J. Kelly Robison
Evidence is the foundation for all history papers. The responsible historian does not formulate his thesis until all the evidence has been studied. Evidence for history papers is usually found in primary sources (accounts written at the time of the event), but history papers may also be written using secondary sources (accounts written after the event). Which of the two you will use is usually determined by your professor. Things to remember about evidence:
Your first job is to read your evidence. Evidence rarely presents a single answer to a historical problem. For example, if the evidence points to a number of reasons as to why Rome fell, it is your job, as the historian, to discover which reason has the most evidence to support it. You then have your thesis. Remember that there is no such thing as a correct thesis or an incorrect thesis (a right or wrong answer). A thesis may be valid (it has evidence to support it) or invalid (no evidence to support it, or not enough
While your thesis is usually given in the first paragraph of a paper, your evidence forms the body of the paper. The organization of the evidence into paragraphs depends an your taste and style. You might use similarities found in the evidence - similarities in time or by subject, for example. Evidence, however, never speaks for itself; evidence alone does not make a paragraph or an argument. As the historian arguing your interpretation, you constantly tell the reader how the evidence supports your thesis. For that reason, paragraphs should not end with a quotation.
All evidence must be footnoted, endnoted, or otherwise acknowledged to be another writer's thoughts or the result of that writer's research. Which of the methods you use is usually determined by your professor. A failure to do so is plagiarism. It is also confusing since the reader will not know what is evidence and what is your interpretation of the evidence.
In a short paper, avoid long quotes which have to be offset. You lose control of your paper when you give it up to another writer for so long.
The historian is limited by his evidence. Do not go beyond the evidence, either by being influenced by other material (an introduction or other book) or by misreading what is before you. Does the evidence really say what you think it says?
Example:
Evidence: John Brown and his wife had nine children.
Invalid interpretation of evidence: John Brown was a male chauvinist pig who denied his wife her lifelong dream of becoming an actress.
Even if your interpretation is correct, even if the introduction said John Brown was a male chauvinist pig, the evidence will not support your conclusion.