0
Historical evidence refers to any physical or written proof that validates events or people from the past. This evidence can include artifacts, documents, inscriptions, or other tangible items that provide insight into historical events or cultures. It is crucial for historians and researchers to analyze historical evidence to construct accurate narratives of the past.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What sources of historical evidence would most help the historian form a historical argument to answer this question?
Primary sources such as written records, letters, official documents, and artifacts from the time period in question would be crucial for a historian to form a strong historical argument. Additionally, archaeological remains, oral histories, and other contemporary accounts would provide valuable evidence to support the argument. Comparing and analyzing different types of evidence can help to create a well-rounded and robust historical interpretation.
What are techniques historians use when synthesizing evidence?
Comparing and contrasting historical sources
What do historians have to do with the evidence they find?
Historians use the evidence they find to analyze and interpret the past, draw conclusions, and form historical narratives. They evaluate the reliability and significance of the evidence to construct well-grounded arguments about historical events and trends. Critical thinking and interpretation are essential skills historians utilize to make sense of the past based on the information available.
What do historians intend to do when they make a claim?
Historians intend to support their claims with evidence from historical sources, such as documents, artifacts, and other records. They aim to provide a well-reasoned interpretation of the past based on the available evidence. Their goal is to construct an accurate and reliable account of historical events and developments.
Why do historians look for evidence?
Historians look for evidence to support their understanding and interpretation of the past. Evidence helps validate their arguments, provide context, and support conclusions about historical events and figures. By examining various forms of evidence, historians can construct a more accurate and nuanced understanding of history.
Which is necessary to validate a claim about an event in history?
Corroborated sources of historical evidence. (APEX) !/
What is the historical evidance for the foundation of rome?
what is the historical evidence for the foundation of rome
What factors can change a historical interpretation?
Evidence, secondary sources, and forgery. :)
Marie Antoinette and her selfishness?
There is no historical evidence of that nature.
Which method separates modern historians from ancient Greek historians?
Basing historical accounts on reliable evidence
What does historical synthesis mean?
Historical synthesis is the process an historian engages in to transform evidence into a final historical account (O'Brien, 1935)
When did navel piercing start?
There is no direct evidence of historical navel piercing, although there is a great deal of historical evidence regarding the decoration of the navel, both for ritual and aesthetic purposes.
What was Socrates pet?
There is no historical evidence to suggest that Socrates had a pet.
Can you give me an example sentence with the word historical?
historical evidence suggests this theory. The war was Historical.
Which historical term describes the specific primary and secondary sources that historians use to support their claims?
Historical evidence.
Why did the croatan Indians kill the the colonists of the lost colony?
It isn’t sure they did. In fact, new historical evidence points to the possibility that they lived with them. They had a village down river from the colony and recent historical evidence has found English items in the village and evidence they were living with them.
If a biblical character was placed in a historical place at a historical time does it prove that the character is historical?
Only if the historical details are genuine. What usually happens with frauds is that they slip up in the setting in which they place people. They include details which do not belong in that particular historical setting or they include something which is out of place. Similarly, when there is no evidence of the existence of a particular person, this does not at all mean that a person or some detail is not historical. There are numerous examples where the Bible was thought to be in error historically where it has been verified. Thus 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'
