Historians who write history emphasize the value of primary sources, that is those sources actually dating from a particular time period, while understanding the limitations of such sources. Historians know that the philosophy and methodology of history have changed over time and will keep changing.

History is the study of the past. Historiography is the study of historical writing.

Primary Sources: Eyewitness accounts of events. Oral or written testimony. Found in public records or legal documents, minutes of meetings, newspapers, diaries, letters, artifacts such as posters, billboards, photographs, drawings, papers.

Why do historians continue to gather historical evidence for even well-known events? They know that new evidence may lead to new interpretations.

using art from ancient Roman buildings to determine which emperor built the Colosseum using pottery found by archeologists to determine how weather impacted crops in ancient Rome using letters from ancient Roman senators to learn about how the government of Rome changed using ancient Greek descriptions of naval battles …

Archaeologists use written sources to help them find sites where they will find arti- facts. Similarly, historians examine material culture to help them understand what they read. Sometimes these scholars also get help from sources that may surprise you. Stories and legends can point scholars toward discoveries.

Interpretations differ because they are written for different audiences. Historians select information and when they write they can distort information to make their arguments stronger. Historians change their views when they discover new evidence.

Explanation: Historians use facts gathered from primary sources of evidence and then shape them so that their audience can understand and make sense of them. This process whereby the historian makes sense of the past is called an interpretation.

Because certain events happened so long ago, and because sometimes the evidence is incomplete, different historians have different approaches and views about what happened in the past. This is the subjective nature of history. One historian claims an event happened a certain way, while another disagrees completely.

They consider why, where and when a source was created. Why do historians draw different conclusions about events of the past? Historians must first look for facts and evidence in their sources and then, they use reasoning to make a judgment or draw a conclusion.

Answer Expert Verified archaeologists are experts do historians rely on to provide accurate information about the connection between an artifact and the culture or civilization it belongs to. Thank you for posting your question here at brainly.