Evidence Versus Interpretation
Distinguish between historical evidence and historical interpretation — evidence is what survived, interpretation is the argument a historian builds from it, and the same evidence can support different arguments
What a learner can do afterwards
- Development of historical understanding among 9-14 year olds
- Ways of Seeing: Evidence and Learning in the History Classroom (RRCHNM)
The lesson
Historical evidence is what actually survived from the past: a letter, a photograph, a tool, a building. Historical interpretation is the argument a historian builds after looking at that evidence. The evidence stays the same. The interpretation can change depending on who is arguing and how they read it.
A historian finds a soldier's diary that complains about bad food. One historian argues this proves the whole army had low morale. Another historian argues that one complaint does not prove much, since most soldiers might have felt differently. Both historians read the same diary. They built two different arguments from it.
When someone makes a claim about the past, ask two questions. What evidence is this built on? Could someone else use that same evidence to argue something different? Asking this helps you tell a fact from an argument.
A ruined stone wall has deep cracks in it. One historian says the cracks came from an earthquake. Another says they came from a battle. The wall itself never changes. What changes is the story each historian builds to explain it.
Evidence is what survived from the past, interpretation is the argument a historian builds from it, and the same evidence can support more than one argument.
Watch it
Where it sits
Learn first
Where this leads
Jobs that lean on this skill. Follow one to see everything it is built on.
8 questions wait behind this lesson, each with its answer explained. Every answer feeds the sky: stars light as they are learned, and dim when it is time to come back.