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 excerpts of Gildas, Nennius and Bede affirm that a man existed (Ambrosius Aurelianus to some, King Arthur to others) and that he played a role in halting the raids by the Saxons, Picts and Scots. However, the extent to which this man alone ensured the victory, whether he acted as part of a collective between himself and the kings of Britain or if he was sanctioned by God, or indeed played a relatively minor role is unclear. Gildas, Nennius and Bede depict such differing versions (influenced by agendas of later centuries, rulers and religions) of the conflict, let alone the historical figure, that the excerpts succeed more certainly in posing questions rather than answers.
ReplyDeleteThis is very perceptive Emma. Could you rephrase this so that you can isolate the historical question which can be answered using the excerpts?
DeleteFrom the excerpts of Gildas, Nennius and Bede, we can conclude that historical narratives existed of Ambrosius Aurelianus/Arthur subsequent to his death (purpotedly in 537 AD according to the Annals of Wales, written in the tenth century). We can reasonably assume that these are not primary sources as the earliest author writes about a battle that occurred at the time of his birth and the latter too were written centuries after Arthur's death. Thus, we can reason that the excerpts of Gildas, Nennius and Bede only affirm the popular culture that surrounded the life of Arthur in the few centuries after his death - and we must certainly look upon them with some scepticism, especially with a view to the superhuman feats and heavy Christian tones surrounding Arthur's deeds (e.g. that Arthur sunglehandedly slayed 960 men in a single charge and that he killed his son, Anir, and buried him in a tomb - a cross between Jesus and Abraham?).
ReplyDeleteI can see that you have been researching around the topic - great work! Could you now have another think and come up with the historical question which these excerpts answer.
DeleteHaha a bit late to answer, but I guess the question I think these excerpts answer is 'what narratives existed in popular culture in the four centuries subsequent to Arthurs death?'.
DeleteIn order to come up with a question that these three primary sources can together answer, it is necessary to acknowledge what all three have in common. It is clear that each story discusses war between the Britons and the Saxons, of which the invading Saxons were often victorious. Each story also features “Mount Badon” or “Badon Hill,” a place which Ambrosius Aurelianus as described by Gildas and Bede, or Arthur as suggested by Nennius, engaged in his final battle and defeated the Saxons. An appropriate question therefore may be: “In the fifth and sixth centuries, which tribe/group most frequently invaded and waged war against Britain?” Another possible question may be: “When did these battles cease and where was this final battle.” Each story also largely attributes the victory against the Saxons to one man. Whilst Nennius offers a different name it is possible that all three writers are discussing the same man, of which questions such as “Who led the victorious battles between the Saxons and the Britons in the fifth and sixth centuries” may arise.
ReplyDeleteExcellent reasoning and some thought provoking questions.
DeleteAs has been said in previous comments, in order to isolate a question, we have to draw a conclusion based on the excerpts from Gildas, Nennius and Bede by extracting correlating information. What can be deduced is that whatever name he may have gone by; Ambrosius Aurelianus, Arthur the war-leader or King Arthur; it remains that the authors are all writing about the same individual. All three accounts discuss the battle between the Saxons and the Britons, under the leadership of the Arthur figure, who may or may not have slew nine hundred and sixty men, in a single charge, by his own sword.
ReplyDeleteBased on the information provided, irrespective of bias, agenda’s or elements of mythology or folk lore, we can answer that an Arthur figure did exist, that a battle was fought and won by the Britons, under the leadership of said figure.
Great work Lana; how about a question which these early sources can answer?
DeleteMy response was: Gildas, Nennius and Bede all have different views on the life and battles of Arthur are these accounts reliable? I thought this type of question would dwell into the importance of critical thinking in history. This is because it is important to not just look at source's face value but rather through a more critical overview.
ReplyDelete