that seems very unlikely given the varied nature of what we call 'historical sources'. Those styling themselves as 'Histories' e.g. Polybius or Livy I would say yes. However, the self proclaimed mission statement of biographers such as Suetonius or the anonymous author of SHA mean that we need to judge each on its internal merit. As for the performing arts, in many cases such as Athenian tragedy and comedy, the answer will depend on how intellectual one thinks the mass audiences were. Other sources seem about as intellectual as their modern equivalents, e.g. Plautus is about on a par with Frankie Howerd's Up Pompeii and only seems intellectual because its in Latin.

Many historical sources contain witting and unwitting testimony. Sometimes it’s not what they say but rather what they don’t say, or automatically assume, that makes them Interesting

sometimes historical resource isn’t about giving answers but learning to ask pertinent questions of the sources

Zubeer, by definition everything written at a certain time period is a historical source since it allows commentary on the mores of a section of the community/society. To be intellectual though it should contain the character of learned debate and enquiry just as we would characterise modern writings. The writings in tabloid newspapers may be more useful to reconstruct society than are the more intellectual works. Both historically and now most works fail on this criterion since they are not intended to have any true educational character.

It might, however, be worth asking whether different cultures can have a different definition of intellectual since my definition is very Western/Socratic Athenian. This would rule out religious commentaries which is probably unfair since many of these in all faiths contain a sophisticated level of intellectual argument.

They don't have to. It is the duty of an academic historian to elevate "ordinary facts" contained in his regular sources to intellectual or historical facts, having been rigorously analysed with the aid of his/her historical research methodology. Having the raw data is good enough as a starting point. The rest depends on the historians' competence in the deployment of raw data for historical analysis.

I believe that most historical sources bear the intellectual character that had a role in the emergence of the event and since the intellectual difference sometimes gives negative results and sometimes positive to the intensity of the situation on which the event is based

Yes, it carries an intellectual character or is influenced by historical events or other methods such as sources and references or a historical figure that is influential in thought

Yes, it carries an intellectual character

How many the number of islamic dead in the battle of khaibar?

Not all historical sources are of an intellectual nature, but some of them are political and religious

ليس بالضرورة