Using sources and evidence

Học bằng cách chơi

Trả lời những câu hỏi này để kiếm năng lượng, rồi câu cá và khám phá. Không cần tài khoản.

Dành cho nhà giáo dục: slide bài học, ghi chú ôn tập sẵn dùng cho Using sources and evidence (KS3 History, Historical Skills) — dùng trong bài giảng của bạn, hoặc chạy chủ đề như một hoạt động lớp học tương tác để người học chơi như một trò chơi trực tiếp.

Ghi chú bài học

What are historical sources?

  • Primary sources are materials created at the time of the event by people who were there, such as letters, diaries, photographs, or artefacts.
  • Secondary sources are created later by people who were not present, such as textbooks, documentaries, or history books.
  • Material evidence includes objects and buildings, and can be uncovered through archaeology.
  • Oral history is spoken testimony, often recorded in interviews, and can preserve memories not found in written records.
  • Historians use a mix of primary, secondary, and material sources to build a picture of the past.

Provenance: asking the right questions

  • Provenance means the origin of a source: who made it, when, where, and why.
  • Key questions include: When was it produced? Where? By whom? From what earlier material? In what original form? What is its evidential value?
  • The first four questions are called external criticism; they check whether a source is genuine.
  • The final question about the content's credibility is called internal criticism; it checks how trustworthy the information is.
  • External criticism is like a gatekeeper, saving us from using false evidence; internal criticism tells us how to use evidence that passes the gate.

Reliability and bias

  • Reliability means how trustworthy a source is for a particular purpose.
  • Bias is a slant or tendency that affects what a source says; it may be deliberate or unconscious.
  • A source's tendency is its motivation for providing a particular view; historians try to minimise it or balance it with opposite views.
  • If a source has no direct interest in creating bias, its credibility is increased.
  • Reliability is not all-or-nothing: each statement in a source should be judged separately, even if the author is generally trustworthy.

Types of evidence and their value

  • Relics are physical remains, such as a fingerprint or an artefact; they are generally more credible than narratives (written or spoken accounts).
  • Eyewitness testimony is usually more reliable than second-hand reports, which are more reliable than hearsay.
  • The closer a source is in time and place to the event, the more accurate it is likely to be.
  • Independence matters: if several independent sources agree, the message is stronger.
  • A source that can be partially confirmed by outside authorities may be trusted in its entirety if full confirmation is impossible.

Cross-referencing and contradictory sources

  • Cross-referencing means comparing sources to see where they agree and disagree.
  • If sources all agree on an event, historians may consider it proven—but agreement alone is not enough.
  • Majority opinion does not automatically win: even many sources can be wrong if they share the same bias or error.
  • When sources disagree, prefer the one with more authority—created by an expert or an eyewitness.
  • If two independent sources agree, the reliability of each is increased.
  • When there is no other way to judge, historians may choose the account that best fits common sense.

Making inferences from sources

  • An inference is a conclusion you draw from evidence, even if it is not stated directly.
  • To infer, look for clues in the source: what is shown, what is missing, and what is emphasised.
  • Consider the purpose of the source: why was it made, and who was meant to see it?
  • Check whether the source is typical or unusual by comparing it with others.
  • A strong inference is supported by evidence from more than one source.

Historical interpretations and why historians disagree

  • Historical interpretations are different ways of explaining the past.
  • Historians may disagree because they use different sources, ask different questions, or have different perspectives.
  • Some fields, such as religion, art, or democracy, are 'essentially contested' and require diverse tools to interpret.
  • There are no universally agreed specific rules for historical proof; historians agree only on very general principles.
  • Historiography is the study of how history has been written and how interpretations change over time.

Evaluating sources: a checklist

  • Validity: is the source genuine and relevant to the question?
  • Reliability: how trustworthy is it, based on its origin and content?
  • Usefulness: even a biased source can be useful for understanding attitudes or propaganda.
  • Authenticity: check for forgeries or later alterations using external and internal criteria.
  • Always ask: who made it, when, why, and for whom?
  • Use multiple sources to build a balanced picture and avoid relying on a single account.

Slide

Sign up free to view the lesson slides

Step through every slide for this topic — plus flashcards and revision notes — with a free account.

Câu hỏi luyện tập

Xem trước miễn phí — 8 trên 57 câu hỏi. Đăng ký để xem tất cả.
  1. 1.In history, what is a primary source?

    Easy
    • AA source created at the time of the event by someone with a direct connection to it
    • BA textbook written many years after the event
    • CA historian's interpretation of the past
    • DA summary of other historians' work
  2. 2.Which of the following is an example of a secondary source?

    Easy
    • AA diary written by a soldier during a war
    • BA textbook about the war written in 2020
    • CA photograph taken during the war
    • DA letter sent by a soldier to his family
  3. 3.When historians ask 'Who made this source and why?', which aspect of source criticism are they focusing on?

    Easy
    • AProvenance
    • BChronology
    • CBias
    • DReliability
  4. 4.Which of the following best describes the difference between external criticism and internal criticism of a source?

    Easy
    • AExternal criticism checks the source's origin and form; internal criticism assesses the credibility of its contents
    • BExternal criticism checks the source's contents; internal criticism checks its origin and form
    • CExternal criticism is done by archaeologists; internal criticism is done by historians
    • DExternal criticism is used for primary sources; internal criticism is used for secondary sources
  5. 5.According to the principles of source criticism, which type of source is generally considered more credible?

    Medium
    • AA narrative such as a written statement
    • BA relic such as a fingerprint or artefact
    • CA secondary source written by a historian
    • DA source created long after the event
  6. 6.A historian has two sources about the same event. One is a letter written by an eyewitness the day after the event; the other is a newspaper article written a year later by a journalist who interviewed people who were there. Which source should the historian generally prefer, and why?

    Medium
    • AThe newspaper article, because it is printed and therefore more reliable
    • BThe eyewitness letter, because it is closer to the event and from a direct witness
    • CThe newspaper article, because it includes multiple perspectives
    • DThe eyewitness letter, because it is older
  7. 7.Read this extract from a historian's account: 'The castle was built in 1215 by King John to control the river crossing.' Which of the following is an inference that can be drawn from this statement?

    Medium
    • AThe castle was important for controlling movement across the river
    • BKing John built many castles during his reign
    • CThe river was the only means of transport at the time
    • DThe castle was built to protect against Viking raids
  8. 8.A historian finds two medieval chronicles that disagree about the outcome of a battle. Chronicle A was written by a monk who lived in a nearby monastery at the time. Chronicle B was written by a monk in a distant monastery 50 years later. According to the principles of source criticism, which chronicle should the historian prefer, and why?

    Medium
    • AChronicle A, because it is closer in time and place to the event
    • BChronicle B, because it was written with more hindsight
    • CChronicle A, because monks are always reliable
    • DChronicle B, because it is more detailed

Unlock all 57 questions, flashcards & more

Tạo tài khoản miễn phí để xem mọi câu hỏi, slide, thẻ ghi nhớ và ghi chú ôn tập cho chủ đề này.

Đề thi cũ

Luyện đề thi cũ cho chủ đề này sắp ra mắt.
Sắp ra mắt