EvilSatanArseRapist
loving and wholesome actually
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2025
- Posts
- 1,216
- Reputation
- 1,446
Basically he asked for examples for sources. I said documents, artefacts, this and that and the southpoles inland ice and the air bubbles / sediments within.
He said that isn't a source and has nothing to with history, much rather with biology?? No idea why that would be biology.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A historical source encompasses "every kind of evidence that human beings have left of their past activities — the written word and spoken word, the shape of the landscape and the material artefact, the fine arts as well as photography and film."[1]
While the range of potential historical sources has expanded to include many non-documentary sources, nevertheless "the study of history has nearly always been based squarely on what the historian can read in documents or hear from informants".[2]
Being able to analyze the atmosphere of the last 800.000 years, including all recent human history, which includes evidence that humans have left behind, like fluctuations in greenhouse gasses caused by humans or other pollutants and particles in the air sound like it fits this definition.
It also fits another definition, that of Paul Kirn:
According to him sources are „all texts, objects or facts from which knowledge of the past can be gained”.
By this definition it is definetly a source as the air bubbles in the ice are literally research samples frozen in time for us to drill out and analyze and from which knowledge about the past can surely be gained.
Tell me your opinions abt this.
TLDR: Are air bubbles in the ice of the southpole a historical source?
He said that isn't a source and has nothing to with history, much rather with biology?? No idea why that would be biology.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A historical source encompasses "every kind of evidence that human beings have left of their past activities — the written word and spoken word, the shape of the landscape and the material artefact, the fine arts as well as photography and film."[1]
While the range of potential historical sources has expanded to include many non-documentary sources, nevertheless "the study of history has nearly always been based squarely on what the historian can read in documents or hear from informants".[2]
Being able to analyze the atmosphere of the last 800.000 years, including all recent human history, which includes evidence that humans have left behind, like fluctuations in greenhouse gasses caused by humans or other pollutants and particles in the air sound like it fits this definition.
It also fits another definition, that of Paul Kirn:
According to him sources are „all texts, objects or facts from which knowledge of the past can be gained”.
By this definition it is definetly a source as the air bubbles in the ice are literally research samples frozen in time for us to drill out and analyze and from which knowledge about the past can surely be gained.
Tell me your opinions abt this.
TLDR: Are air bubbles in the ice of the southpole a historical source?
