Primary sources provide first-hand testimony or direct
evidence concerning a topic under investigation. They are created by witnesses
or recorders who experienced the events of conditions being documented. Primary
sources are original materials and may be artefacts, documents or other sources
of information created at the time under study.
They are characterised by their content, regardless of whether they are
available in original format, in microfilm, in digital format or in published
format.
 |
| Late Roman and "Arthurian" artefacts |
It is through the primary sources that the past
indisputably imposes its reality on the historian. That this imposition is
basic in any understanding of the past is clear from the rules that documents
should not be altered, or that any material damaging to a historian's argument
or purpose should not be left out or suppressed. These rules mean that the
sources or the texts of the past have an integrity and that they do indeed
'speak for themselves', and that they are necessary constraints through which
past reality imposes itself on the historian. [E. Sreedharan (2004) A textbook of Historiography, 500 B.C. to
A.D. 2000 Orient Longman, p.302] [try Google Books for this]
 |
| Celtic myth and Arthurian artefact |
However, there are considerable challenges in the use
of primary sources. They are usually fragmentary and most usually survive
without their original context. They are often ambiguous and notoriously
difficult to interpret. Eyewitnesses may misunderstand events or distort their
reports either deliberately or unconsciously. These effects often increase over
time as others uses these sources and add further distorting filters. It is
usually helpful to interrogate the source and one of the most common methods
uses the following “W” questions : Who, What, When, Where and Why.
 |
| Gildas instructing a pupil |
Analyses of the works of Gildas, Nennius and Bede have been used equally to debunk and support the historicity of Arthur.
The question to answer is this:
What historical question can you answer using the excerpts of Gildas, Nennius and Bede found in the unit reader?
The primary sources provided in the readings by Gildas, Nennius and Bede are brief but they do for the most part provide some useful information. While somewhat vague in particular areas, the texts do provide us with a possible answer to several historical questions. Nennius and Bede both make reference to Arthur in their works and while this is not enough to fully justify the existence of King Arthur and his legend, we can say with some certainty that there was an individual in Britain who may have led the British in battle against the Saxons known as Arthur. The other historical questions that may be possible to answer with the help of these primary sources are the questions surrounding the Britons early history; dates and names of battles and who were involved are mentioned by both Nennius and Bede and allow us to form a rough idea of the history/key events of the time that helped forge the future of the region.
ReplyDeleteThis is a fine response Tom. Can you now reframe your response and articulate it as a series of questions?
DeleteThe questions that could possibly be answered by using the excerpts of Gildas, Nennius and Bede may include:
Delete- What, when and where were some of the key battles fought by Britons in the 5th century?
- Who led the Britons against their enemies and who were they fighting?
- Ignoring any 'mythical or legendary qualities', was there a man known as Arthur in 5th century Briton?
Firstly, both Nennius and Bede reference Arthur as a war-leader fighting battles against the Saxon. Obviously the existence of Arthur is hazy, but i found it interesting that Nennius has also introduced a another (mythic) character named Hengist, a 5th century Anglo-Saxon hero who also appears in the tale of Beowulf. So, is Nennuis rather discussing actual heroes and events such as the Battle of Badon that fit into the same timeframe of Arthur, possibly adding some clarity to the legend? Nessius’s History of Britain, in my mind, gives SOME clarity to the Arthur stories. However, i don't believe that he performed the two miracles. In Bede's history, both Arthur and Hengist are mentioned alongside the Battle of Badon, so does this give light to the stories surrounding Arthur as a MAN, meaning a influential man performed acts of valor and heroism, which evolved like most influential figures (Alexander the Great), into a immortal symbol of perfection. So, form these Primary sources i think it is highly possible that historically, Arthur did exist.
ReplyDeleteJust some thoughts :) Mark
Thanks Mark. This is a nice piece of reflective writing but what is one historical question which these excerpts answer?
DeleteRemember to keep in mind that there is no contemporary source that names Arthur: all sources that name Arthur are 'collated' much later, some 400 years later in the earliest cases. This is an argument that needs to be acknowledged, but can never really be addressed, which is why it can be a 'self-defeating' argument in my opinion: historians need to work with what they have.
ReplyDelete