25 March 2014
We all know the old mantra from the original evidence-analysis tree: sources can be classed as originals or derivatives, information is either primary or secondary, and evidence is either direct or indirect.
Where in this framework do authored works fit in—say, a regimental work by a U.S. Army historian? Authors, by definition, create new and original works. Authors who write history base their "new and original works" on records, do they not?
If we accept this premise, does it mean that an "authored work," because it is a "new and original work" can be classed as an original source that carries evidentiary weight equal to original records?