito bites, scratching sand fleas, etc......
But, from personal experience, living in Florida (in 2002 with modern pesticides and mosquito control it can be bad, 500 years ago? I shudder at the thought of it...), I can ASSURE you they dealt with that every day.
It must have been maddening!
Accounts from the time seldom mention the sheer misery these poor bastards must have faced.(and the guys in the woodcuts look pretty clean and fresh too, clothes look pretty good, not an easy feat in 1500's Florida!)
But you really wouldn't know that from looking at primary source material from that period.
Am I making any sense here?
VvS