Source Analysis

Question 1

What are the Key 3 things you need to analyse + consider when looking at the validity/convincing nature of a source?

Answer 1

• Provenance
• Content
• Tone

Question 2

What is the provenance of the source?

Answer 2

The provenance of a source includes;

• Who wrote it?
• Why did they write it (what was their agenda or purpose)
• Might there be any conscious or unconscious bias in how it was written?
• When was it written? At the time? Later?
• Is it an Eye-witness for first person account or Second-hand (ie is it a Historian who did lots of research + has benefit of hindsight or during the context of the period)

Question 3

What should you consider when judging weather the provenance of a source makes it more or less convincing/valid?

Answer 3

Analysis of the content of the source is important yes but also focus on the provenance + tone of each source + wether or not that makes the content within it more or less valid/reliable. Analysis of the provenance + tone ie via the language used, what its intended for all influence the tone and the tone makes it more or less valid.

Ie if a source is written by kennan (eg his long telegram)

• if its directed to truman a president, it’s going to be to the point, but very anti-comunist + with a tone of condemnation toward the ussr + likely exaggerate the terror + failures of coimunism
• however at the same time its avoid in that its not intended for publication or widespread knowledge its just for truman in order to grain understanding + knowledge so he’s not going to contain false intonation regardless of the more anti-comunist tone

One general thing to consider with provenance/validity - when you have sources (ie political speeches) what effect does the rhetorical/hyperbolic nature of such speeches have on how reliable/valid they are? If things are exaggerated for effect, does this automatically make them less valid, or can it tell us things about the climate in which they were written/spoken? How does this connect with your wider knowledge?

So the content may be accurate but the limitations of the source come from its provenance (american viewpoint) + as it influences the overall tone because its very condemning rather than providing information form impartially. Nevertheless though if the content overall is pretty historically accurate then the source can be largely valid + helpful for a historian.

Question 4

What should you consider when judging weather the tone of a source makes it more or less convincing/valid?

Answer 4

The content of a source may be accurate but the limitations of the source come from its provenance (american viewpoint) because that provenance influences the overall tone as its very condemning rather than providing information form impartially.

Nevertheless though if the content overall is pretty historically accurate then the source can be largely valid + helpful for a historian.

Question 5

What should you consider when judging weather the content of a source makes it more or less convincing/valid?

Answer 5

• What was included? What was left out? What might the reasons be for including or leaving things out?
• How well does it fit with my wider knowledge and understanding of the event/period/topic?
• Does it distort events to serve its own purpose?

If the content of a source is incorrect or perhaps left out a lot of the positives/negtaives and focuses on one sided perceptive as opposed to fair then this would influence the validity/convincing nature of the source.