They find sources (primary as well as secondary, written as well as non-written) and ask along the way questions like: "Who was the writer?", "What kind of source is it?", When was the source produced?", Where was the source produced", and "Why was the source produced?".
I Think that they found primary and secondery ones and along the questions who was the writer?,"What kind of source is it?", When was the source produced?", Where was the source produced", and "Why was the source produced?". Mabey not with the questions, mabey something else. Like archeologists found different stuff from the past
Historians learn about the past like this: first they find the sources that they want to evaluate or examine. Then, they use the historical method and evaluate the source: who was the writer?, after they determine who the writer is, they evaluate the source and come up with a conclusion-is it a primary or secondary source. After that, they have to find out when and where was this source produced? and finally they have to find out WHY this source was produced, but this is for historic sources. When they find prehistoric artifacts, I think they have to find more sources about the event because there were no written records at that time. For example, there is no writing to tell about the event, so they have to find a lot of pictures or other non-written sources that were drawn to retell the story of the event and then, they have to deduct from them.
Historians learn about the past is studying where the ancient people lived. Thye might find different objects that the ancient people were surrounded by and used, and that way, hisotirans are able to picture how people lived back then. They also might find drawing on the walls, just like the ancient egyptians drew, and from those drawing they are able to conclude many things.
The historical method is the way that archeologists identify artifacts, records, movies, fossils and oral traditions. They have to identify who produced the source? When was it produced? What kind of source is it, primary or secondary? Why was it produced? And Where was it made? Archeologists ask themselves all these questions when they discover a new artifact.
Historians find out about the past like this: They find the source (the place) where they want to examine. They go there dig for things look for things if anything lays on the ground. They usually try to find old things like old villages tool bones dead bodies fossils stones money and they try to take those things take them back to there lab and clean them. Then they take them to a museum and that how we have things in museums because archeologist find things and out them in the museum.
Historians learn about the past in many different ways. If they want to learn about prehistoric events they have to use unwritten sources because people in prehistoric times didn't know how to write. Unwritten sources are artifacts, fossils and oral tradition. It's easier to learn about historic events because you can look at written records also: books, letters,diaries, poems, and everything that has writing in it. Primary sources and secondary sources are used too. Primary source is when you see it, and secondary is for example if you hear about an event on news. Of course primary source is better because you know that it's true. Historian ask themselves 5 questions in order to find out more about historical events. The questions are: Who was the writer? What kind of source is it? When was the source produced? Where was the source produced? Why was the source produced. When they find things then the observe and examine them. Like this they can find out what the things really are. -Jovana
Historians learn about the past in many different ways. They can study prehistory and history. To study prehistory they must look at fossils, artifacts and drawings, they can not look at written sources because prehistory is before the invention of writing. History is much easier for historians to study because they can use everything they can in prehistory plus written sources. For written sources there are two types: primary and secondary. Primary sources are written pieces that were written on the day of the event. Secondary sources are written after the event and they are most of the time less accurate. After looking at the objects and writings they put all pieces together to find out what happened. Almost like a jigsaw puzzle, look at all the pieces, sort them, put them together.
Historians learn about the past in different ways. They can study it by finding artifacts from the past or by studying the artifacts that has already been found in museums. They can use primary and secondary source to learn more about the past and be exact.
There are many ways historians study the past by finding fossils and other things such as things the people left behind.They use primary and secondary sources to help them find out what it is
Mabey because they found fossils in their archelogicle work OR! They read books
ReplyDeleteThey find sources (primary as well as secondary, written as well as non-written) and ask along the way questions like: "Who was the writer?", "What kind of source is it?", When was the source produced?", Where was the source produced", and "Why was the source produced?".
ReplyDeleteI Think that they found primary and secondery ones and along the questions who was the writer?,"What kind of source is it?", When was the source produced?", Where was the source produced", and "Why was the source produced?". Mabey not with the questions, mabey something else. Like archeologists found different stuff from the past
ReplyDeleteHistorians learn about the past like this: first they find the sources that they want to evaluate or examine. Then, they use the historical method and evaluate the source: who was the writer?, after they determine who the writer is, they evaluate the source and come up with a conclusion-is it a primary or secondary source. After that, they have to find out when and where was this source produced? and finally they have to find out WHY this source was produced, but this is for historic sources. When they find prehistoric artifacts, I think they have to find more sources about the event because there were no written records at that time. For example, there is no writing to tell about the event, so they have to find a lot of pictures or other non-written sources that were drawn to retell the story of the event and then, they have to deduct from them.
ReplyDelete-Ivan M. 7A
Historians learn about the past is studying where the ancient people lived. Thye might find different objects that the ancient people were surrounded by and used, and that way, hisotirans are able to picture how people lived back then. They also might find drawing on the walls, just like the ancient egyptians drew, and from those drawing they are able to conclude many things.
ReplyDeleteThe historical method is the way that archeologists identify artifacts, records, movies, fossils and oral traditions. They have to identify who produced the source? When was it produced? What kind of source is it, primary or secondary? Why was it produced? And Where was it made? Archeologists ask themselves all these questions when they discover a new artifact.
ReplyDeleteHistorians find out about the past like this: They find the source (the place) where they want to examine. They go there dig for things look for things if anything lays on the ground. They usually try to find old things like old villages tool bones dead bodies fossils stones money and they try to take those things take them back to there lab and clean them. Then they take them to a museum and that how we have things in museums because archeologist find things and out them in the museum.
ReplyDeleteHistorians learn about the past in many different ways. If they want to learn about prehistoric events they have to use unwritten sources because people in prehistoric times didn't know how to write. Unwritten sources are artifacts, fossils and oral tradition. It's easier to learn about historic events because you can look at written records also: books, letters,diaries, poems, and everything that has writing in it. Primary sources and secondary sources are used too. Primary source is when you see it, and secondary is for example if you hear about an event on news. Of course primary source is better because you know that it's true. Historian ask themselves 5 questions in order to find out more about historical events. The questions are: Who was the writer? What kind of source is it? When was the source produced? Where was the source produced? Why was the source produced. When they find things then the observe and examine them. Like this they can find out what the things really are.
ReplyDelete-Jovana
Historians learn about the past in many different ways. They can study prehistory and history. To study prehistory they must look at fossils, artifacts and drawings, they can not look at written sources because prehistory is before the invention of writing. History is much easier for historians to study because they can use everything they can in prehistory plus written sources. For written sources there are two types: primary and secondary. Primary sources are written pieces that were written on the day of the event. Secondary sources are written after the event and they are most of the time less accurate. After looking at the objects and writings they put all pieces together to find out what happened. Almost like a jigsaw puzzle, look at all the pieces, sort them, put them together.
ReplyDeleteHistorians learn about the past in different ways. They can study it by finding artifacts from the past or by studying the artifacts that has already been found in museums. They can use primary and secondary source to learn more about the past and be exact.
ReplyDeleteThere are many ways historians study the past by finding fossils and other things such as things the people left behind.They use primary and secondary sources to help them find out what it is
ReplyDelete