Evidence versus interpretation

You have compared sources about the same event. Historical evidence is source information used to answer a question about the past. Letters, photographs, tools, buildings and later accounts can supply clues. Interpretation is an argument explaining those clues. An argument gives reasons for a conclusion; check that they support it. An old well and a council record supply clues. Explaining why the well was dug is an interpretation.

A farmer's diary reports a poor harvest, not every farm's results or consequences it does not mention. Check its accuracy against other farm records. A letter saying 'I dislike the new tax' records one stated view, not everyone's feelings. Wider claims need other people's independent accounts of the same event. To check whether fear was shared on a voyage, compare other crew members' accounts. Copies add no independent voice; other voyages concern different experiences.

Historians can give the same details different meanings or weight. A crowded market photograph may suggest busy trade or crowding. Sharing the photograph does not give both arguments equal support. Compare each argument with the photo and other relevant sources. Cracks in a castle wall may suggest an earthquake or a battle. Honest disagreement does not prove lying. Test both explanations against the damage and dated local earthquake and battle records.

An observation describes what you can see or read. A pot's blackened base is an observation. Suggesting that it stood over a fire is an inference: an explanation to check. Blackening alone does not show who used it or what they cooked. A photograph records a framed view at one moment. An empty street does not establish that the whole town or other years were empty. Check its date, location and framing; seek other photographs and records.

A coin showing a ruler's face supplies evidence. A museum label claiming everyone loved the ruler offers an interpretation to check. The image may show how the ruler was presented, not everyone's feelings. A crown may suggest wealth, not public love. Ask what evidence supports the claim and what else it could mean. Check evidence about people's feelings; ownership, cost, age and repeated claims about the crown do not establish those feelings.

A harbour record says a ship arrived three days late. A local weather record reports a storm during those days. The matching dates support investigating a link, but do not prove the cause. Explain how the evidence supports the conclusion. A receipt for roof repairs does not, by itself, show that a storm caused the damage. An unrelated fact about another ship supplies no link. Mentioning a genuine source does not make an argument correct.

A menu lists bread at three coins. This tells you the listed price, but not whether people could afford it. To judge affordability, compare the price with people's incomes or other evidence about their resources. A price that looks low does not, by itself, establish that nobody went hungry.

A textbook written today about medieval life is a secondary source: a later account using earlier sources. It can guide you to evidence and offer interpretations. It is not primary for medieval life, but can show how its authors present history today. A source's role depends on your question. To check a book's claim, follow its citation and compare the named source with the claim. A recent publication date or repeating the claim in later summaries does not establish support.

The evidence available to historians can grow. Suppose they find a letter that was previously unknown. They can compare its contents with sources they already had and reconsider an argument. The older sources need not change for the available evidence to grow. Objects can also decay, so evidence is not physically unchanging.

An arrowhead near a castle needs a date and a clear connection to the site. Arrowheads embedded in wall damage dated to the castle's period of use are a stronger lead than a loose arrowhead with no date. They may support an attack while the castle was in use. Check how the damage was dated and whether the arrowheads caused it. A lead is not proof.

Town records list 1,800 residents in 1920 and 1,100 in 1930. These figures show a recorded decrease. They do not identify its cause. Disease and job losses are possible explanations to investigate, not conclusions established by the figures alone. Check records about those events before choosing an explanation.