The important role played by non-source-based knowledge in the historian's research procedure can be seen clearly in the light of what has been said in the preceding chapter. Yet its real role can be seen in full relief only when we reflect deeply on the various stages of that procedure and at the same time compare its role with that of source-based knowledge. On the other hand, a firm reservation must be made against construing this statement as a way of belittling the role of sources in historical research. Sources will always remain the greatest treasure of the historian, without which he simply could not be one. The point here is to put an end to treating sources and source-based knowledge as fetishes, an approach which is quite common among historians, but which is nothing else than a manifestation of the anti-integration attitude of scholars and a defence of the purely eruditional approach. The essential thing is, while not disregarding the fundamental (in a sense) importance of the sources, to realize that sources alone do not suffice, nor does historical erudition alone. We have to realize that the information extracted from the sources is more instructive if we pose more varied questions, and that requires vast knowledge.