Question

historians and archaeologists create secondary sources
when historians and archaeologists (or students of history like you) examine primary - source evidence to create a historical narrative, they are creating a new record or account of an event or issue. this new account is a secondary source.
a secondary source that describes historical events or issues is an interpretation of history. the account is not based on first - hand experience. instead, it reflects interpretations made by the historian, archaeologist or other person who created the source.
you can evaluate a secondary source to be sure the person who created it met the standards that you have learned are important for creating an accurate historical narrative. this is a good practice whether the historical account was written by an historian, archaeologist, or even yourself.
you can evaluate interpretations of history to be sure these standards have been met:

• use multiple primary sources to get a variety of perspectives.
• avoid the influence of today’s norms and values when interpreting the past.
• describe past events from the perspectives of people alive at the time.

critical thinking
read the text and answer the questions.
han is a historian. he is creating a historical narrative about life in ohio during the 1960s. han bought a journal written during the 1960s for $2 in an antique store in columbus. he would like to use the journal as a source for his historical narrative. there is no last name or address in the journal for han to use to identify who the journal belonged to.

1. do you think the journal is a good source for han to use? why or why not?
2. how might han determine the perspective of the person who wrote the journal?
3. what strategies should han use to create an accurate interpretation of what he reads in the journal?
4. why should han use more sources than just the journal to create a historical narrative?

Explanation:

1. The journal is a good source as it is a primary - source from the 1960s, providing firsthand accounts of life in Ohio during that time. However, the lack of author identification may limit the ability to fully understand the context and biases of the writer.
2. Han can analyze the language, topics discussed, and any personal opinions or attitudes expressed in the journal to determine the writer's perspective. He can also look for clues about the writer's social status, gender, or other demographic factors.
3. Han should cross - reference the information in the journal with other primary and secondary sources. He should also be aware of the historical context, including social, political, and economic factors of the 1960s in Ohio. Additionally, he should consider the potential biases of the writer.
4. Using only one source may lead to a one - sided or inaccurate historical narrative. Multiple sources can provide a more comprehensive view, help to verify information, and account for different perspectives and biases.

Answer:

1. It can be a good source as it is a primary source from the time period. But the lack of author identification is a limitation.
2. Analyze language, topics, opinions, and look for demographic clues.
3. Cross - reference with other sources, consider historical context, and be aware of writer's biases.
4. To get a comprehensive view, verify information, and account for different perspectives and biases.