Because the historical events studied in inquiries are often controversial, and because people with interests and perspectives produce the record of events, conflicting evidence is likely to exist. Corroboration is the process of piecing together a narrative from multiple, fragmentary, and conflicting accounts. Students who engage in corroboration resist the urge to latch on to one account that is deemed most accurate and call all others liars. Historians are more deliberate in the process of comparing and contrasting across the evidence, piecing together an interpretation that is richer than any single account.
When engaged in corroboration a student might ask questions like these:
- How is this source similar to other accounts? What information does all or most of the evidence agree upon?
- How is this source different from other accounts? What unique inclusions or omissions does it have? How do I explain these differences?
- When differences exist, which do I trust more? How do I make decisions about which source to believe when differences exist?
- How might I create a synthesis of these different accounts?
- How does my comparison across accounts impact the way I think about each source? Do I trust each source more or less based upon how their account meshes with the evidence produced by others?
Corroboration Example
The inquiry about the Bear River Massacre here, provides several opportunities for students to practice corroborating information across sources. For example, Darren Parry, a descendant of Shoshone survivors reported that “Chief Sagwitch, being an early riser, got up as usual on the morning of January 29, 1863. He left his teepee and stood outside surveying the area around camp. The hills to the east of camp were covered with a steaming mist, which seem to creep lower down the hill. Sagwitch suddenly realized what was happening: the soldiers from Camp Douglas had arrived.” In comparison, Colonel Conner, the leader of the US troops who attacked the Shoshone reported that “The fight started about 6 o’clock in the morning.” These two accounts from different perspectives present a similar story and the reader can be fairly certain that the massacre began early in the morning.
Corroboration also includes noticing differences in accounts. For example, Henry Woonsook, another descendant of Shoshone survivors reported, “The Indians fought back but there wasn’t much they could do because the white men had guns and the Indians only had bows and arrows.” In contrast, Colonel Conner reported that “The enemy had about 300 warriors, mostly with good weapons like rifles and plenty of ammunition.” A reader who engages in corroboration will notice these differences and will try to resolve them by reading additional evidence or by thinking carefully about the sources. They might look for ways that both accounts could be true, find a compromise that is different from either account, tentatively continue to consider both stories, or find other evidence and reasons that help them believe one account and discount the other.