History

From Citizendium
Revision as of 16:09, 2 March 2007 by imported>Chris day (depopulating top cats)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

History (from the Greek ἱστορία) is the discipline studying the record of past events, usually for the purpose of documenting them or examining and drawing conclusions and explanations for them. In its broadest sense, history studies everything that happened in the material world. With regards to humans, the term mainly applies to a critical examination of written and non-written source material from a time where written records are available or where a concrete dating of some events can be established. Events that happened to humans before writing was adopted are generally considered prehistory.

Etymology

The term "history" is the modern form of the Middle English histoire. This itself was based on the Old French historie, based on the Latin historia which was driven from the Ancient Greek ἱστορία (historia) meaning "narrative, account" or from a shared Proto-Indo-European (PIE) word widtor (wid with the suffix tor) derived from the PIE base *weid- meaning "to know" or literally "to see".

The beginning of history

Until recently, it was usually accepted that History began with the earliest recorded written language, the Sumerian Cuneiform script, late in the 4th millennium BC. Lately, the demarcation between history and prehistory blurred to some extent, especially with the more sophisticated dating methods for events and developments that occurred before the appearance of written records. A renewed interest in meta-historical and historicist descriptions, and works dealing with very long periods of time ("Big History") also contributed to weaken this distinction.

Source material

Historians, the writers of history, have always focused their attention on written sources documenting past events. Such sources were generally more readily available, and much easier to study. In the 19th century, with the advancement in historical research capabilities and techniques, and the appearance of new affiliated fields of study such as Archaeology and anthropology, significantly broadened the array of sources available for hisrotical study.

Advances in historical research capabilities and techniques allowed historians to examine a wider variety of written and non-written sources, such as literary sources, coins, inscriptions, church records, legends and folk tales, songs, drawings, buildings, data on planting and harvest, and so on. Archaeology, and especially the more advanced dating techniques, allowed historians to examine and draw meaningful conclusions from source material such as human and animal bones, materials used in structures, sediments of materials in pots, jewellery, or virtually any type of source material that could be excavated and documented.

Historical research methods

The historical research method almost invariably contains three distinct stages: gathering of source material, estimating the source material value to the issue at hand, and deciding what happened.

With the first stage, historians try to collect all the source material available. With the second, a decision is made as to the value of each source. Usually, primary sources, such as a manuscript written at the time of the events, is considered more valuable than a secondary (e.g., a book written by another historian) or tertiary (e.g., an encyclopaedia) source.

Most historians will also apply other considerations, such as the relevance of source material to the subject, the historian's estimation regarding the reliability of the sources, or the amount of new information the source material adds. For example, a book about the Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet might be considered important by a historian dealing with the history of the English theatre, but will be of little importance to another historian, studying Verona in the 16th century.

The third and most crucial stage involves writing down the historical narrative, as the historian understands it. This stage almost always involves some type of decision on the part of the historian as to the degree of veracity of some depiction of the historical narrative, and rejection or playing down of alternative narratives.

Some historians, most especially in ancient historical account, tend to lay out or summarily describe the various narrative or contentions and usually determine, explain or hint which is truer in their view. Other historians just mention when relating some facts or opinions that are point in contention amongst sources or other historians. With some points, where making such a decision is hard or impossible, some historians may leave the point undecided or speculate as to what actually happened.

Historical methods

For more information, see: Historical method.


The historical method comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use primary sources and other evidence to research and then to write history.

Ibn Khaldun laid down the principles for the historical method in his book Muqaddimah. In short, he warns about the many ways that can induce historians into errors. He shared the same methods as modern historians, but also the idea of the past as strange and in need of interpretation. In respect to universal historiography he was the first to lay the foundation of the pragmatic method and make social evolution the object of historical research. Humphrey explains that Ibn Khaldun was also the first to argue that history was a true science based on philosophical principles (Humphreys, R.S., (1985), Muslim Historiography, in Dictionary of the Middle Ages, Charles Scribners and Sons, New York, vol 6, pp 250-5.) As a historian, Ibn Khaldun said, must not trust plain historical information, as it is transmitted, but must also know clearly `the principles resulting from custom, the fundamental facts of politics, the nature of civilisation' and the `the conditions governing human social organisation'; and finally he must `evaluate remote or ancient material through comparison with near or contemporary material.'

The originality of Ibn Khaldun was to see that the cultural difference of another age must govern the evaluation of relevant historical material, to distinguish the principles according to which it might be possible to attempt the evaluation, and lastly, to feel the need for experience, in addition to rational principles, in order to assess a culture of the past. For all of Ibn Khaldun's ability to be on the winning side in the many political vicissitudes that came his way, he strikes the reader as scrupulously honest in dealing with the past. History, according to him, involves speculation and an attempt to get at the truth, `subtle’ explanation of the causes and origins of existing things, and a deep knowledge of the how and why of events. Historical knowledge, thus, is not the same as factual data about the past, but consists `of the principles of human society' which are elicited from these data in a complex process of induction and deduction.’ Mere piling up of facts is not the object of historical study if these facts cannot be determined correctly, there is no basis for historical knowledge in the true sense. And, following a long held Muslim tradition, and along with most Muslim historians, Ibn Khaldun agreed that facts depended on the authorities who had transmitted stories about the past, and that these transmitters should be men widely recognized for their erudition and probity.

Ibn Khaldun advises that historians rely on the past for understanding the present, that they use their own experience to understand the underlying conditions of their society and the principles governing them. In studying the past, they must discover the underlying conditions of those times and decide whether and how far the apparent principles of their own age are applicable. The understanding of the past, thus, becoming the tool by which to evaluate the present. Ultimately, once they fully understand the laws of human society, they can apply them directly to any new body of historical information they confront, which exactly fits in with the opening statement made at the start of the essay by De Somogyi (De Somogyi, J. ( 1958), ‘The Development of Arab Historiography, in The Journal of Semitic Studies, Vol 3).

Other historians of note who have advanced the historical methods of study include Leopold von Ranke, Lewis Bernstein Namier, Geoffrey Rudolph Elton, G.M. Trevelyan and A.J.P. Taylor. In the 20th century, historians focused less on epic nationalistic narratives, which often tended to glorify the nation or individuals, to more realistic chronologies. French historians introduced quantitative history, using broad data to track the lives of typical individuals, and were prominent in the establishment of cultural history (cf. histoire des mentalités). American historians, motivated by the civil rights era, focused on formerly overlooked ethnic, racial, and socio-economic groups. In recent years, postmodernists have challenged the validity and need for the study of history on the basis that all history is based on the personal interpretation of sources. In his book In Defence of History, Richard J. Evans, a professor of modern history at Cambridge University, defended the worth of history.

Value

Historians often claim that the study of history teaches valuable lessons with regard to past successes and failures of leaders, military strategy and tactics, economic systems, forms of government, and other recurring themes in the human story. From history we may learn factors that result in the rise and fall of nation-states or civilizations, the strengths and weaknesses of various political, economic, and social systems, and the effects of factors such as trade and technology.

One of the most famous quotations about history and the value of studying history, by the Spanish philosopher George Santayana, reads: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." The German Philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel remarked in his Philosophy of History that "What history and experience teach us is this: that people and government never have learned anything from history or acted on principles deduced from it." This was famously paraphrased by the British statesman, Winston Churchill, who said "The one thing we have learned from history is that we don't learn from history."

An alternative view is that the forces of history are too great to be changed by human deliberation, or that, even if people do change the course of history, the movers and shakers of this world are usually too self-involved to stop to look at the big picture.

Yet another view is that history does not repeat itself because of the uniqueness of any given historical event. In this view, the specific combination of factors at any moment in time can never be repeated, and so knowledge about events in the past can not be directly and beneficially applied to the present.

Such contrasts with regard to "history's value" serve as examples of history as an outlet for intellectual debate, and indeed many, both in and outside of academia, would argue that at least part of history's value lies simply in its ability to provoke such discussion. In turn, this can be seen as cultivating further intellectual interest.

See also

  • Historian: A person who studies history.
  • Pseudohistory: term for information about the past that falls outside the domain of mainstream history (sometimes it is an equivalent of pseudoscience).

Methods and tools

  • Contemporaneous corroboration: A method historians use to establish facts beyond their limited lifespan.
  • Prosopography: A methodological tool for the collection of all known information about individuals within a given period.
  • Historical revisionism: Traditionally been used in a completely neutral sense to describe the work or ideas of a historian who has revised a previously accepted view of a particular topic.

Particular studies and fields

Other

  • Changelog: log or record of changes made to a project, such as a website or software project.
  • Human evolution: process of change and development, or evolution, by which human beings emerged as distinct species.
  • Social change: changes in the nature, the social institutions, the social behavior, or the social relations of a society or community of people.
  • Historical drama film - The portrayal of history of film.

References

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=History&oldid=68779"