Introduction to Historiography
Historical study concerns the past of men about everything they have done, said, thought in the flow of past time. This definition is simple. It is the fact in the form of records, oral traditions, inscriptions in stone, or writing on papyrus or paper, that historians can study and from which they can write history. Historical study then, is the study of the surviving records of men which needs a qualification and elaboration.
History is everything that has happened to men in the flow of past time. History as a study is the attempt to discover and understand what happened. Historians have sometimes hoped to recover the past as it actually was. But the actual past cannot be recovered for many reasons and not only because past men have left only traces of their acts and ideas. The surviving records, especially of ancient times are scanty, while the records of modern times, though partial and incomplete, are so vast that an historian can but sample them. The records were created by men; they may or may not give an accurate description, but they never give a full account of what happened. The historian himself is a product of his own times and has the biases of his own culture and he cannot, even imaginatively, fully project himself out of his own present into the lives of men of earlier times, for they acted and thought in ways partly beyond his comprehension.
History, like theology or natural science, is a special form of thought. The questions about the nature, object, method and value of this form of thought must be answered by persons having two qualifications. First, they must have experience of that form of thought. They must be historian. Second, they should not only have experience of historical thinking but also have reflected upon the experience. They must be not only historians but also philosophers; and in particular their philosophical thought must have included special attention to the problems of historical thought.
Collingwood’s The Idea of History, attempts to elaborate such idea in detail by investigating its history. He views that the historians nowadays think that history should be (i) a science, or answering of questions; (ii) concerned with human actions in the past; (iii) pursued by interpretation of evidence; and (iv) for the sake of human self-knowledge. But this is not the way in which people have always thought of history.
In a matter of fact, historiography reminds readers that historical writing has fashions in its method and approaches and attempted to provide as comprehensive an account as possible of the writing of previous historians.
What is Historiography?
Marnie Hughes-Warrington explains that historiography refers to a broader range of activities than is often acknowledged by historians and history teachers. It can be explored and suggested how knowledge of them can help us better understand both the diversity and limitations of the visions of history within these four approaches. First, studies of history as a social phenomenon. Historiography understood in this sense may entail the anthropological and sociological investigation of the historicities of various communities today, that is, their way of experiencing and understanding, and constructing and representing history. Anthropological studies of historical awareness make it clear that no single understanding of history binds culture together meanwhile sociological studies focused on single cultural contexts have also highlighted variation in historicities.
Second, relating to psychological studies of historical awareness and thinking. Sociological studies challenge man to think about the primacy of wtitten texts in historical and historiographical studies. We realize that the question ‘what is history?’ also entails asking ‘where is history?’. Psychological approaches to the study of historical awareness respond to that question by focusing on the mental activities of those who make and study histories, as well as social practices conventionally associated with the term.
Third, historical studies of histories play a prominent part in scholarship on teaching and learning history. When it comes to the consideration of historians’ activities, historical approaches are far more prevalent. For a number of historians, historiography is synonymous with the history of histories and history making. Arthur Marwick, for instance, has argued that the term ‘historiography’ can be collapsed into that of ‘history’. Historical studies of historians and histories range across ancient and modern cultures. A varied range of sources and methodologies have been employed in these studies, from narratological studies of the forms of works to numerical assessments of how many people came into contact with them. It might reasonably be expected historiographical research will present as complex an account of individual and social practices as that offered in historical research.
Fourth, philosophical study of history, it can be questioned how might we address a ‘should’ question in historiography? How do we decide what we ‘ought’ to research and communicate? The usual response to questions of this sort is that we require philosophical analysis. In both ancient and modern settings, writers and thinkers have looked to philosophical analysis both to address points of debate and illuminate agreed, unquestioned and taken-for-granted principles and assumptions. This is because every historian makes or affirms assumptions that define, refine, contract or extend their activities. Some of these assumptions are subject to great historical and cultural variation, while others are affirmed so often and for so long that they appear to be unalterable or subject only to minor alterations. Some are openly debated, while others are so deeply held that they cannot be clearly enunciated.
Sources :
1. Fifty key thinkers on History
2. Companion to Historiography
3. What is History
No comments:
Post a Comment