The first historical thinking skill focuses our attention on using evidence to make historical arguments. The word “argument” reminds us that any attempt to explain the past requires interpretation, since our understanding of the past is limited. Arguing means making a logical—rather than an emotional—case for your interpretation of a particular historical question or controversy. To be convincing, your interpretation has to present supporting evidence. This evidence consists of both historical facts and information from primary sources.

Historical Argumentation

Historians make arguments about what life was like in the past, how or why things changed, and why those changes matter. Their arguments are informed by their deep knowledge about the subject and careful reading of primary sources. But because evidence from the past is often incomplete or difficult to understand, historians inevitably make inferences to fill the gaps in their knowledge. Not all historians make the same inferences, so there are often a variety of interpretations about most historical events.

For example, most scholars agree that the decision of some people to adopt agriculture about 11,000 years ago marked the beginning of a major world historical development. But because this development preceded writing, the only evidence scholars have comes from archeology and anthropology. Consequently, historians disagree about whether agriculture led to permanent settlement in a particular location—or vice versa. Many scholars also believe that the development of agricultural surpluses introduced disparities in status. Critics disagree, however, pointing to tomb evidence from gathering and hunting (that is, non-farming) peoples that suggests that significant differences in status already existed among some preagricultural peoples.

To develop this historical thinking skill, ask yourself how do historians think they know what they know about a particular event. What evidence do they provide? Does their language suggest hesitancy or uncertainty about their interpretation? Do they offer alternative explanations?

Appropriate Use of Relevant Historical Evidence

Historians make arguments about the past based on primary-source evidence. A primary source is a something produced in the era under investigation. In contrast, a secondary source is something about the era under investigation, long after the fact. It is usually the result of scholarly research of primary sources, or a distillation of such research. The narrative sections of this textbook, for example, are secondary sources. Traditionally, primary sources have consisted overwhelmingly of written sources. In fact, some historians referred to any time before writing as “prehistoric.”

In the last few decades, historians have increasingly moved beyond relying exclusively on written primary sources by turning to visual sources—paintings, photographs, architecture, artifacts, etc.—and evidence from other fields of knowledge. For example, using scientific and medical information, historians have come to see the role that disease has played in history—destroying native populations in the Americas after Europeans arrived, for instance. Since no historian can be an expert in every field, historians also make use of the secondary-source scholarship of others who have studied primary sources such as ancient DNA or pottery shards in their own specialized studies.

For help with assessing primary sources, read the section, “Working with Primary Sources,” on pages lxviii–lxxi of this book. Then return to this section and complete this exercise.