0
What else can I help you with?
What is the difference between a historical source and a historical evidence?
A historical source is an original document or artifact created during the time being studied, such as letters, photographs, or official records. In contrast, historical evidence refers to the information derived from these sources, which historians use to support their interpretations and conclusions about the past. While sources provide the raw materials for historical inquiry, evidence is the analysis and contextual understanding derived from those sources. Essentially, sources are the "what," and evidence is the "how" and "why" that inform our understanding of history.
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.
What best explains how a historian synthesizes evidence to reach a conclusion?
A historian synthesizes evidence by critically evaluating and comparing various sources, including primary documents, secondary analyses, and artifacts, to identify patterns, biases, and differing perspectives. This process involves contextualizing the evidence within its historical framework, considering the socio-political environment of the time. By integrating diverse viewpoints and corroborating information, historians construct a nuanced understanding of past events, ultimately leading to well-supported conclusions. This synthesis not only highlights the complexity of historical narratives but also fosters a deeper comprehension of human experiences.
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 evidence is there to support historical events?
Historical events are supported by various types of evidence, including primary sources such as letters, diaries, and official documents created during the time. Archaeological findings, such as artifacts and ruins, also provide tangible proof of past societies. Additionally, secondary sources, like history books and scholarly articles, analyze and interpret primary evidence to construct a narrative of events. Collectively, these forms of evidence help historians validate and understand historical occurrences.
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 describes a historical argument?
A historical argument presents a claim based on evidence from historical sources and research. It aims to explain and interpret past events, often analyzing the causes and consequences of historical events or developments. Effective historical arguments are supported by strong evidence and critical analysis.
Which best explains how a historian synthesize evidence to reach a conclusion?
The historian makes comparisons among multiple primary and secondary sources.
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.
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.
What is an historical argument?
A historical argument is a reasoned interpretation or analysis of historical events, typically supported by evidence from primary and secondary sources. It involves constructing a narrative or thesis based on research and critical thinking to explain past events and their significance. Historical arguments can vary in complexity and focus, addressing specific questions or debates within the field of history.
What factors can change a historical interpretation?
Evidence, secondary sources, and forgery. :)
What two factors determine the quality of a historical accounts?
The factors that determine the quality of a historical account are the credibility of the sources used and the objectivity of the interpretation provided. The reliability of the sources, their proximity to the events described, and the bias they may contain all influence the quality of the historical account. Additionally, the historian's ability to analyze and interpret the sources objectively, considering multiple perspectives and evidence, is crucial for producing a high-quality historical account.
Which of The following best describes a historical argument?
A explanation for why a past event happened apex
