using the strictest guidlines for the validity of sources, what is there available to research?
* physical artifacts: archeological digs, surveys and independant study. actual weapons, evidence of battle, or training equipment, to name a few.
* 1st hand writings w/independant non-vested interest translation. works written by the MAist his/her self.
* 2nd hand accounts/observations (ship logs and travel journals of visitors for instance).
* Historical context...does all the supporting evidence coincide with prior historical findings for that time period and place?
* verbal history: useful to find out about their and previous generation but unreliable beyond that since a person can only recall with certainty what they personally witnessed.
* Folklore: Handed-down stories can tell us a great deal about the society who creating them. Folklore is usually at least partially based on fact, it's often a place to start when nothing else presents itself.
so, when authors present 'theories' ...or as people call them: "theoroids" You should look for solid and traceable sources.
Old tactics that seem to be making a come back even stronger recently is in citing sources with intent to deceive. Often we read a cited fact, and since it was cited, we don't question it...especially if it comes from a rare collection.
ways of source misuse:
1. Referencing a ficticious/non-existant source.
2. Falsifying the source's conclusion or taking out of context it's reference.
3. Translation coercion. (translating in a way that better suits your own conclusions).
with those three tricks, anyone could 'prove' their own theoroids for whatever gain.
sources are everything when someone presents a theory. anyone else know of tricks of the 'research' trade to sell books and material?
I mean, the research is only as good as it's sources, translation credability and intellectual connections to make a larger picture theory. take away any one of those plugs, and you end up with a burning case of theoroids.