Historians seek to interpret historic sites, artifacts, written records, and verbal histories without adding their own what? a. ideas of the historic background b. narrative of the course of events c. theory they hope to prove d. biases of interpretation

Option C ( Theories they hope to prove)

Explanation:  Analyzing the options given;

Option A: Ideas of the historic background, is very important when they seek to interpret information from artifacts and written records because experience and knowledge of this back ground are very much applicable to get the real information that may be hidden in those artifacts. so this is very important.

Option B: Narrative of the course of event is very key for people that are the potential listener or potential buyers of such Epistle or artifacts or written records, so they cant do without the narrative of the cause of event.

Option C: Theory they hope to prove might not be what the artifacts is saying or what is in-scripted in the site, the main reason they are historians is to seek, protect and gather information of historical things that may be lacking in the current generation. It doesn't speak of what they are trying to prove , that is why when they seek to interpret artifacts or sites, they put what ever they believe at bay and focus the information such historical material wants to pass across to them. it might just be the missing link to another puzzle that is yet to be interpreted.

While option D is not considered to be an option when historians seek to interpret.

whats the question?

i can't if i don't know the question.

it brings together the military and civilian sectors of society to harness the total power of the nation. it is the mechanism that facilitates the successful prosecution of any conflict.it brings together the military and civilian sectors of society to harness the total power of the nation. it is the mechanism that facilitates the successful prosecution of any conflict.