0
What sources of historical evidence would most help the historian form a historical argument?
Wiki User
∙ 8y agoWant this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Why is it important for a historian to use primary sources?
Primary sources that are thoughtfully selected can help to bring history and cultures to life for students. Most basically, they are defined as the direct evidence of a time and place that you are studying - any material (documents, objects, etc.) that was produced by eyewitnesses to or participants in an event or historical moment under investigation. Primary sources are interesting to read for their own sake: they give us first hand, you-are-there insights into the past. They are also the most important tools an historian has for developing an understanding of an event. Primary sources serve as the evidence an historian uses in developing an interpretation and in building an argument to support that interpretation. You will be using primary sources not only to help you better understand what went on, but also as evidence as you answer questions and develop arguments about the past. Primary Sources do not speak for themselves, they have to be interpreted. That is, we can't always immediately understand what a primary source means, especially if it is from a culture significantly different from our own. It is therefore necessary to try to understand what it means and to figure out what the source can tell us about the past.
How do you know that the events of the eruption in Pompeii took place?
there's plenty of archaelogical evidence as well as written historical sources.
What are the classification of historical sources?
Primary sources and secondary sources
What is historical sources?
A historical source can be anything. A letter, diary, painting, newspaper, anything.
Which of these interpret and analyze historical documents?
Secondary sources
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.
Which is necessary to validate a claim about an event in history?
Corroborated sources of historical evidence. (APEX) !/
How do historian's synthesize evidence to draw conclusions?
They determine how multiple sources differ.
What is a person who studies and writes about the past?
A person who studies and writes about the past is called a historian. Historians analyze and interpret historical events, sources, and evidence to understand and construct narratives about the past.
What factors can change a historical interpretation?
Evidence, secondary sources, and forgery. :)
Which best explains how a historian synthesized evidence to reach a conclusion?
The historian makes comparisons among multiple primary and secondary sources.
Which best explains how a historian synthesizes evidence to reach a conclusion?
The historian makes comparisons among multiple primary and secondary sources.
Which best explains how a historian synthesize evidence to reach a conclusion?
The historian makes comparisons among multiple primary and secondary sources.
What are the non-christian sources of written information about Jesus?
The Jewish historian Josephus is one of the major sources of factual, historical information about Jesus.
How should historians determine which argument is superior if two arguments about an historical event contradict each other?
Historians should assess the evidence supporting each argument, consider the credibility of the sources, and evaluate the context in which the arguments were made. They may also look for consensus among other historians or seek additional evidence to support one argument over the other. Ultimately, the argument that is best supported by a preponderance of evidence and critical analysis is considered superior.
What is an argument that is supported by research and strong evidence is called?
An argument that is supported by research and strong evidence is typically referred to as a well-founded argument. This type of argument relies on credible sources, data, and logical reasoning to bolster its claims and conclusions.
What factors change a historical interpretation?
Evidence, secondary sources, and forgery. :)
