Final answer:
Johnson's conclusions could differ from other historians due to a combination of factors. The uniqueness of historian's questions, the variety of sources they consult, and their inherent biases and personal experiences can significantly influence the interpretation of historical events leading to different conclusions.
Step-by-step explanation:
Johnson might have reached different conclusions than other historians due to several factors including the different questions asked, sources utilized, and his own embedded belief systems. All historians inevitably view history through the lens of their own experiences and circumstances. While objectivity is valued, it's impossible to be entirely bias-free as our viewpoint is shaped by our cultural, social, and personal experiences. Johnson may have sought to look past the traditional focus on elites, following the practices of historians in the 1960s and 70s who asked new questions and consulted different sources to highlight the lives of ordinary people.
Historical interpretation is a dynamic process, whereby historians constantly reinterpret past events using innovative methodologies and diverse sources. This includes not just traditional written accounts but also oral histories, cultural artifacts, and even natural evidence like climate data. Johnson may have employed different sources to provide a more thorough and diverse account, hence reaching unusual conclusions.
In addition, his own beliefs, inherent bias, or personal experience could have led to understanding history from a unique perspective. Historical bias can sometimes uncover new insights by triggering innovative approaches to the study and interpretation of events. Thus, the questions asked, sources consulted, and the individual historian's perspective greatly impact the conclusions drawn upon historical events or periods.
Learn more about Historical Interpretation