0
What if true would suggest that the historian's document is a strong source of evidence for historical interpretation?
Wiki User
∙ 9y ago
Undoubtedly the historian's document is a positive and strong source of evidence for historical interpretation provided it is not affected by personal prejudices, selfish national interests or affiliations. History is seldom honest. Mostly it has been mis-interpreted and distorted because of certain vested interests - may be it be the history of Aryans, Greek, Roman or American History
Wiki User
∙ 9y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
In order to make a valid historical interpretation about an event historians must?
check primary and secondary sources related to the event - apex
What step must a historian take to evaluate historical evidence?
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.
Two arguments about a historical event contradict each other. How should historians determine which argument is superior?
Search for additional evidence to see which argument it supports.
What is a document examiner?
It is a person who analyzes written evidence
Which is the best source of historical evidence to learn about how an event unfolded?
google.com
Why is it important for historians to corroborate the information found in pieces of historical evidence?
Answer this question… Different pieces of evidence may contradict the original information.
What factors can change a historical interpretation?
Evidence, secondary sources, and forgery. :)
What factors change a historical interpretation?
Evidence, secondary sources, and forgery. :)
What are techniques historians use when synthesizing evidence?
Comparing and contrasting historical sources
Which method separates modern historians from ancient Greek historians?
Basing historical accounts on reliable evidence
Which historical term describes the specific primary and secondary sources that historians use to support their claims?
Historical evidence.
What are both techniques historians use when synthesizing evidence?
Comparing and contrasting historical sources
In order to make a valid historical interpretation about an event historians must?
check primary and secondary sources related to the event - apex
What step must a historian take to evaluate historical evidence?
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.
Why historians use historical thinking skills?
To find answers to questions about the past using evidence
How can new evidence change historical interpreting?
If new evidence comes to light then it will change an historians view on it, if they write for example that John Wilkes Booth killed Lincoln and they stick by that view, and then they find new evidence that George from booth number 5 did it then of course the interpretation of that event will change and so will everybody's views on it
Is the bible the only historical document that tells us about jesus?
The Bible is more than a historical document. It is the very Word of God, and as such, what need have we of further evidence and stories of Jesus?
