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?
While the works of Gildas and Bede rather refer to the person named Ambrosius Aurelianus, the history of Nennius shows the first references to Arthur, however, the reader might find more of mythical associations relating to King Arthur. While one is unable to undoubtedly either debunk or support the historicity of Arthur, one might say that there was a leader, a gentleman of the royal race, under whom the Britons revived and by the help of God gained the victory against Saxons, Picts, and Scots.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, some literature suggests that Arthur can be a shortened version of Ambrosius Aurelianus, and therefore, Ambrosius Aurelianus to be the real Arthur. However, there is no a definite answer whether it was the same or a different person.
Maria Soloveva (22504079)
This is very perceptive Maria. Could you now have another think and come up with the historical question which these excerpts can answer?
ReplyDeleteThanks a lot, Carol.
DeleteThe works of Gildas, Bede, and Nennius can be helpful in answering certain questions.
1. What historical leader/character helped Britain to revive against the German invasion.
Subsequently,
2. What time can be perceived as the new era (the time of independence)for the Britons.
3. Can the battles against the Saxons, Picts, and Scots can be seen as the beginning of the new era for Britain. In other words, did the King Arthur 'created' Great Britain as people know it in the 21st century and was he the one who did it.
Maria Soloveva (22504079).
Great work Maria
DeleteAll three accounts support the notion of a civil war following the removal of Roman occupation. Relgion is seen as a key cause for this conflict with Differing ideals being created upon the divorce of the Roman influence from the Britons.
ReplyDeleteBede and Gildas both make heavy references to one Ambrosius Aurelianus adn while it may be speculated this is the Arthur of Ledgend, no real evidence seems to exist to support this. Nennius only mentions Arthur as a war leader, but one pertaining of strong Christian ideals as evidenced by the various miracles that take place, not only with him but also with his son and dog. Thus all of these pieces support a prominent non-royal war leader of the time who followed christianity.
The strong bias present within Gildas' work suggestes that many romans, or at least those with roman ideals stayed behind, as he goes so far to put forward that the British kings are unworthy of rememberence.
The occupation fo the Picts, Scots and Saxons can be seen as the lead up to the next millenium of fighting within the area, and part of the reason that so many countries lay claim to it. It also would have contributed to the outbreak of the civil war due to differing ideals being present with unity as a nation not really existing. It is suggested that this confilct unified the Britons against all their neighbours. The degree of unification is however staggered across the accounts.
Mordred while mentioned is in no way stated as related to Arthur, with his son being Amir, at least according to Nennius.
All three of these accounts as such support the notion that not only did the repeling of the Romans forge Britain but also the other countries and tribes within the region as the imence infighting segragated them into tribes with dimilar ideals protecting their food sources, this is most strongly asserted by Bede.
Lachlan
This is a very full and careful analysis Lachlan; thankyou. I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by the "repelling of the Romans" and would appreciate some clarification on that, though I agree with your general point which I think is that it was the evacuation of the Romans that allowed the unification of otherwise disparate tribes to occur. But to get to the point, can you go one step and address the request of the blog which is "What historical question can you answer using the excerpts of Gildas, Nennius and Bede?"
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"repelling of the Romans" was just the War waged by said ribes aginst the Romans, thus driving them back and fully concluding their golden age.
DeleteWas there a civil war after the roman incursion?
What were some contributing factors to this event?
Did this event lay the foundation for Europe as we know it?
Did Arthur originaly have mythological, historical or religioous significance and to what degree?
Can we be certain as to the existence of king arthur?
Was Mordred related to Arthur?
Did the civil war unify or segregate people, and to what degree?
What was the primary driving factor behind Arthur's death?
If Arthur existed was he indeed a king?
What types of historical bias can be seen through the different genres presented by these historians? As such, what were significant factors to the people of the time?
The readings although sometimes contradictory can together offer numerous insights
ReplyDelete1. What was Arthur's accomplishments
2. What differentiated him or made him unique in the context of his time
3. How was present day Great Britain influenced by the story of Arthur
4. Where did the magical or mythological elements of the story of Arthur originate
5. I don't really know how to formulate this into a question but it's interesting to note that much of the writing talks about Arthur being a representation of Christ and the Church and either says or implies that he was given special abilities or powers as his actions were the work of God
I found the readings this week to be interesting and thought provoking as to 'the truth' as it were. Although this will never be known, and we can only examine and assess the evidence. I found this weeks reading illustrated Arthur's accomplishments and perhaps his lesser know myths (ie. his dog paw story). The chronology of his battles was brief, and only really gave the location and perhaps, success of the battle.
ReplyDeleteI found this weeks readings perhaps helped in answering the historical questions of;
1. The numerous battles he fought.
2. Mordred was Arthur's son and perhaps where he was buried. (According to Nennius).
Jess.