What is a secondary source?
Historians study past events, trends, lives, developments, etc. in order to identify change over time and to propose explanations as to what caused these changes and what impact they had. They usually write their findings in a narrative form meaning that they tell a story. They establish a starting point and an end. Within their narrative, they embed an argument about the time and place they study and they provide evidence to support it. Usually, this evidence very much derives from their examination of primary sources. Often, historians also use evidence from other secondary sources to justify their arguments.
Carefully read the essay below from James C. Scott’s Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States. Preview the document Answer each question as fully as possible. Each part should be at least one complete paragraph that begins with a clear topic sentence that summaries the argument you will make in that paragraph.
Dr. Scott is an anthropologist by training, but he is crafting a narrative that includes an argument about the past while providing evidence to support it. As an anthropologist, he practices historical thinking skills.
Part I: Please copy and paste what you think is his thesis statement for the argument is.
Part II: Your second task is to summarize his argument and then describe the evidence that he uses to support it. How does he propose we reconceive our view of the past? Be sure to describe the time and place he examines. Does he draw on work that other historians regarding his subject matter?
Part III: Develop a sound and appropriate historical question that his argument answers. Try to be as precise as possible. Think about what conclusions you can draw about the time and place he examines based on his argument, and what conclusions you cannot assume based on his argument and the evidence presented. If you want, propose several questions.
Part IV: What do you think about his use of evidence? Does it support his argument fully? Is there enough evidence for him to reach his conclusions? What other evidence might he gather to support his argument?
Part V: What are the strengths and weaknesses of Scott's essay? Who should read it? How is his evidence perhaps a bit different from the traditional historical narrative?
Part VI: What do you think his goal was in writing the article?