Tuesday, December 1, 2020

Weibull School - Not Universal

How do historians evaluate sources?

Answer requested by
Efrayim Bulka

Hans-Georg Lundahl
1:42 pm
none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University
Essentially, it is kind of subjective.

There are diverse schools of historians, and one very recent one is the 19th or even 20th C. emphasis on written only and primary only - from the Swedish Weibull family.

This is not a universal among historians and cannot be taken as “elementary” or “basics” except to the actuall Weibull school of history.

Is it true that historical sources that were not written should not be used in writing history? Why?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
just now
none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University
It is true that the Weibull school of history thinks they should not be used.

The rationale would be, an unwritten source could undergo changes.

Fine, it could, but a written source could include a fraud.

Obviously, once the written source is redacted later than the event, the stories can have changed since the first version - either via oral stories or via other stories or via deliberate changing of one’s sources.

While written sources from back when one is dealing with are a very precious thing, I think Weibullians are wrong to exclude all other types of source.

No comments: