Figure 1: Part of a presentation that was originally given at an HMI/Ofsted Conference on
Interpretations held in Bristol on 1 July 2004.
The presentation was given by Jamie Byrom, Christine Counsell and Michael Riley and was a review of how history teachers’
practice on ‘interpretations of history’ had developed and extended the original suggestions of McAleavy*. This slide was
produced by Byrom, Counsell and Riley in order to give examples of how history teachers had encouraged pupils to suggest,
discern or analyse the processes involved in the construction of historical interpretations, across the eleven years since
McAleavy wrote his article.
*McAleavy, T. (1993) ‘Using the Attainment Targets in Key Stage 3: interpretations of history’ Teaching History, 72.
Type of
interpretation
(scholarly, popular,
educational…etc)
What was the
purpose (&
intended
audience).
to create new
knowledge?
to persuade?
to entertain?
to inform?
to commemorate?
to educate?
to preserve?
What is it?
What is it saying?
What does it say/
show explicitly /
implicitly (message?
argument? style?
tone?)
How and why was
this constructed?
What is the
relationship
between the
interpretation
and evidence?
Which parts
are factual,
which are
points of
view, which
are
imagined?
How has the
interpretation been
affected by the
context in which it
was created?
Available sources?
trends in scholarly
interpretation? methods?
earlier works on the
same theme? theory?
ideology? values?
nationality?
personality?
funding/resources?
patronage?
Figure 2: A task designed to help pupils identify an historian’s inclusion of characters within
their narrative, and what this might reveal about the nature of the historian’s interpretation
[One part of Phillips’s abridged narrative is shown here]
Preachers toured the West, asking the people to take the
cross to recapture the holy city. Refugees from the Holy
Land told the story of the Muslim invasion in all its grim
detail, including Saladin’s atrocities (meaning ‘unnecessary
slaughter’). Once Richard I became king of England, he
channelled the resources of his lands towards the cause of
the crusade. Richard had good attention to detail and was
very well-prepared. He was an experienced military man
who had been campaigning for almost two decades by the
time of the crusade. Over 100 ships were hired and 60,000
horseshoes were purchased. About 17,000 troops
assembled in Sicily in 1191.
King Philip's preparations had been slower, but he had
gathered around 650 knights and 1300 squires.
[Some of the character cards]
TASK BOX:
1. As we are reading the historian’s story, place a character card (you have 10 of
each) next to where they are mentioned.
2. Using ONLY those characters mentioned in the historian’s narrative, place them
on the blank A3 page and re-tell the story using the characters. Use
arrows/shapes and words.
3. Which characters in the ‘story’ of the crusade were not used? Which characters
were used many times? What might this tell us about the author’s intention(s)?
Figure 3: An example of how two high-attaining students re-told the story of the Third
Crusade, using character cards, words and arrows, to show their understanding of what
happened in Phillips’s narrative interpretation
Figure 4: A task designed to help pupils think about an historian’s description of an
individual in history, and how this description can be supported or challenged through
reference to the evidential record
TASK BOX: How did Hillenbrand describe
characters and events?
1. Draw arrows to the facts that may have
been used to back-up the author’s
descriptions below.
2. Circle those facts that appear to challenge
the author’s description.
3. How might you change the descriptions
below, so that you take all these facts into
account?
“Richard was shrewd”
[intelligent, alert, sharp]
“Saladin was a strong military
leader”
“The conquest of the city of
Jerusalem was a disastrous event”
FACT BOXES:
Richard I spent many months preparing for his crusade
Richard beat Saladin at Acre & at the Battle of Arsuf
On his return, Richard was captured & England had to
pay the equivalent of £2 billion (2011) for his release
Saladin was the first Muslim leader to unite the Muslim
cities of Aleppo, Mosul and Damascus
After capturing Jerusalem from the Christians, Saladin
did not kill them
Saladin worried about being killed so slept in a wooden
tower rather than a tent
Saladin destroyed towns in a whole region and killed
many knights after they tried to murder him twice
The Muslims had lived in the Holy Land for hundreds of
years before the Christians came
The crusaders thought they were fighting a holy war to
regain land that was their ‘right’ due to their religion
Figure 5: A task designed to help pupils understand how an historian’s background can have
an impact on the narrative that they have constructed
TASK BOX: Why might Hillenbrand describe characters and events in this way?
Draw arrows to match information about the author’s background and
purpose (left) to how she wrote her story (right).
A. Hillenbrand can read and
understand Arabic
1. Hillenbrand did not mention the European kings
Phillip II of France and Frederick I
B. Hillenbrand’s focus is
deliberately on the
Muslims in the Crusades
2. Hillenbrand mentioned Saladin many times & only
mentioned Richard a few times
C. Hillenbrand’s aim is not
to just tell a story, but to
explore ideas
D. Hillenbrand is Professor
of Islamic History at
Edinburgh university
E. Hillenbrand has travelled
extensively in Turkey &
Syria
3. Hillenbrand included 2 religious Muslim characters
who were in the ‘background’ & not actually involved
in the crusade itself
4. Hillenbrand suggested that the Crusaders invaded
Muslim lands, rather than the Muslims invading
Christian lands
5. All Hillenbrand’s sources were Muslim
6. Hillenbrand gave less detail on the ‘events’ that make
up the story than Phillips did
7. Hillenbrand shows why Jerusalem is important to
MUSLIMS rather than Christians
Figure 6: A discussion activity designed to encourage pupils to reflect upon the possible
impact an historian’s perspective might have upon their description of historical individuals
Who said what?
“Refugees from the
Holy Land told the
story of the Muslim
invasion of
Jerusalem…including
Saladin’s slaughter
of the Christians”
Phillips
“The Crusaders turn
up out of the
blue…[and after
several crusades] the
Muslims came to
expect invasion”
Hillenbrand
who invaded whom?
Figure 7: The final outcome activity, where pupils write their narratives about the Third
Crusade
My purposes:
•
•
•
The Third Crusade, by
To educate
To entertain
To show
Muslim &
Crusader
views
Chosen phrase
(Richard)
____________
Stronger word
_____________
Chosen phrase
(Saladin)
____________
Stronger word
_____________
Why do you think that the historians Phillips and Hillenbrand might have differed in their choice of characters?
Does it matter which characters you included, and how you described them?
Did you leave out any characters or talk about some characters more than others? Why? Why not?
Fact Boxes (examples)
Muslims had lived in the
Holy Land for hundreds of
years before the Crusades
The crusaders thought they
were fighting a holy war to
regain land that was their
‘right’ due to their religion
Richard I ruled from 11891199 but spent only 6
months ruling his own
country
Saladin was the first Muslim
leader to unite Muslim cities
of Aleppo, Mosul and
Damascus
Figure 8: My tentative findings, based on analysis of pupils’ narratives, placed in the context
of work completed earlier in the overall scheme of work. In the first box I identified
‘baseline’ attributes of all pupils’ narratives, and in the last box I identified what I
considered to be a set of ‘higher-order’ attributes, found in only some pupils’ narrative
accounts.
All pupils, in  Included at least three events that took place during the Third Crusade (e.g. the
conquest of Cyprus, the siege of Acre, the battle at Arsuf)
all
narratives…  Included at least four characters involved in the Third Crusade (e.g. Saladin, Richard I,


Phillip II, Pope Gregory VIII)
Placed nearly all events in the correct chronological order
Involved some level of generalisation (e.g. ‘some kings’; ‘loads of kings’; ‘they all wanted
to go home’)
My thoughts: all pupils appear to have recounted several events and characters accurately. When
pupils presented their story as a list of events, without character or place description, the stories
appeared to me to be both less engaging and less informative. The fact that some pupils placed, for
example, the Battle of Hattin after Richard set out on crusade, suggests that pupils were not
sufficiently secure in their chronology to be able to sequence accurately or to immediately notice
obvious errors in their sequencing. All pupils made use of generalisations.
At least half
of the
pupils, in
their
narratives…





Placed all events in the correct chronological order
‘Borrowed’ phrases or words from the narratives they had read (e.g. Richard was
‘tracked’ by Saladin’s forces, a word most likely borrowed from Phillips’s narrative)
Avoided basic historical inaccuracies (for example, by knowing that Frederick was
German and not English – a mistake made by a lower-attaining pupil)
Used specific historical terminology correctly (such as ‘pilgrimage’ or ‘tithe’), in ways
that revealed underlying period knowledge
Struggled to complete their story of the Third Crusade (i.e. from Pope Gregory’s crusade
bull to Saladin and Richard’s truce) during the time allowed, often getting ‘bogged
down’ in detail, such as squabbles over leadership or the slaughter of prisoners.
My thoughts: a challenge emerging here appears to be one of how to select which events or details
are most important. Pupils who appeared to comprehend more of the story during discussion
potentially found the writing process to be harder, as they wanted to write everything they knew
down. Other pupils explained afterwards that they avoided talking about some characters because it
‘would have got confusing’. Telling a story involving participants from several different countries
appeared to present a challenge for some pupils, whose knowledge was not secure.
Some
pupils, in
their
narratives…




Made a conscious effort to describe the characters and how they acted before moving
on to the next event (for example, Richard ‘powerfully’ slaughtered prisoners’; Philip
‘weakly’ decided to go home; crusaders ‘willingly’ joined Richard’; Saladin and Richard
fought ‘fiercely’)
Made some effort to provide geographical, religious, social or political historical context
as a background to the ‘action’ (for example, ‘it would have taken two years to reach on
foot’, or ‘the crusaders felt it was their right to take back the Holy Land’)
Attempted to include information from the fact boxes to support their narratives
Attempted to show balance, for example by showing how Jerusalem was important to
both Muslims and Christians.
My thoughts: for me, the more engaging and informative narratives attempted some description of
the characters, using adjectives such as ‘wise’. Less interesting narratives tended to ‘list’ events, one
after another. Also, stronger narratives appeared to try to ‘set the scene’, for example by describing
Muslim claims to Jerusalem and their purpose in defending their lands against Richard and Phillip.
Despite the preparation work on Muslim viewpoints of the Crusades, including the use of
Hillenbrand’s narrative, most narratives were Eurocentric, and concentrated on Richard’s
movements in particular. Only a few pupils appeared to make a significant effort to give equal
attention to Saladin and Richard.