Much of these charts were written in the Dresden Codex, a document smuggled out of Central America at a time when the Spanish were destroying Mayan documents, regarding them as pagan.
they use the evidence from the past that will tell them what exactly happened, or they ask people who were at that certain place and time.
poo poo wee wee testicle balls boobs
No they don't because some historians believe that the universe was created by the big bang and others by god. Or the dinosaurs some historians think they were killed by a meteor. They don't agree about everything because there isn't enough evidence to prove something. And it is OK.
Historians rely on primary sources to reach conclusions. Gaps in history, where there is no written documentation of events may leave historians in a quandary. They must then rely on archaeological evidence, and secondary sources, if available. Historians must ask the following: Is the information reliable? What was the reputation of the writer at the time? Does the archaeological record, primary, or secondary sources disagree with previously published historiography concerning the person or event? How accurate is prior published historiography concerning the subject matter? New evidence can displace old theories regarding history, so historians must be ready to adjust their thesis to reflect this information. Historians must also recognize that myth may shroud the truth about history. "Lost Cause" mythology concerning the American Civil War is a good example of lies perpetuated as history that has been disproved by primary sources.
You aint always gonna get an answer my name is siri
The evidence might be unreliable because technology and other knowledge has advanced since that time, and their evidence might have been biased.
Technology and electronics will be one of the major pieces of evidence that future historians will study of our generation and culture.
It is the current working theory of the origin of the universe. It is the paradigm that Astronomy is based upon. But, new evidence is always being described. The theory itself might change as our knowledge grows.
The writings of contemporary historians.
i think, they will study what we did in life
The steps historians take include studying the lives of ppl in different times and places is the work of the historians. The most basic tool for this work is historical evidence. Historians collect the evidence, then use it to interpret events. Historians look first at a primary source, first hand information about ppl or events or a secondary source that is stated after the fact.
No they do not. what the court is trying to creative is the test of 'the reasonable man', the one who can come up with an answer not based on his advanced knowledge, but based on a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence at hand.
Historians look for evidence about the distant past in myths and legends because myths and legends tell what people believed and understood. Historians study by looking at journals, data, diaries etc., to learn information.
Evidence-based research is a method of scholarly inquiry that relies on empirical evidence to support conclusions and recommendations. Knowledge-based research, on the other hand, draws on existing knowledge and expertise in a particular field to generate new insights and theories. Both approaches are important for advancing understanding in various disciplines.
evaluate the evidence used to support it
Comparing and contrasting historical sources
There is some evidence that tornado frequency might be increasing but it is difficult to determine as with more advanced technology and greater knowledge of tornadoes we are now finding tornadoes that we would have previously missed.