primary sources and ancient history

[FemmeFatale]

I have very little experience working with primary sources.  My BA was in Ancient Studies, where the differences between written records and other materials weren't really emphasized.  The program I'm in is more focused on modern history, and I don't really feel like I have a professor I can turn to for help.  I'm considering dropping the program altogether, because I feel like a fish out of water, but that's a discussion for another time.  

 

A topic I'm looking at in one of my classes is how what we believe to be true of writing during Bronze Age Greece fits into ideas of writing and what it means for civilization.  I have to write a proposal that has five main sections: the thesis/abstract, primary sources, secondary sources, historiography, and methodology.  I have a ton of secondary sources for fleshing out the historiography, but I'm really struggling with the concept of a primary source for this particular topic.  Am I limited to just the tablets they have found from that period, as well as the writing samples from any other period I choose to look at?  Do books and journal articles written about writing during that period count as well, since I'm looking at the overall theory?

[dr. t]

I have very little experience working with primary sources.  My BA was in Ancient Studies, where the differences between written records and other materials weren't really emphasized.  The program I'm in is more focused on modern history,

I admit, I don't understand what you're saying here.

 

A topic I'm looking at in one of my classes is how what we believe to be true of writing during Bronze Age Greece fits into ideas of writing and what it means for civilization.  I have to write a proposal that has five main sections: the thesis/abstract, primary sources, secondary sources, historiography, and methodology.  I have a ton of secondary sources for fleshing out the historiography, but I'm really struggling with the concept of a primary source for this particular topic.  Am I limited to just the tablets they have found from that period, as well as the writing samples from any other period I choose to look at?  

 

Things written in Greek during the Bronze Age are what counts as primary sources.

 

Do books and journal articles written about writing during that period count as well, since I'm looking at the overall theory?

No.

 

No offense to you, but it doesn't sound like your BA prepped you very well here. Is it at least an MA program?

[jamc8383]

A topic I'm looking at in one of my classes is how what we believe to be true of writing during Bronze Age Greece fits into ideas of writing and what it means for civilization.  I have to write a proposal that has five main sections: the thesis/abstract, primary sources, secondary sources, historiography, and methodology.  I have a ton of secondary sources for fleshing out the historiography, but I'm really struggling with the concept of a primary source for this particular topic.  Am I limited to just the tablets they have found from that period, as well as the writing samples from any other period I choose to look at?  Do books and journal articles written about writing during that period count as well, since I'm looking at the overall theory?

 

I confess, I am unclear on the thrust of your project.  That being said, I'm inclined to direct you here: http://www.princeton.edu/~refdesk/primary2.html.  Hope that helps.

[poliscar]

This becomes sort of murky because of your topic. If you're tracing a genealogy of the influence of Bronze Age writing on concepts of civilization/writing, then I would say it is entirely fair to use sources from a range of periods as primary texts. Say, for example, you find a Medieval source on writing—I would absolutely count that as a primary source. Also anything else from the period, be it vase painting or other textual sources, is fair game as a primary source. 

 

Really though, I think that the division between primary/secondary texts isn't always that helpful. I have had cases where I have used sources as both primary and as secondary sources. For example, you could read a 19th century text that addresses Bronze Age writing as a secondary source (for its use of older documents), as well as a primary source (for new historiographic conclusions / as a representation of 19th century conceptions of writing). In the end, it really comes down to how you intend to read or contextualize the source. 

[poliscar]

And the primary/secondary source division, for what it's worth, is a fairly recent distinction that comes out of the Rankean tradition. Not to discount the separation entirely, but know that it comes from an empiricist tradition, and that there's space to move within it now. 

[dr. t]

And the primary/secondary source division, for what it's worth, is a fairly recent distinction that comes out of the Rankean tradition. Not to discount the separation entirely, but know that it comes from an empiricist tradition, and that there's space to move within it now. 

 

It's also entirely defined by the framing of the question. 

[FemmeFatale]

Well to be frank, it's a topic that was thrust upon me.  My original idea was deemed impossible,and this is the closest my professor could get to something "historical" that had anything to do with my original thesis (which she said was more archaeological in nature).  Due to time constraints, I don't have much of a choice in the matter.  So yeah, it confused me too.

I spoke to my professor again, and she helped clarify my topic.   My proposal is going to be on how the decipherment of Linear B changed (or didn't change) historians' ideas of what writing means when describing a culture as civilized.  So I'm guessing that now, my primary sources would be the writings of historians in that time period??

 

And no offense taken. It is an MA program. My BA was a self-designed major and very interdisciplinary, and classes tended to blend history, religious studies, archaeology, etc.  Most of the classes I took were not, in fact, history classes.  I'm thinking I may have to switch to a Classics or Ancient History program.  I'm just not well-versed in telling the difference between a question that can be answered historically, and a question that cannot.  

[Hip2BSquare]

And the primary/secondary source division, for what it's worth, is a fairly recent distinction that comes out of the Rankean tradition. Not to discount the separation entirely, but know that it comes from an empiricist tradition, and that there's space to move within it now. 

 

 

Program:Art History/Literature

[dr. t]

I spoke to my professor again, and she helped clarify my topic.   My proposal is going to be on how the decipherment of Linear B changed (or didn't change) historians' ideas of what writing means when describing a culture as civilized.  So I'm guessing that now, my primary sources would be the writings of historians in that time period??

 

And no offense taken. It is an MA program. My BA was a self-designed major and very interdisciplinary, and classes tended to blend history, religious studies, archaeology, etc.  Most of the classes I took were not, in fact, history classes.  I'm thinking I may have to switch to a Classics or Ancient History program.  I'm just not well-versed in telling the difference between a question that can be answered historically, and a question that cannot.  

 

Ok, if you're undertaking a historiographical analysis, then yes, what would usually be considered "secondary" literature is, in this case, primary, but I would confirm that with the person doing the grading.

 

Were I you, since you said you're having problems with the program, I would have a sit down talk with your professor or your adviser which would basically say what you've just said here: My undergraduate work has left some substantial gaps that this course has revealed, can you help me? 

[poliscar]

 

Program:Art History/Literature

 

Should I throw Intellectual/Cultural History in there to satisfy you? Glad you created an account to post that.

[Henry Hudson]

FemmeFatale, I could not agree more with telkanuru. 

 

There really seems to be a major disconnect between your undergrad experience and the program you are in, that there is more amiss than your original query. The sum of all your input suggests that you are approaching this disconnect on a one-symptom-at-a-time basis rather than addressing the root problem. Apologizes if I have read too much into it.

 

Given the time limitations you mentioned,  you and your advisor really need to get this sorted ASAP, to complete the program and your project. Be honest about where you are at, be ready for an uncomfortable, blunt truth, and be prepared that it may even be quite discouraging... but you made it this far, so you do have the tools to re-calibrate and get going again. Once you choke down that bitter pill, the way forward will be clearer and will be feasible. From my own experience on other matters, avoidance of the problem can be worse than the actual solution.

[CageFree]

I work on late 20th century history. What I'm working on requires me to look at journals and other academic writings as primary sources because I'm analyzing a social movement's ideas as they developed in academic circles... which I guess falls under intellectual/cultural history.

 

19th century writings about Linear B are secondary sources, unless one is trying to understand 19th century ideas about Linear B... in which case they become primary. 

 

If the OP is interested in looking at how the discovery of Linear B influenced historical thinking, then I would say it's intellectual history. Historiography would be examining how historians have dealt with the topic over a period of time... so the focus is on their treatment of a subject rather than how that subject changed their thinking. The distinction is, IMO, in the approach.

 

The thing is, at that point the project is no longer an ancient history project but a 19th century intellectual history that would also require a basic understanding of 19th century academia and intellectual currents. Some topics simply don't lend themselves to historical treatment because of a lack of contemporary written sources... Linear B falls under anthro/archaeo more than history, IMO.

Edited December 18, 2013 by CageFree