Jim, I'm well aware that it is difficult, sometimes impossible, to identify the "who". The inability to identify the "who" weakens the source and questions its reliability as a source for History.

That's not to say it's worthless, just less reliable.

The thread is "How reliable is Folk History?", is it not?


David, fair cop, I was using hyperbole to establish a point but do you really believe that repressive regimes haven't edited the contents of their national libraries?

Egyptian Pharoahs, Roman Emperors, Mediaeval Kings, and fascist dictators have all 'edited' the national records that may have questioned their legitimacy.

A resource such as the Bodleian is invalauable but it exists within a realtively free western democracy. The UK may not always be such a State.

How many modern photographs (one of tomorrow's primary sources for a history of today) can we really trust?

The Great Russian Encyclopaedia has corrected many of the flaws of the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia but would you trust it more ot less than Britannica or Wikipedia?

I think the way you answer that question depends, essentially, on the "who".

Cheers,
Harry