What kinds evidence to historians in history
Answers
I’ve been using a mixture of archaeology, contemporaneous records, later records and genetic evidence. The importance of each depends on what you’re researching.
If you’re researching a war, having records from both sides are key. There’s no such thing as 100% proven fact from 1000s of years ago. However, if A claims to defeat B and B claims to have lost a war to A, we can conclude with a high degree of certainty the war happened because B is conceding defeat in their records.
My opinion is contemporaneous sources are the most reliable. You also have later sources that reflect what people thought at a later time, but often these are inaccurate.
Archaeological evidence is also helpful because it enables to determine when things were built, when they were destroyed and in many instances how they were destroyed.
Genetic evidence is helpful, because if we can establish when certain haplotypes entered, we can determine when events happened and track their ancestry. For instance, even if we had no evidence of America’s early history, we could determine when these European haplotypes appeared in Native American gene pools and ultimately track these back to Britain.
The good books rely on more than one source for each conclusion, and also don’t misinterpret sources. I wrote this book because a lot of the other sources out there conflated evidence from centuries apart and sold them as taking place during the same period.
....plz post on btain list answer ..... thanx