User login
Navigation
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 2 guests online.
Photograph: Primary or Secondary?
April 8, 2009 - 3:33pm
Would a photograph of something like the Lindisfarne Gospels posted on the British Library website be considered a primary or secondary source in relation to the design and layout of the pages?
April 10, 2009 - 11:55am
#2
Thank you for clarifying.
If
Thank you for clarifying.
If a photograph was not considered a primary source, that particular source would no longer be available, since they have permanently closed the book. The photos are the only way anyone will be able to see the inside pages anymore.
April 16, 2009 - 12:45pm
#3
From my
From my never-submitted-documentation POV, it would seem like a photograph is a secondary source (there is loss of information between the real thing and the photograph, such as brust strokes, true color, and fine detail). It also seems like insisting on primary sources is kinda silly given the nature of the SCA and its participants. Are there "primary source only" advocates out there?
The Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc. (SCA), is an international, non-profit (501(3)(c)), educational
organization designed as a hands-on, learn-by-doing model to research and re-create European life prior
to 1600.
Legal | Information for Site Owners | Contact the Webmaster
For purposes of SCA documentation, it would be primary - no one expects people to go jetting off to look at the Lindisfarne gospels *directly* (though if we had the budget, I bet any of us would...).
A secondary source, in this case, would be an article *describing* the Lindisfarne Gospels.
Guenièvre
Baronne de Windmasters Hill
Ne Rien de Moitie