As an archivist, primary sources to me are original documents but I can
appreciate than an oral recording could be a primary source. Tricky!
A.E.Milton-Worssell wrote:
> Dear Frank,
>
> Great to see you've got on the mailing list! This is not an easy one,
> because we are dealing with 'oral history'. First, if the person
> witnessed the event and was part of it the reportage is primary, but
> of course you would have to take into account memory, embroidery, and
> probably bias. In oral history terms it is always best to get the
> event described by lots of different people - to find the things that
> seem to be common. However, if his reporting is second - hand it has
> to be a secondary source.
>
> Anne Milton-Worssell
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From: * From: Local-History list
> [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]* On Behalf Of* Frank
> Clement-Lorford
> *Sent: * 30 January 2005 00:48
> *To: * [log in to unmask]
> *Subject: * Primary source.
>
> Is a person telling a conference about an event that happened to
> them forty years ago a primary source or secondary, or both?
>
>
> Frank Lorford
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> "The happiest times of humanity are the blank pages in the book
> of history." Leopold Von Ranke 1795-1886
>
|