Answer this question… They can lead historians to arrive at very different interpretations of an event.
You would consult a primary source for a first and personal view of an historical event. Primary sources are original materials.
Answer this question… Primary sources are created by people who actually experienced the event
a source that is from someone that was not a the place
Read French letters from the 1700s and search for references to the event's date.
Historians will examine a second hand source of a historical event. If the second hand source matches up to other sources of information, then each source in a certain manner adds to the credibility of the historical event.
Primary sources are used commonly among historians. A primary source of information is an account from someone that was present at a certain time or event.
Primary source.
Historians use the time and place rule to determine how close to the event was the person describing the event and how much time was between the event and when the event was described. In addition, they use the bias rule. Documents must be compared with relatedsources and pieces of evidence.
D.primary source
Primary source.
The firsthand record of a person, place, or event that has not been interpreted by another writer best describes a(n) _____. ANSWER: Primary Source:)
Historians use the time and place rule because the source is deemed to be more reliable. The other rule historians use is the bias rule that says everyone will be biased in some way when recounting events.
A person can be considered a primary source if they directly experienced or witnessed an event they are describing, providing firsthand accounts or original data without interpretation or analysis. Primary sources are valuable for historians and researchers seeking unfiltered information from the time of the event.
When a historian refers to the historical context of an event they mean that they want you to look at the attitude, conditions and mood of the time of a specific historical event.
Two arguments about a historical event contradict each other. How should historians determine which argument is superior?
the circumstances surrounding the event