It
appears to me that we are running into problems confusing “primary” sources and
“originals.” Anything of a period that is related to a particular subject is a
primary source. Wills, deeds, parish records—any documentation of the time is a
primary record. A scanned copy of any of these records would also be “primary”
record although it would not be an original record (there is in law a concept
of “true copy”). Obviously some questions cannot be engaged when using copies.
For example, in medieval manuscript study paper and ink composition and
watermarks are significant elements in dating the manuscript—that, kind of
analysis cannot be done on a web copy. But this does not preclude the web copy
from being considered as a “primary” source for questions that are related to
content.
Ergo;
transcripts most often are “primary” sources and so are translations, although
in both cases that fact must be stated in citation so that it is obvious to the
receiver of the information that some errors could have crept in, in this
version of a primary record. A “primary” records does not have to be an
original to be “primary.”
The
difference between “primary” and “secondary”, as I understand I, is that the
primary record is “it” while the secondary record is “about it”
(interpretation). A copy of “it”
is still “it” however defective—it is not an interpretation.
nburlakoff
-----Original
Message-----
From: Museum discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
Behalf Of Barbara O'Brien
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003
9:43 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Primary sources from
web-sites
Kate,
Personally I would consider the image of the document a primary source if it is
the information contained in that document that is important. A
translation of that document would be a secondary source because information in
the document has been filtered and once removed from the original. If,
however, the researcher is looking beyond the contents of a document to the
physical form then the image is secondary. Footnote would contain would
contain URL and documents physical location with further note that Web image
was used.
Just my thoughts
.At 12:40 PM 09/10/2003, you wrote:
This is a question my education
coordinator asked that I pose to the group:
With more and more documents/photographs/images of objects from a museum
collection posted to the web, students have begun to cite them as primary
sources in their research. For example, a student may use a letter
written
by an historic person and found on a web-site - an image of the letter is
there as well as a full transcription. Since it is only a digital copy
and
not the original, would it still be considered a primary source? What if
only a transcription was provided, and not the image? If you have
some
insight into this, or just a good opinion, please respond to Brian Banton at
[log in to unmask] Thanks!
Kate Higgins
Curator
Pejepscot Historical Society
159 Park Row
Brunswick, ME 04011
207-729-6606
207-729-6012 (fax)
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/
. You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a
one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the
message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to
[log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read
"Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
Archivist
McDaniel College
(410) 857-2793
[log in to unmask]