Historical method

People study the past to learn the truth.

They look for many clues. They use old letters and stories. They also look at old things found in the ground.

Historians act like detectives. They must check if a clue is real. Some old things might be fake.

They also check who wrote a story. It is best to use stories from people who saw things. These people are called eyewitnesses.

If many people say the same thing, it is likely true. This helps build a clear picture of the past. Learning about history is a big job!

Historians study the past to find the truth. They use many tools to do this. These tools are called the historical method.

Historians look at many kinds of clues. They read old letters or books. They also look at things found in the ground. These items are called material evidence.

Checking clues is very important. Historians must see if a clue is real. Some old items might be fakes. They also check who made the clue. They ask when and where it was made. This helps them know if it is true.

It is best to use stories from eyewitnesses. These are people who saw an event happen. A story from an eyewitness is often better than a story told later. If many different people tell the same story, it is likely true.

Sometimes, historians use oral tradition. This is when stories are passed down by speaking. For these stories to be useful, they must be about important events. Many people must have known about the event too. By using all these clues, historians build a picture of our world.

Historians are like detectives of the past. They use a special set of tools called the historical method to learn the truth. This method helps them research and write about what happened long ago. They look at primary sources, which are clues from the time itself. They also study secondary sources and material evidence from archaeology.

Historians must identify these sources carefully. They then check how much we can trust each one. Their goal is to build an accurate picture of past events and environments. This careful work is how we understand our world's history.

One important part of this work is called source criticism. This is the way historians check if a clue is valid or reliable. In 1946, Gilbert J. Garraghan and Jean Delanglez divided this into six questions. They asked when a source was made and where it came from. They also asked who made it and what materials were used. They checked the original form and the credibility of the contents.

Some of these are called external criticism. Others are called internal criticism. This process helps separate real facts from fake ones.

Sometimes, different clues tell different stories. Historians have steps to follow when this happens. In 1889, Bernheim suggested ways to handle these disagreements. Later, in 1898, Langlois and Seignobos proposed their own steps. If many sources agree, the event is likely proven. However, a majority does not always rule the truth.

If two sources disagree, historians look for the one with more authority. An eyewitness is usually the best person to trust. If two independent sources agree, the story becomes much stronger. If they still disagree, historians use common sense to decide.

Historians also look for signs of truth in a source. Two historians, Olden-Jørgensen and Thurén Torsten, shared some core principles. They noted that relics, like a fingerprint, are more credible than stories. A source might be forged or changed over time. The closer a source is to an event, the better it is.

An eyewitness is better than someone hearing a story second-hand. They also watch for bias, which is a personal leaning. If a person has no reason to be biased, their story is more credible. This helps ensure the history stays honest and fair.

Some history is passed down through speaking, called oral tradition. Gilbert Garraghan said this can be used if certain conditions are met. The story should come from an unbroken line of witnesses. It should also be about a public event that many people knew.

The tradition should have been believed for a long time without protest. Historians can also use oral stories to help when no written texts exist. By combining all these different clues, historians can form a hypothesis. They use reasoning to find the best explanation for the past.

The historical method is a collection of techniques used by historians. These experts use these guidelines to research and write about the past. They look at primary sources, which are clues from the actual time period. They also use secondary sources and material evidence from archaeology.

A historian's skill involves identifying these sources and evaluating their authority. They combine different testimonies to build a reliable picture of past events. This entire study of how history is written is called historiography. In the philosophy of history, experts study the nature of this method through epistemology.

One essential part of this work is source criticism. This is the process of evaluating a source's validity, reliability, and relevance. In 1946, Gilbert J. Garraghan and Jean Delanglez divided this into six specific inquiries. They asked when a source was produced and where it was made. They also asked who produced it and what pre-existing material was used. They looked at the original form and the credibility of the contents. The first four inquiries are called higher criticism. The fifth is called lower criticism. Together, these make up external criticism. The final inquiry is called internal criticism.

External and internal criticism serve different functions in research. R. J. Shafer noted that external criticism often acts as a negative function. It helps save historians from using false evidence. In contrast, internal criticism has a positive function. It teaches historians how to use authenticated evidence correctly. Louis Gottschalk argued that no document is completely reliable. He suggested that historians must establish the credibility of every particular detail. Even if an author seems trustworthy, each piece of evidence must be weighed individually.

Historians often face contradictory sources that tell different stories. In 1889, Bernheim proposed a seven-step procedure to handle these disagreements. Langlois and Seignobos added to this in 1898. If all sources agree on an event, it may be considered proven. However, a majority of sources does not always guarantee the truth. The version must still pass a test of critical textual analysis. If two sources disagree, historians prefer the one with more authority. This usually means a source created by an eyewitness or an expert.

If two independent sources agree, the reliability of both is increased.

When sources disagree and no other evaluation is possible, historians use common sense. Two Scandinavian historians, Olden-Jørgensen and Thurén Torsten, formulated core principles for reliability. They noted that human sources can be relics, like a fingerprint, or narratives, like a letter. Relics are generally more credible than narratives. They also observed that the closer a source is to an event, the more it can be trusted. An eyewitness is more reliable than second-hand testimony. They also watch for bias, which is a person's motivation to provide a certain view. If a witness has no direct interest in creating bias, their message is more credible.

Historians must also decide if a source is genuine or a forgery. They use criteria of authenticity to separate real content from manipulation. External criteria involve establishing the authorship of a source. This might include checking if other sources attribute the work to the same author. Internal criteria look at the style and language used by the writer. Historians check for inconsistencies in time or chronology. They also look for insertions or deletions within the text.

R. J. Shafer provided a checklist for evaluating eyewitness testimony. This includes checking if the author's physical location allowed for clear observation.

Some history is preserved through oral tradition rather than writing. Gilbert Garraghan stated that oral tradition can be accepted under certain conditions. The tradition should be supported by an unbroken series of witnesses. It should also report a public event of great importance. This event must have been generally believed for a definite period of time. This period should have passed without protest from others. The tradition should also be of a relatively limited duration.

Historians can verify these traditions by comparing them with archaeological remains. Finally, historians use historical reasoning to connect all these pieces. They use an argument to the best explanation to form a hypothesis. This hypothesis must explain the most observable data more effectively than any other idea.