History is immutable. What happened cannot be changed, and the truth is that historical events happened in an exact way. This belief is, of course, completely justifiable. Our understanding of the true events, however, is open to wide interpretation in many cases. And the interpretations are subject to the biases of whoever conveys the story. Often, our interpretations even fool us into thinking we know what happened, only for our beliefs to be overturned by verifiable hard evidence. In addition, events can be viewed from many different angles, even forcing us to reevaluate the significance of the hard evidence.Thus, the past exists as a very mutable thing when we think about it, and indeed, the nature of history requires assumptions and interpretations that can hardly be avoided. Knowledge and its multiple interpretations exist as bedfellows, and often uncomfortable (or even scandalous!) ones at that.Where is the line between these factors, and how do they interact with each other and those who seek to understand historical events?Foundation of FactLeft: A broken cuneiform tablet. Source: The Met. Right: A depiction of the execution of Charles I by an unknown artist. Source: National Portrait Gallery/Wikimedia CommonsHistorical knowledge forms the foundation upon which interpretation can be laid. It comprises names, dates, documents, physical remains of people, places, and things. It is the raw data that scientific observation provides. What it represents, however, needs to be interpreted, the same way a statistician looks at a graph and determines the meaning of the results. We know almost exactly when King Charles I was beheaded (Tuesday, 2:00 pm, January 30, 1649). But what did it mean? That part is left to interpretation.On rare occasions, mistakes in data collection can skew the knowledge, but for the most part, the knowledge is sound and completely verifiable. Interpretation, however, is less trustworthy. It is up to human beings to apply meaning to the facts. Ideologies, philosophies, assumptions, and projections all enter the mix, adding valuable viewpoints that are not necessarily the truth, but viewpoints or lenses through which the truth can be viewed.Interpretation: An Unavoidable FactorThe Morning of the Battle of Agincourt by John Gilbert, 1884. Source: Art UK/Wikimedia CommonsUnderstanding and conveying a historical event involves the process of interpretation. This is defined as analyzing and understanding historical records in order to establish a narrative of the past. Narratives, of course, are not exclusive ways to tell a story. A single event can be told through a theoretically infinite number of narratives, each framing the story in a way that suits the conveyors perspective. In doing so, the communicator adds their own idea of what is important about the story, as well as their own bias. They may also introduce morals or lessons to be learnt from the story, or they may even add embellishments with rhetoric rather than reality.This dynamic is not confined to historians accessing information after the event, either. Contemporary first-hand sources are also subject to the whims of human desires. Diary entries and letters contain information as presented by an individual, and in most cases, they are subject to bias and florid language. The sources are thus unreliable and must be read critically. So when a near-contemporary chronicler, such as John Lydgate, claimed the English arrows pierced the armor of the French knights at Agincourt, the modern consensus is still out, and experiments are still common in order to determine the veracity of the claim of There arwes wente thorugh brestplate.Like any historian, an artist has to make assumptions about unknown information. The Battle of Gettysburg by Thure de Thulstrup, 1887. Lithograph: L. Prang & Co. (Boston). Source: Library of Congress/Wikimedia CommonsOmission is a vital part of the interpretive process. A single event is filled with information that fits the desired narrative, but also with information that doesnt or is superfluous. The shape of the clouds above the soldiers at Gettysburg may be important to a meteorologist or a painter who wishes to depict the battle, but for the average consumer of the story of the battle, it is neither interesting nor relevant to the main issue. And of course, details that are considered vital today may not have been important to communicate in the primary sources. What this means is that ultimately, there is no way to achieve a totally objective narrative, as each narrative is the product of the narrator, who is in turn a product of their own era and circumstance, with different ideals on what they consider important.The Roman dodecahedron. A complete mystery and the subject of a host of theories. Source: Hunt Museum/Wikimedia CommonsPrime examples of this contemporary omission include the exact location of the Battle of Brunanburh or the purpose behind the Roman dodecahedra found in Gallo-Roman regions. Well over 100 have been found, and they must have served a function, but nobody thought to write down what it was. In fact, there is no mention of them in any ancient text at all! As such, modern historians are baffled and can only offer educated guesses.Perspective and Re-interpretationThe preamble of the US Constitution. Source: Wikimedia CommonsEvolving interpretations can drastically alter our understanding of the causation of an event. The motives for events happening can undergo drastic revision and re-interpretation through the eras, as values and contexts change, often with a deeper understanding of the complexity of issues.A prime example of this is the Declaration of Independence and the motives of the American leadership during the Revolutionary era. It can be said with certainty that the Declaration was adopted in 1776, and the direct cause for this political evolution was a response to taxation. This narrative, however true, is unnuanced, as it omits a vast array of perspectives that have come to be seen as important, or at least interesting. In addition, it could also be argued that the issue of taxation served as a cover for a deeper sentiment for independence, the reasons for which may even have existed on a subconscious level. This dynamic evolved with the ratification of the Constitution a decade later.Over a century ago, Charles Beards book, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, argued that the Constitution was created in order to protect the commercial interests of a powerful elite that sought to consolidate their power over the less financially endowed sectors of American society. It is important to note that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in this regard are undeniably linked.Thus, the narrative moved from one of people fighting against monarchic tyranny to that of a class war with more sinister motives. In this, the suggestion is that democracy and liberty were veneers for ulterior motives. While this view has been challenged since, it was important in that it introduced social and economic factors to the old narrative of the ideological struggle of the Revolutionary era. The core argument here is that the alternative narrative exists, rather than the acceptance of its content.The Soviets raising the flag over the Reichstag in Berlin in 1945. Photo by Yevgeniy Khaldei. Source: TASS/Wikimedia CommonsNevertheless, the important factor in this dynamic is competing narratives, and this dynamic is present across all historical categories. Americans and Russians, for example, present very different arguments for who won WWII! Interpretations dont necessarily invalidate previous interpretations, but more often than not, they provide more nuance and offer a different perspective.While the exact sequence of events can be recorded, much of studying history is about the interpretation. It gets to the why of historical events and attempts to understand the reasoning and the impact. This interrogation is notoriously flimsy and is subject to socio-political motives that include propaganda. A case in point is the meaning of Jan van Riebeeck, the Dutch colonizer responsible for founding Cape Town, the first European settlement in South Africa.Jan van Riebeeck: Perspective, Re-interpretation, and a Complete Mistake!(Left) The painting of Bartholomew Vermuyden by Dirck Craey that was misattributed to be that of Jan van Riebeeck. (Right) The real Jan van Riebeeck, by an unknown artist. Both sources: Rijksmuseum/Wikimedia CommonsSouth Africa is a nation that has been defined by centuries of conflict due to colonization and tensions between ethnic groups. At the center of this dynamic was a Dutch administrator named Jan van Riebeeck, who was represented as South Africas founding father during the days of apartheid. From the perspective of those who supported apartheid and white dominance, he was cast as a heroic figure and a nation-builder. In post-apartheid South Africa, his legacy is far more problematic, and he represents a catalyst for segregation and dispossession. This is an example of changing perspective and re-interpretation.Old South African banknotes featuring Bartholomew Vermuyden instead of Jan van Riebeeck. Source: Wikimedia CommonsAs such, his truth, or at least what we believe to be his truth, has changed. Of major significance was his face, which, for three decades of the apartheid era, was displayed conspicuously on South African banknotes. Except it wasnt his face. The image was an example of a misattributed portrait of Bartholomew (or Bartholomeus) Vermuyden, an officer during the English Civil War, who had nothing to do with colonization in South Africa until he appeared on the apartheid-era banknotes. Many South Africans internalized the image as fact and dont realize the mistake, nor do they even consider the fact that what they believe is wrong. The mistake on the notes was pointed out but never corrected, and the image remained until the early 90s when new designs were implemented to reflect the change in political status of the country as it maneuvered through the end of apartheid.Thus, belief is shown to be a tough nut to crack, even when it is erroneous. For those who believe something, to them it is as good as truth. It is knowledge.Providing a further challenge to this dynamic is presentism, the tendency to judge historical people and events through a modern lens, applying todays morals to the past.Presentism: Applying Modern Values to HistoryA statue of Christopher Columbus, wrapped to conceal or prevent vandalism. Source: Wikimedia CommonsA common phenomenon in modern times, presentism includes the pitfall of judging history by the values of the present. Every new generation applies modern socio-economic beliefs to figures and events of the past, demanding revision of historical understanding, and challenging what we thought we knew.This is perfectly illustrated in how statues of important people have been viewed. As narratives evolve, people like Christopher Columbus, Winston Churchill, Andrew Jackson, Cecil John Rhodes, and Jan van Riebeeck, to name a few, have gone from being celebrated to tolerated to reviled (although the sentiment is certainly not universal).Likewise, statues and depictions of them have gone from being appreciated to being ignored to being defaced and removed, while Columbus Day in the US evolved to include Indigenous Peoples Day, recognizing the harm the explorer catalyzed on Native Americans. Both were celebrated by the previous administration. The most recent administration, however, has indicated support for the positive legacy of Columbus, signaling a governmental shift back to the original narrative of Americas original hero.Thus, presentism doesnt only change the interpretation. It generates pushback and engages in ideological conflict as groups struggle to alter or preserve strongly held beliefs.Hieroglyphic section of the Rosetta Stone in the British Museum: Source: Wikimedia CommonsHistorical events have multiple selves. Interpretations vary and evolve. Even knowledge can be challenged! Archaeological evidence of dinosaurs or people living more than 6,000 years ago is rejected by certain religious groups. While interpretations are open to debate, not even knowledge is universally adopted or accepted.For those who trust science, history can certainly help us know the past, but it comes with an enormous caveat. Interpreting knowledge is a slippery vicissitude that doesnt really recognize truth as far as we understand it, but offers a way to understand the past through differing viewpoints.