Understanding History: Key Concepts and Historical Method
The Meaning of History
Etymology and usage
English word history derives from the Greek noun iσροπια, meaning learning.
In Aristotle’s sense, history meant a systematic account of natural phenomena; not necessarily chronological in all contexts (as in the phrase natural history).
The Latin word scientia (science) came to designate non-chronological systematic accounts of natural phenomena; history historically reserved for human phenomena in chronological order.
By its common definition, history now means "the past of mankind." Compare the German Geschichte, from geschehen, meaning “to happen”; Geschichte is “that which has happened”. This sense appears in phrases like "all history teaches" or "the lessons of history," though it is often difficult to re-create the total past.
Limits of reconstructing the past
The past of mankind cannot be fully reconstructed; even individuals cannot re-create their own past due to forgotten events, words, thoughts, places, etc.
For a generation long dead (fortiori), records may be missing, fragmentary, or inaccessible; reconstruction of the total past (history-as-actuality) is unattainable, though historians pursue it as a goal.
Objectivity vs subjectivity in historical knowledge
Surviving objects (ruins, parchments, coins) may exist, but facts of history are often derived from testimony and thus are facts of meaning rather than directly observable senses. They exist in the observer/historian’s mind and can be considered subjective.
To study objectively, an object must have independent existence outside the mind; recollections(written or spoken testimony) which most history is based upon, however, do not.
A vulgar prejudice equates subjectivity with unreliability or bias. Yet knowledge can be gained through impartial and judicially detached analysis of mental images, concepts, and precepts that are not directly observable.
Impartiality and objectivity are harder to obtain from subjective data, and conclusions may be more debatable; but such data are not necessarily inferior if true. That’s why safeguards against error are essential.
Artifacts and historical sources
Artifacts /relics (potsherds, coins, ruins, manuscripts, books, portraits, stamps, wreckage, hair, etc.) are sources/objects other than words.
These artifacts are not the happenings themselves; they are results of events (artifacts) or records of events (documents).
Artifacts can provide direct facts (e.g., handwrought pottery, mortared brick, cursive handwriting, oil paintings, ancient plumbing), but such facts are only a small part of the setting and cannot alone provide the full human context, not the essence of studying history.
Historians deals with: dynamic or genetic(the becoming), static(the being or the become), interpretative(why, how, interrelated), descriptive(what,where,who,when)
A historical context can be inf,erred but is often uncertain; without further evidence, the human context of artifacts cannot be recaptured with confidence.
Incompleteness of historical records
Most past events left no vestiges or records; history-as-record represents the surviving portion of the remembered part of the observed part of the past, a fraction of the whole.
Even when archives or artifacts exist, they are the scholars’ selected parts of chance survivals from the total past.
history-as-actuality=whole history of past, history-as-record= surviving part
The external object to study is thus incomplete and variable as records are lost or rediscovered.
History as a subjective process of recreation
The historian must reconstruct the total past in terms of his own experience, teaching him (1)yesterday is different and the same as well as today, (2) his experience both like and unlike other men
A historian’s reconstruction relies on the memories of many people and the historian’s own abstract memories, which may be imperfect.
The utmost the historian can grasp of history-as-actuality is a mental image or series of images based on applying his experience to part of a vanished whole.
The historian’s aim is verisimilitude(truth likeness) with regard to a perished past – a subjective process rather than experimental certainty about an objective reality. History differs from physics in that physics studies an extrinsic, largely constant(not changing) object (the physical universe) while history studies detached, scattered records that do not form a complete object.
Historical method and historiography defined
Historical method: the critical examination and analysis of records and survivals of the past.
Historiography: the imaginative reconstruction of the past from the data derived by historical method (the writing of history).
Both are often grouped as historical method.
The historian’s aim is to reconstruct as much of the past as possible, acknowledging the limits due to incomplete records and imperfect imagination.
Leopold von Ranke urged an attempt to reconstruct the past “as it actually occurred,” but this is limited by incomplete records and imperfect human language and imagination.
History differs from fiction, poetry, drama, and fantasy because historical work must be grounded in evidence and tested against credible records.
Imagination in Historiography
Historians use imagination, but it's disciplined. They can't invent things; they
imagine what "must have happened" based on evidence.Imagination helps
connect the dots.
Historians use their own experience to understand the past. They draw
analogies between contemporary life and historical events because human
nature hasn't changed much.
Historical Method: The process of analyzing historical sources to ensure they are authentic and credible.
Historiography is the term for the process of taking that credible data and turning it into a narrative or exposition.
History of historical method
Historical method has a long tradition(2000 years); Thucydides [Peloponesian War](5th c. B.C.) described his methods and tests(how he separate truth from fiction)—he even used speeches that he hoped to render as close to the originals as possible.
Ernst Bernheim’s Lehrbuch der historischen Methode und der Geschichtsphilosophie (1889) marks a watershed(marks a major change/turning point) into modern academic discussion.
Since Bernheim, many textbooks have offered approaches to historical analysis (e.g., Langlois & Seignobos; Johnson & Nevins; Harsin; Kent; Wolf; Hockett; Bloch & Renouvin)- these four have common striking degree of unanimity regarding method of historical analysis
Four historical headings (as a practical framework):
Historical analysis
1) Selection of a subject for investigation;
2) Collection of probable sources of information on that subject (heuristics);
3) Examination of sources for genuineness (extant authenticity);
4) Extraction of credible particulars from the sources (or parts of sources) proved genuine; then synthesis into historiography.
Sources and heuristics
Historians use printed books and many non-book materials (archaeological, epigraphical, numismatic materials) on museum and official records in archives, courthouses, governmental libraries, etc. Private papers in business houses, muniment rooms of ancient castles, prized posessions of collectors, and parish churches.
The more precise delimitations of persons, areas, times, and functions, the more relevant the sources.
Heuristics is the term for the bibliographic exercise of finding sources; it can extend beyond books to archives, official records, business papers, churches, autograph collections, etc.
Primary and other original sources
A primary source is the testimony of an eyewitness or of a witness who was present at the events (or a device like a dictaphone).
A secondary source is the testimony of someone not eyewitness/present at the events.
A primary source need not be original in the legal sense of the very document(first drafted); later copies can suffice for study.
“Original” has several distinct meanings in historical discourse; a document may be called original: (1) fresh and creative ideas (2)not translated from language first written (3)in earliest/unpolished stage (4) earliest available information
Historians typically restrict “original sources” to two senses: (1) describes a source that issued from the author without alteration, (e.g., the Magna Carta as the original draft); (2) a source that provides the earliest available information about the question under investigation.
The phrase “original sources” is often misused; distinction between primary vs secondary is more crucial for evaluating credibility than the mere status of a document as original.
Primary particulars rather than whole primary sources sought
Historians seek particular data within a source rather than the source as a whole.
A document largely secondary can still yield valuable primary particulars (e.g., a military communiqués may include firsthand details and subordinate-reported information).
Documents and the human/personal dimension
The document(docere) concept covers written and non-written sources used by historians.
Documentation: any process of proof based upon any kind of source
Document this become synonymous with source
The human document: an account of individual experience revealing actions of a human agent in social life. (Defined by a sociologist)
The personal document: a self-revealing record yielding information about the author’s mental life. (Defined by psychologist)
Both definitions emphasize the human element in documents; historians typically treat documents as both human and personal, and often as informative of both subject and author.
Distinguishes the two from other documents:The degree of subjectivity. (e.g. first person;autobiography,letters , third person;about person like newspaper, court records )
Difference between first-person and third-person documents is not of major significance. That is true for at least three reasons. (1)apparently third-person document is first person(Mémoires of Lafayette or The Education of Henry Adam)
(2)must ultimately rest on first-hand observation (whether by the author or by someone consulted by the author).
(3)Any document you read reveals something about the author's personality and beliefs, no matter how hard they try to be impartial.(Hippolyte Taine's French Revolution)
The significance of a document may lie in what it reveals about the subject and also about the author, sometimes more about the author than intended.
All documents are both human and personal, since they are the work of human beings and shed light upon their authors as well
They shed light: authors & subject
They betray the authors: personality, private life, social life
Historians may learn more about the author than the author intended that he should.
The problem of authenticity, or external criticism
Authenticity is a major concern for manuscript sources, less so for printed sources (which editors may have already authenticated).
Forgeries are common and can be literal forgeries, misrepresented texts, or propaganda;
Historical documents are fabricated for some reasons:
Used to bolster a false claim or title ( ex. the Donation of Constantine)
Sometimes due to less mercenary considerations (political propaganda, personal gain, or misdirection)
Sometimes based in some practical jokes that beguiled even respectable historians
Sometimes genuine documents are intended to mislead contemporaries misleading subsequent historians.
The circumstances of the forgery or misrepresentation of historical documents may often themselves reveal important political, cultural, and biographical information but not about the same events or persons as if they were genuine.(For example, a fake letter from Abraham Lincoln might not tell us anything new about Lincoln himself. Instead, it could reveal why someone in the 1920s felt the need to invent such a letter, what they wanted people to believe about Lincoln, and what issues were important to them at that time.
In short, the forgery itself becomes a historical artifact, providing valuable insights into the motives, beliefs, and culture of the forger and their era.)
Tests of authenticity
Tests of authenticity include dating (termini) and anachronisms, handwriting/signatures, seals, watermarks, and provenance; ink composition, paper dating, and the presence/absence of tools like pencils or typewriters help detect age; isographies (dictionaries of handwriting) are valuable tools; paleography and diplomatics help authenticate documents.
Anachronistic style or references, alibis, or the absence of trivia from a document can expose falsification; surprisingly, genuine documents can be misrepresented due to misinterpretation or deliberate deception.
Provenance (custody and origin) creates a presumption of genuineness; however, provenance alone is not proof.
Garbled documents and textual criticism
Some documents are garbled(distorted) due to copying errors, omissions, additions, or deliberate alterations; textual criticism, drawn from philology and Biblical studies(lower criticism), reconstructs the likely original text.
The process involves gathering multiple copies, comparing them, identifying which passages are additions or omissions, and organizing copies into families to infer ancestral texts.
The Restoration Of Text
The oldest manuscript in a family is likely closest to the original; comparisons across families help identify added or omitted passages; sometimes additional copies are needed, or a single ancestor manuscript can be reconstructed.
Process: (1)Collect dubious copies (2) Compared; where question arises (3) Divide into families (4)Looking for largely copy of each other to discover the father of the family
This process can restore approximately the original text; it can even reveal parts of a father manuscript when no full copy exists.(example is Wilhelm von Giesebrecht, a student of Ranke who added together descended copies guessed similarly to ancestors chronicle)
Sciences auxiliary to history
Various sciences assist textual restoration and interpretation, including Egyptology (Champollion), Assyriology (Rawlinson), biblical criticism, philology, epigraphy, paleography, diplomatics, and archaeology.
These disciplines contribute to the identification of texts, dates, authors, and cultural contexts, providing more reliable foundations for historical interpretation.
"To widen our horizon, to make us see other points of view than those to which we are accustomed, is the greatest service that can be rendered by the historian, and this he can do best by concentrating on the special field which he studies to understand (Morris Cohen)
Identification of author and date
External criticism helps identify the author and approximate date; internal criticism then considers the credibility of the testimony itself.
Terminus post quem: the earliest possible date of composition; terminus ante quem: the latest possible date of composition. These are inferred from internal evidence within the document when authorial identity is known.
Even with unknown authors, dating often relies on contextual clues within the document.
The Gettysburg Address example shows how a document can be dated approximately by internal evidence and contextual cues (e.g., references to civil war, the battlefield, and the era).
Personal equation: the adjustment needed to account for the observer’s biases, frame of reference, and other psychological factors. In history, a historian’s frame of reference shapes how testimony is interpreted and weighed.
The problem of credibility, or internal criticism
What is historical fact? A fact is a particular derived from historical documents and considered credible after testing by historical method; it is verisimilitude(appearance of being true) rather than absolute objective truth.
Simple, concrete facts are rarely disputed when based on direct observation and straightforward testimony; but abstractions, value judgments, and generalizations invite dispute.
The Interrogative Hypothesis
Analysts should approach documents with questions in mind (e.g., Was X present? What were the exact details? When was it written? Who was the audience?).
Formulating hypotheses in interrogative form keeps interpretation noncommittal and helps determine relevance to the problem.
The Quest for Particular Details of Testimony
Historical subjects have biographical, geographical, chronological, and functional dimensions; investigators seek relevant particulars (notes) tied to these aspects.
Notes are accumulated and then sifted to separate credible from incredible items. Even false testimony can yield useful leads.
From this process arise an important rule: for each particular of a document the process of establishing credibility should be separately undertaken regardless of the general credibility of the author.
Identification of the Author
Determining the author helps test authenticity; even anonymous documents can reveal authorial characteristics from their content.
Determination of Approximate Date
Dates can sometimes be inferred from internal evidence; approximate dating uses terminus ante quem/post quem concepts.
The “Personal Equation/Frame of Reference”
The historian’s bias, education, and experience influence interpretation; historians must acknowledge their frame of reference when evaluating testimony.
Personal Equation term applied to correction or adjustment made to an astronomer's data to fix their personal, consistent error in timing.
General Rules for Credibility
The historian acts as prosecutor, advocate, and judge; but he does not dismiss all evidence. Each detail must pass four tests:
(1) Was the ultimate source able to tell the truth?
(2) Was the ultimate source willing to tell the truth?
(3) Is the testimony accurately reported?
(4) Is there independent corroboration?
A detail passing all four tests is credible historical evidence. The credibility of the detail rests on the primary witness, not the entire source.
Ability to Tell the Truth
The main idea is that a witness's testimony is only reliable if they were in a position to truthfully observe and understand the event, and if they possess the skills to describe it accurately. The document outlines a few key considerations:
Nearness(geographical and chronological): Was the witness close enough to see, hear, or feel what happened? A person who was not present or was too far away to have a clear view can't provide reliable firsthand testimony.
a. His own remoteness from time and space b.the remoteness of his recording from time and soace
3 Steps in Historical Testimony: observation,recollection and recording
Knowledge and Skills: Does the witness have the necessary background knowledge to correctly interpret what they observed? For example, an untrained observer might misidentify a type of machinery or a legal procedure.
Competence depends on expertise, memory, health, age, education, etc. Numerical judgments (e.g., army sizes) are often unreliable; modern standards require caution with such numbers before the end of the Middle Ages.
Degree of Attention: A witness's account is only reliable if they were paying close attention to the event, not just physically present. Ex. Students might not notice the prof eating banana while being in their own agenda.
Primary source's intent or motive
It explains that a historian must consider if the author of a primary source had a hidden agenda, a motive for misrepresenting the truth, or a reason to make a false statement. For instance, the author may have wanted to conceal something, justify their actions, or simply have been mistaken. The historian needs to be on the lookout for a "leading question" that prompts a particular answer or a biased tone that reveals the author's true intentions.
In short, the text emphasizes that historians should analyze why a document was created to assess its reliability.
Aptitude to Report: Can the witness clearly and accurately communicate what they saw without distorting the facts? The document mentions that a witness might have an excellent memory but still fail to describe the events precisely.
In short, simply being present at an event isn't enough; the historian must also confirm that the witness was capable of accurately perceiving and reporting what occurred.
Honest Mistake: That part means a witness can make an honest mistake. A historian needs to consider that a person's testimony might be wrong not because they're lying, but because of a bad memory, being emotional, or simply misinterpreting what they saw.
Consistency: That part means a historian should be suspicious of a witness's story if it changes over time, as the revisions might be an attempt to lie or exaggerate.
Willingness to tell the truth
Willingness to Tell the Truth" section explains how a historian should test the honesty of a witness. Here's a breakdown of the numbered points:
Contradiction: Is the witness's story contradicted by other known facts or other reliable evidence? If so, the testimony is less believable.
Moral Character: Is the witness known to be a truthful person? A person's reputation for honesty or dishonesty should be taken into account when evaluating their testimony.
-must be able to understand the "odium" (bias against) and the "studium" (bias) of witness specially Weltanschauung (frame of reference) ex. Religious, political, social.Terms from Tacitus
Desire:The desire to please or to displease may lead to the coloring or the avoidance of the
Literary Style: People can make honest mistakes without lying, like misremembering details.
Laws and Conventions: situation where social rules, etiquette, or legal obligations force a person to lie or withhold information, even if they know it's not the full truth.
Politeness and Etiquette: They might be reluctant to say something negative about someone they knew or respected.
Social Conventions: They might feel obligated to maintain a certain image or protect someone's reputation.
Legal or Formal Constraints: In a formal document, they might have to use certain phrases or language that doesn't fully capture the reality of the situation.
Expectation or Anticipation: a historian must be aware that a witness's personal expectations can unintentionally warp their perception of events, making their testimony unreliable.(They might tend to see what they expect to see, or remember events in a way that confirms their existing biases.)e.g.Germans, Englishmen
Conclusion: It highlights a key challenge for historians: distinguishing between a witness's intentional lies ("unwillingness to tell the truth") and unintentional mistakes ("unconscious inaccuracy").
even when a witness genuinely tries to tell the truth, their testimony can still contain errors due to omission or commission.
Conditions Favorable to Credibility
Statements with little stake or bias are more trustworthy; admissions or confessions may be especially credible when free from coercion(force).
Common knowledge claims (e.g., well-known facts) are usually credible, but the absence of contrary evidence may be misleading if the matter was widely known but not widely reported.
Extraordinary claims require corroboration; widely known but extraordinary claims should be treated with caution.
The main point here is that small, unimportant facts (incidental details) in a document are often more reliable than the main, biased message (the probable). For example, a war leaflet's claim that its side won is the probable message, but its mention of enemy airplanes is an incidental detail that's likely true because there's no reason to lie about it.
Hearsay and Secondary Evidence
Historically, hearsay is not necessarily disqualifying; the historian asks whether secondary witnesses accurately report primary testimony; the secondary source can be valuable if it accurately transmits primary data.
The White House press conference example illustrates how a secondary witness can still provide a trustworthy account if it accurately reflects the primary testimony.
Corroboration
Generally, historians require independent corroboration from two or more reliable witnesses.
Independence among witnesses is crucial; agreement may be due to copying or influence rather than independent observation.
In some cases, especially for biographical questions or highly subjective matters, there may be only a single immediate witness; other kinds of corroboration may be sought (behavioral patterns, motives, etc.).
Conformity with known facts and certitude
Corroboration from independent sources or alignment with established facts strengthens credibility.
However, even with corroboration, ancient legends or improbable phenomena (e.g., prophetic or supernatural claims) are often disbelieved due to lack of independent corroboration and background knowledge.
Certitude is different from certainty: certitude is a high degree of confidence based on critical analysis, while absolute certainty about the actual past is often unattainable.
The paradox of credibility over time
The nearer the period to the present, the more difficult it is to claim long-unchallenged truth due to more abundant sources and greater potential for conflicting interpretations.
Conversely, more distant periods may have fewer sources, but those sources may be clearer and less contested, yielding a different kind of certitude.
Summary view on historical truth
Historians aim for verisimilitude and credible detailing rather than absolute objective truth.
They work with an array of sources, apply external and internal criticisms, and seek corroboration to arrive at credible reconstructions of the past.
The process is iterative and provisional, always open to revision with new evidence or fresh interpretation.
Key terms and concepts (glossary)
Terminus non ante quem: the earliest possible date a document could have been written.
Terminus non post quem: the latest possible date a document could have been written.
Verisimilitude: the semblance of truth or reality; approximate truth rather than absolute certainty.
Primary source: a witness present at the events or an eyewitness.
Secondary source: a witness not present at the events.
Original source: one of several senses, typically describing (a) an undisturbed first-hand document or (b) the earliest available information about a subject.
Document: the broadest term for any source of historical information (written, oral, pictorial, archeological).
Human document: an account revealing an individual’s actions in social life.
Personal document: a self-revealing record about the author’s mental life; closely related to the human document.
External criticism: testing authenticity of documents (forgeries, misrepresentation).
Internal criticism: assessing the credibility of the testimony itself after authenticating the text.
Textual criticism (lower criticism): reconstructing an original text from copies, dealing with omissions, additions, and copyist errors.
Sciences auxiliary to history: disciplines that aid historical research (e.g., philology, paleography, diplomatics, epigraphy, archaeology, Egyptology, Assyriology, biblical criticism).
Personal equation: the historian’s frame of reference and biases that affect interpretation.
Independent corroboration: evidence from two or more independent and reliable witnesses.
Hearsay: second-hand testimony; its credibility depends on accurate transmission from primary testimony.
Studium/odium (bias): biases that influence testimony (favorable vs unfavorable to the subject).
Illustrative examples referenced
The Donation of Constantine: a famous forged document used historically to claim vast territorial rights; exposed by Lorenzo Valla in 1440 through anachronisms.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion: a propaganda document alleging a Jewish conspiracy; widely debunked as a forgery.
Forgeries and misrepresentations in various historical texts, including memoires attributed to Voltaire, Richelieu, and others; later scholars have reassessed their authenticity.
The Gettysburg Address (as an example of author identification, dating, and credibility): analysis shows how a document can reveal authorial identity, purpose, audience, and historical context, and how internal evidence helps place it in a timeframe (1861–1865, American Civil War).
The Mémoires of Madame d’Epinay as an example of a fabricated or misleading historical text.
The Moniteur and other periodical documents as sources that can be forged or misrepresented.
Practical implications for exam preparation
Distinguish between history as a record and history as actual past: recognize the inevitability of incompleteness and the role of inference.
Be able to explain the difference between objective data (observations) and subjective interpretation (historiography).
Understand the four-step framework of historical method (subject selection, source collection, source authentication, extraction of credible particulars) and how synthesis leads to historiography.
Differentiate primary vs secondary sources and understand why primary particulars within sources are crucial for credibility.
Recognize the ethics and limitations of using human/personal documents and the risk of egocentrism in eyewitness accounts.
Articulate how authenticity is tested (external criticism) and how textual criticism helps recover original texts from garbled copies.
Explain the role of independence of witnesses in corroboration and why a single witness often requires additional corroboration.
Discuss the personal equation and how a historian’s frame of reference can affect interpretation; include examples of how biases may influence assessment of credibility.
Be able to discuss certitude vs. certainty and why historical conclusions are provisional, subject to revision with new evidence.