Question

wwhat are the two categories of literary sources of history

Answer 1

 Literature can tell the student of history a lot about social attitudes and cultural norms, fashion, architecture, diet, you name it. This remains true whether or not the work of literature in question accurately recounts specific events. For example, Homer’s Iliad was based on an earlier oral tradition, though whether that tradition commemorated a single conflict which came to be known as the Trojan war or a series of Bronze-age conflicts, is an open question. Still, though written centuries after the conflict(s) there was enough information in the Iliad for Heinrich Schliemann to use the work of literature to find the remains of the actual Troy (though he mis-identified which layer of his excavation could claim the honor).

Another example is the ancient Egyptian story of Sinuhe. Generally regarded as a work of fiction by most Egyptologists, it still sheds light on the beliefs and customs of the ancient culture. Then there are, in no particular order; the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Descent of Ishtar, the Aeneid, the Volsunga Saga, the Mabinogion, the Morte d’Arthur, the tale of Roland, Parzival…the list is unending. And that’s just Western culture. Throw in religious texts (for example, there is an entire field of study devoted to Biblical archeology, before we even get to the historicity of events in the Koran and other religious texts), books about history written by ancient historians (like Herodotus, Thucydides, Josephus) or Medieval historians (Geoffrey of Monmouth, Saint Bede) then start looking at more recent scholars and outside Western culture…yeah, lots of works, tons of info, I could never list it all. Generally, legends contain some kernel of historical truth buried inside the fantasy.

Now, consider another example: watch one film from every decade starting with the silent films of the 1920s, and ending with something that just came out this year. Note the difference in fashion, speech, social and moral norms, the position of women in society, the way children are viewed, attitudes toward God and religion. Or, compare the works of 19th-century science fiction writer Jules Verne with those of popular science fiction writer Robert Heinlein in the fifties and sixties, and again with some of the works being produced today.

So much for works of literature.

Now, if we are simply talking written sources, that’s another issue. Ancient kings liked to brag, and as George Bernard Shaw reminds us in The Devil’s Disciple: “History…will tell lies, as usual.” So, an Egyptologist might read, on the walls of a pharaoh’s tomb, the story of a great battle in which Pharaoh destroyed his enemies; but physical remains—along with tablets and papyri of military dispatches, or court records, or personal letters, or other contemporary documents which might survive—may show that the battle was lost and Pharaoh only kept his throne after paying a huge ransom.

Historians love primary sources, such as letters and journals, dispatches, legal documents, inscribed monuments, and so forth that were written at the time of the era they are studying. Again, though, even these documents have to be interpreted in context.

So, it is not the case that there is a subset of literary works that are, definitively, the sources of historical knowledge. For that matter, literature is a long way from being the only source of historical knowledge. Archeologists learn a lot from examining human remains, from excavating ancient midden heaps, uncovering ruined cities, piecing together broken pot shards, studying ancient works of art. Heck, I’m not even touching on how other sciences, like DNA sampling or sonograms or aerial photography, can contribute to our understanding of history. New histories are published all the time, as new discoveries up-end old theories.

And that is the very short answer. Hope it helps

Answer 2

primary and secondary are the two source of history