All historical events are unique and are not related to one another.
True/False? There may be ... We're all unique and special ... [ There is an airport in australia which has two ways,one is wrong another one is correct.there were 3 mode of ... www.answerbag.com/q_view/2617077
] Auto answered|Score .679User:
You're in the process of splitting up your data into two categories, archaeological remains and written records. What step of the historical method are you on?
You are in the classification step.Auto answered|Score 1|may100|Points 2110|User:
You are going to Africa to live among a tribal group and study their culture. Which historian would be most helpful to take along?
I would take along an Anthropologist.Auto answered|Score .9274|may100|Points 2110|User:
You are looking for primary sources to complete a research project. Where would be your best bet to find them?
The answer is libraries.
Libraries would be your best bet to find them.Auto answered|Score 1|Shey091808|Points 828|User:
A historian should ask as many questions as possible when analyzing sources and conducting research. Why is this important?
so the historian can try to avoid bias in his/her work
so the historian can alter his/her perspective
so the historian can compare and contrast sources
so the historian connect the past to the presentWeegy:
The right answer is
so the historian can compare and contrast sources.
Many who call themselves "historians" do, indeed, use "history" as a vehicle for expressing their own political commitment. That is sheer is self-indulgence. [ History is a scholarly, not a political, activity, and while, as citizens, we certainly should act upon our political views, in writing history we have an absolute obligation to try to exclude them. Most historians, like, most scientists, are motivated by the urge to find out. Much nonsense is talked about historians inevitably being "subjective"; the real point is that, being mere human beings, they are "fallible", and subject to many kinds of career and social pressures, or indeed common incompetence. Historians do disagree with each other in their interpretations, as do scientists. But history deals with human values, in a way the sciences do not, so there is more scope for differences in evaluation. Historical evidence is fragmentary, intractable, and imperfect. Individual books and articles may clash with each other; there will always be areas where uncertainty persists, but steadily agreed knowledge emerges in the form of works of synthesis and high-quality textbooks. History, like the sciences, is a co-operative enterprise. Some historians today still seem to perceive historians (usually themselves) as great literary and media figures, as individual intellectual and moral giants giving leadership to ordinary readers. Such historians - subscribers to what I call the "auteur theory" - tend to glory in their own subjectivity. By all means enjoy their literary flourishes, but always remember that the aims of a work of history are very different from those of a work of literature.
] Auto answered|Score 1|Judit|Points 152|User:
You are a geologist and are asked to put a list of historical events in chronological order. You would arrange the events _____.
according to where they took place
in alphabetical order
according to when they took place
in order of historical importanceWeegy:
You are a geologist and are asked to put a list of historical events in chronological order. You would arrange the events according to when they took place. Expert answered|jeifunk|Points 8300|Note:
This conversation has been ended.
All Categories|No Subcategories|Expert answered|Rating 0| 1/7/2013 3:45:20 AM