Historians are limited in their ability to fully understand history due to the incompleteness of historical records. Most human events were not recorded, and even artifacts that remain may lack context of the surrounding environment. Historians can only study the small fraction of records that still exist from the totality of past events. Reconstructing history requires subjective interpretation of scattered documents and relics. The historical method involves critically examining sources to extract credible details and synthesize them into a narrative reconstruction, but historians can never fully recount the past as it entirely occurred.
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0 ratings0% found this document useful (0 votes)
2K views2 pages
The Limitation of Historical Knowledge
Historians are limited in their ability to fully understand history due to the incompleteness of historical records. Most human events were not recorded, and even artifacts that remain may lack context of the surrounding environment. Historians can only study the small fraction of records that still exist from the totality of past events. Reconstructing history requires subjective interpretation of scattered documents and relics. The historical method involves critically examining sources to extract credible details and synthesize them into a narrative reconstruction, but historians can never fully recount the past as it entirely occurred.
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2
THE LIMITATION OF HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE
The incompleteness of record has limited man’s knowledge of history.
Most human affairs happen without leaving any evidence or records of any kind, no artifacts, or if there are, no further evidence of the human setting in which to place surviving artifacts. Although it may have happened, but the past has perished forever with only occasional traces. The whole history of the past (called history-as-actuality) can be known to a historian only through the surviving records (history-as-record), and most of history-as-record is only a tiny part the whole phenomenon. Even the archeological and anthropological discoveries are only small parts discovered from the total past. Historians study the records or evidences that survived the time. They tell history from what they understood a credible part of the record. However, their claims many remains variable as there can be historical records that could be discovered, which may affirm on refute those that they have already presented. This explains the “incompleteness” of the “object” that the historians study.
HISTORICAL AS THE SUBJECTIVE PROCESS OF RE-CREATION
From the incomplete evidence, historians strive to restore the total part of mankind. They do it from the point of view that human beings live in different times and that their experiences maybe somehow comparable, or that their experiences may have significantly differed contingent on the place and time. For the historians, history becomes only that part of the human past which can be meaningfully reconstructed from the available records and from inference regarding their setting. In short, historian’s aim is verisimilitude(the truth, authenticity, plausibility) about a past. Unlike the study of the natural science that has objectively measurable phenomena, the study of history is subjective process as documents and relics are scattered and do not together comprise the total object that the historian is studying. Some of the natural scientists, such as geologists and paleo-zoologists who study fossils from the traces of a perished past, greatly resemble historians in this regard, but they differ at certain points since historians deal with human testimonies as well as physical traces. HISTORICAL METHOD AND HISTORIOGRAPHY The process of critically examining and analyzing the records and survivals of the past is called historical method. The imaginative reconstruction of the past form the data derived historiography. By means of historical and historiography (both of which are frequently grouped together simply as historical method), he historian endeavors to reconstruct as much of the past of mankind as he/she can. Even in this limited effort, however, the historian handicapped. He/she rarely can tell the story even of a part of the past as it occurred. For the past conceived of as something “actually occurred” places obvious limits upon the kinds of record and of imagination that the historians may use. These limits distinguish history from fiction, poetry, drama and fantasy. Historical analysis is also an important element of historical method. In historical analysis, historians:(1) select the subject to investigate; (2) collect the probable sources of information on the subject; (3) examine the sources of genuineness, in part of in whole; and (4) extract credible “particulars” from the sources (or parts of sources). The synthesis of the “particulars” thus derived is historiography. Synthesis and analysis cannot be entirely separated since they have a common ground, which is the ability to understand the past through some meaningful, evocative and convincing historical or cross-disciplinary connections between a given historical issue and other historical contexts,periods, or themes.
Instant download New Trends in Engineering Research: Proceedings of the International Conference of Experimental and Numerical Investigations and New Technologies, ... (Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, 792) 1st Edition Nenad Mitrovic pdf all chapter