How To Be An Historian: Five Tools
Lynn Hunt, Historian, UCLA
How To Be An Historian:
Five Tools
Historians – like chefs, car mechanics, plumbers, and accountants – use tools to do their job; these are the tools of their trade. Rather than a wrench or a paring knife, the tools that historians use are ideas. With these ideas they analyze and organize the past and present their results so that persons have a better idea about what the past was and how it evolved into this present.
Five tools in particular are the basis of the historian’s toolkit. In one way or another, all historians use these tools and it is likely that you have as well in narrating the history of your own life, explaining a breakup, troubleshooting a problem at work -- many things.
What are they?
The first is Chronology. This tool is so familiar to us that it is easy not to think of it as a tool at all.
Chronology is the arranging of events in time to make a sequence. In a word, it is a sequence of events. If you have ever made a timeline, even if only in your head, you have used this tool.
The term comes from the Greek word for 'time' (chronos). The study of time. 'Logia' or -logy means 'the study of.'
We have many types of chronologies -- the chronology of early Man, for instance; a personal chronology ('I was born in 2001, first saw Atlantis on..."); a chronology of an event or nation or a people.
Very often the first step in understanding a past period is setting up an accurate dating of the sequence of events. Only then can the historian debate what the events might mean or speculate on how different events might have led to different consequences.
Chronology, far from being trivial or only of interest to historians, is of interest to lawyers as well and can determine the guilt or innocence of a person.
A good example of this is the O.J. Simpson Trial and the legal wrangling that took place over not only whether events took place, but also when they took place.
According to the timeline of the prosecution, Simpson had plenty of time to kill Nicole Simpson. According to the timeline of the defense, Simpson could not possibly have done all the acts the prosecution claims he did in the given time. When the prosecution alleged that at 9:57 pm, Simpson entered Nicole Simpson’s backyard knife upraised, the defense had him driving to the airport. Different chronologies mean different causes and effects.
Different sequences of events lend support to different explanations and, therefore, to different verdicts about the past..
An interesting aspect of chronology is its relationship to the second tool of the historian – Causation.
Causation is identifying cause and effect and describing what that relationship is. It is the study of why things happen in the past. It answers the question 'Why?' -- why did you take this course? Why do you like the music you like? Why are you obsessed about Game of Thrones? (Ok, that's my obsession, but fill in the blank.)
Who killed John Kenneday? That's a question about causation. Was it Oswall? Castro? Or his vice president, Lyndon Johnson. We keep asking the question because causation matters.
What caused the American Civil War? To the North, it was caused by slavery and the destruction of the Union. To the South, it was caused by a meddling, power-hungry Federal government. The causation you accept shapes the history you'll write and the evidence you'll examine.
Who or what was behind 9/11? Was it al Queada or a plot by the U.S. government to get the American people behind an invasion of Iraq? These are questions about cause and effect.
In many cases an historian can determine the cause of an event – the “why” of history – simply by getting the chronology right. Causation is often linked to chronology
For instance, if we know that a building that stood for over eighty years collapsed a few seconds after an earthquake, the chances are good – simply because we know the sequence of these events – that the earthquake caused the collapse. Remove or confuse the sequence of events and our guess about the cause of the collapse is less likely.
I mentioned the O.J. Simpson case above. The prosecution rested much of its case against Simpson on what piece of evidence?
Answer: The infamous bloody glove.
This leads us to the third tool of the historian: Evidence.
Evidence is the heart of history. Without it, there is no history to examine let alone interpret. It is the lifeblood of the historical profession, and this is why historians handle it with special care. This is why WE will handle it with care.
Evidence is anything used to prove something else. It can be data, an event, DNA, fingerprints.
As any good police detective, lawyer, archeologist, or Crime Scene Detective will tell you – evidence is all around us. Just glance around your apartment or room: it is brimming with evidence. Evidence of what? Of the person you are, what you like and (by omission) dislike. It tells us something about your class, often your bank account -- what you value and don't value. Many things.
Try this experiement: Imagine that we are historians of the year 3,000. What evidence exists now, in your room, that would tell others about the year 2017 and Americans as a people and a culture? Name the potential evidence. Then, in a second column, tell us what this evidence means given the larger context of American culture?
In some cases, the authenticity (truthfulness) of the evidence is disputed, as in the case of forgeries. In other cases, historians dispute over not whether something occurred, but what the meaning of the evidence is.
We all know that Columbus set sail in 1492 (right? how?), but what was the meaning of his voyages? For that matter, what were its causes? Was it to commit acts of genocide, to enrich himself, or to boldly go where few Europeans had gone before?
No one doubts, for instance, that the world’s temperatures and climates have fluctuated wildly over the last few years, but does this confirm the reality of the greenhouse effect? Of global warming? That is, what do these changes in the weather -- this evidence -- mean?
You should know that historians divide Evidence into at least two BIG categories: primary and secondary sources. Primary sources are those documents produced by eyewitnesses to the events of which they speak. ‘Eyewitness’ is the key term.
Secondary sources are documents produced by others who though they did not witness the events of which they write, have come to their knowledge through others who did. Your textbook therefore is mostly a secondary source.
Types of evidence include diaries, treaties, photos, and cartoons. Another type is artifacts, such as pottery and jewelry. DNA is evidence, as is that fingerprint on your computer screen.
In the weeks ahead we'll go further into Evidence since, as I've said, it's the heart of history.
The fourth tool of the historian is Perspective.
Perspective means point of view or POV. It's importance rests on a simple truth: "If you would know the history of anything, know the historian." That is, know the strengths and weaknesses, the biases of the person who wrote the history. Only then can you determine the credibility of your source about the past.
That truth might seems obvious, right? I mean, we try to determine the value of a person's 'evidence' every day. When our mechanic tells us that we need a new transmission (his narrative of reality), you may (like me) ask yourself if he can be trusted -- especially when the price of repair is in the thousands.
When a friend tells us that the new Batman movie is the best, whether we believe her or not depends on whether we trust her POV: her point of view.
Perspective demands that we ask of any history or account of reality: who's view of reality is this and how might this view be colored by the life of the teller?
A good example of perspective is given to us by the historian Howard Zinn. When Zinn wrote his famous work, A People's History of the United States, history was mostly told from the perspective of privileged white males about topics that white males tended to value: other powerful white males, politics, and war. Zinn changed the perspective and asked a revolutionary question: what would U.S. History look like if it were narrated not by those in privileged positions, but by the average person -- the printer, butcher, and candlestick maker? His question changed how history has been written ever since. And why? Because he foregrounded the perspective of the historian.
Does a concern with Perspective mean that all histories are equally invalid because they embody the limitations of the writer-historian? Or are some historians, aware of Perspective, more mindful in monitoring their own shortcomings as historians and making allowances for them? Let's see in the month's ahead.
The last tool in the historian’s toolkit is Skepticism.
For the purposes of our class, Skepticism is a questioning attitude toward all supposed statements of fact. It requires us to ask of any conclusion, “Where is the evidence to support this?” “Why should I believe this?”
The term is Greek, and it originally meant to hold something up to the light so that a person might see through something – to examine and know it well. Skepticism is a tool therefore of all critical minds in all of the sciences. In fact, without it, the sciences – which are based on constant questioning of the facts – would not exist. All the great minds in human history (Newton, Einstein, Joyce, Woolf) have been skeptical in this sense.
Skepticism is often confused with “cynicism,” but the terms are different. Cynics tend not to believe that truth is possible at all. Or, if truth exists, they believe it comes to nothing. Conversely, though skeptics question everything, they do not question the usefulness of knowing the truth and the truth’s ability to help us better our lives. This is their one dogma. You -- like me -- may share it.
Some notable skeptics were Socrates and David Hume. If these names are new to you, look them up and question their conclusions. Doing so would put a smile on their faces.
Now that you know the five tools of the historian, test yourself by attempting to find their use in the chapters that you read in our history text, in the primary sources, and in all I write or comment on in our course.