History is the study of the past, focused on human activity and leading up to the present day.[1] More exactly, history is the field of research producing a continuous narrative and a systematic analysis of past events of importance to the human race,[1] including the study of events over time and their relation to humanity.[2] Those who study history as a profession are called historians.
The word history comes from Greek ἱστορία (istoria), from the Proto-Indo-European *wid-tor-, from the root *weid-, "to know, to see". This root is also present in the English word wit, in the Latin words vision and video, in the Sanskrit word veda, and in the Slavic word videti and vedati, as well as others.[citation needed] (The asterisk before a word indicates that it is a hypothetical construction, not an attested form.)
The Ancient Greek word ἱστορία, istoría, means "knowledge acquired by investigation, inquiry". It was in that sense that Aristotle used the word in his Περί Τά Ζωα Ιστορία, Peri Ta Zoa Istória or, in Latinized form, Historia Animalium.[3] The term is derived from ἵστωρ, hístōr meaning wise man, witness, or judge. We can see early attestations of ἵστωρinHomeric Hymns, Heraclitus, the Athenian ephebes' oath, and in Boiotic inscriptions (in a legal sense, either "judge" or "witness," or similar). The spirant is problematic, and not present in cognate Greek eídomai ("to appear"). The form historeîn, "to inquire", is an Ionic derivation, which spread first in Classical Greece and ultimately over all of Hellenistic civilization.
It was still in the Greek sense that Francis Bacon used the term in the late 16th century, when he wrote about "Natural History". For him, historia was "the knowledge of objects determined by space and time", that sort of knowledge provided by memory (while science was provided by reason, and poetry was provided by fantasy).
The word entered the English languagein1390 with the meaning of "relation of incidents, story". In Middle English, the meaning was "story" in general. The restriction to the meaning "record of past events" arises in the late 15th century. In German, French, and most Germanic and Romance languages the same word is still used to mean both "history" and "story". The adjective historical is attested from 1561, and historic from 1669.[1]
Historian in the sense of a "researcher of history" is attested from 1531. In all European languages, the substantive "history" is still used to mean both "what happened with men", and "the scholarly study of the happened", the latter sense sometimes distinguished with a capital letter, "History", or the word historiography[3]
History is facilitated by the formation of a 'true discourse of past'. The modern discipline of History is dedicated to the institutional production of this discourse. More precisely, history is the narrative and research of past events as relating to the human race;[1] as well as the study of all events in time, in relation to humanity.[2] This emphasis on the 'human' has made human subjects central to the narratives of the classical discourse of modern history. Consequently, history has assumed a sense which is broader than being solely the true narratives of human past. History is not just the past as an object of systematic knowledge or the discipline that produces knowledge out of that object; history also carries a sense that is implicit in the expression 'making history'. Thus History often signifies the production of events having transformative potentials that ushers in the future. This is how a temporal schema connecting the past, the present, and the future is foregrounded through the signifier history. The historical temporality is grounded within the idea of autonomous human subjects endowed with historical subjectivity which aids them in the production of events and at once helps them to record and narrate past events as history.
All events that are remembered and preserved in some form (that cannot be invalidated as unhistorical or that otherwise remain amenable to historical discourse) constitute the historical record.[2] Events that had supposedly occurred before the advent of written communication are therefore dubbed "pre-history". The self-assigned task of historical discourse is to identify the sources which can contribute to the production of truthful accounts of past. Thus the constitution of the historian's archive is a result of circumscribing a more general archive by invalidating the usage of certain texts and documents (by falsifying their claims to represent the 'true past'). Some historians study universal history. Others focus on certain methods[4] or on certain areas[5].
The study of history has sometimes been classified as part of the humanities and at other times as part of the social sciences[6] It can also be seen as a bridge between those two broad areas, incorporating methodologies from both. Some individual historians strongly support one or the other classification.[7] In modern academia, history is increasingly classified as a social science. In the 20th century the study of history was revolutionized by French historian Fernand Braudel, by using such outside disciplines as economics, anthropology, and geography in the study of global history.
Traditionally, historians have attempted to answer historical questions through the study of written documents, although historical research is not limited merely to these sources. Writing is a marker that separates history from what comes before. In general, the sources of historical knowledge can be separated into three categories: what is written, what is said, and what is physically preserved, and historians often consult all three.[8] Archaeology is a discipline which is especially helpful in dealing with buried sites and objects which, once unearthed,can contribute to history writing. But Archaeology rarely stands alone since it utilizes narrative contents of prevalent histories to build up its theories. Historians frequently emphasize the importance of written records, which would limit history to times after the development of writing. This emphasis has led to the term prehistory[9] to refer to any period of human history predating surviving written records.There are a variety of ways in which history can be organized, including chronologically, culturally, territorially and thematically. These divisions are not mutually exclusive, and significant overlaps are often present, as in『The International Women's Movement in an Age of Transition, 1800–1945.』 It is possible for historians to concern themselves with both the very specific and the very general, although the modern trend has been toward specialization. The area called Big History resists this specialization, and searches for universal patterns or trends. History has often been studied with some practical or theoretical aim, but also may be studied out of simple intellectual curiosity.[10]
The development, transmission, and transformation of cultural practices and events are the subject of history.The idea of prehistory is a late development in history of thought. It is an attempt to qualitatively mark off the origin of history from the origin of earth.The separability of these two origins emerged as modern Geology proved that the age of earth is considerably older than what has been understood from Biblical literature.With time the idea of creation, as depicted in the Bible, came to be refuted and the origin of civil (human) history was chronologically separated from the origin of natural history. Since writing emerged at different times throughout the world, and since some kinds of written records are more perishable than others, a distinction between prehistory and history is often made. In the 20th century, the division between history and prehistory has been considered problematic. Criticism arose because of history's implicit exclusion of certain civilizations, such as those of Sub-Saharan Africa and pre-Columbian America. Historians in the West have been criticized for focusing disproportionately on the Western world.[11]
In1961, British historian E. H. Carr suggested a definition of the beginning of history broader than the adoption of the use of writing:
Such a definition would include within the scope of history peoples -such as Australian Aboriginals and New Zealand Maori- who, before contact with Europeans, already possessed strong interest in the past and maintained oral records transmitted to future generations.
Historiography has a number of related meanings. Firstly, it can refer to how history has been produced: the story of the development of methodology and practices (for example, the move from short-term biographical narrative towards long-term thematic analysis). Secondly, it can refer to what has been produced: a specific body of historical writing (for example, "medieval historiography during the 1960s" means "Works of medieval history written during the 1960s"). Thirdly, it may refer to why history is produced: the Philosophy of History (Historiosophy). As a meta-level analysis of descriptions of the past, this third conception can relate to the first two in that the analysis usually focuses on the narratives, interpretations, worldview, use of evidence, or method of presentation of other historians.
 The following questions are used by historians in modern work.
The first four are known as higher criticism; the fifth, lower criticism; and, together, external criticism. The sixth and final inquiry about a source is called internal criticism. |
The historical method comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use primary sources and other evidence to research and then to write history. A Historiographical Operation geared to sift valid historical statements from the larger domain of statements is indispensable for the production of 'true discourse of past'. This discourse is necessarily produced by strict adherence to a stipulated method. In other words, historical truth itself can be called an effect of the method of historiographical production.
HerodotusofHalicarnassus (484 BC – ca.425 BC)[13] has generally been acclaimed as the "father of history". However, it is his contemporary Thucydides (ca. 460 BC – ca. 400 BC) who is credited with having begun the scientific approach to history in his work the History of the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides, unlike Herodotus and other religious historians, regarded history as being the product of the choices and actions of human beings, and looked at cause and effect, rather than as the result of divine intervention.[13] In his historical method, Thucydides emphasized chronology, a neutral point of view, and that the human world was the result of the actions of human beings. Greek historians also viewed history as cyclical, with events regularly recurring.[14]
There were historical traditions and sophisticated use of historical method in ancient and medieval China. The groundwork for professional historiography in East Asia was established by the Han Dynasty court historian known as Sima Qian (145–90 BC), author of the Shiji (Records of the Grand Historian). For the quality of his timeless written work, Sima Qian is posthumously known as the Father of Chinese Historiography. Chinese historians of subsequent dynastic periods in China used his Shiji as the official format for historical texts, as well as for biographical literature.
Saint Augustine was influential in Christian and Western thought at the beginning of the Medieval period. Through the Medieval and Renaissance periods, history was often studied through a sacred or religious perspective. Around 1800, German philosopher and historian Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel brought philosophy and a more secular approach in historical study.[10]
In the preface to his book the Muqaddimah, historian and early sociologist Ibn Khaldun warned of seven mistakes that he thought that historians regularly committed. In this criticism, he approached the past as strange and in need of interpretation. The originality of Ibn Khaldun was to claim 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.
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 objective analyses. French historians introduced quantitative history, using raw 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.
There are two aspects of science and history. One is a relationship between history and "natural" science. In 1910, American historian Henry Adams printed and distributed to university libraries and history professors the small volume A Letter to American Teachers of History proposing a "theory of history" based on the second law of thermodynamics and the principle of entropy.[15][16] This, essentially, is the use of the arrow of time in history.
The other aspect, far more intensely debated among professional historians, is the controversy regarding history as science as opposed to history as art. Mainly historians of the Anglo Saxon tradition advocate the view that history should be about fact finding (and assessment about reliability of source materials), rather than narrative aspect of history.
Historical study often focuses on events and developments that occur particular blocks of time. Historians give these periods of time names in order to allow "organising ideas and classifacatory generalisations" to be used by historians.[17] The names given to a period can vary with geographical location as can the dates of the start and end of a particular period. Centuries and decades are commonly used periods and the time they represent depends on the dating system used. Most periods are constructed retrospectively and so reflect value judgements made about the past. The way periods are constructed and the names given to them can affect the way they are viewed and studied.[18]
Particular geographical locations can form the basis of historical study, for example, continents, countries and cities.
Military history concentrates on the study of conflicts that have happened in human society. This includes the examining wars, battles, military strategies and weaponry. Military history is composed of the events in the history of humanity that fall within the category of conflict. This may range from a melee between two tribes to conflicts between proper militaries to a world war affecting the majority of the human population. Military historians record (in writing or otherwise) the events of military history.
Social history is the study of how societies adapt and change over periods of time. Social history is an area of historical study considered by some to be a social science that attempts to view historical evidence from the point of view of developing social trends. In this view, it may include areas of economic history, legal history and the analysis of other aspects of civil society that show the evolution of social norms, behaviors and more.
Lists
Methods and tools
Other
|
Particular studies and fieldsThese are approaches to history; not listed are histories of other fields, such as history of science, history of mathematics and history of philosophy.
|
{{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
{{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
{{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
{{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
Definitions from Wiktionary
Media from Commons
News from Wikinews
Quotations from Wikiquote
Texts from Wikisource
Textbooks from Wikibooks
Resources from Wikiversity|
| |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Key concepts |
| ||||||||
| Measurement and standards |
| ||||||||
|
|
| ||||||||
| Philosophy of time |
| ||||||||
|
|
| ||||||||
| Human experience and use of time |
| ||||||||
| Time in science |
| ||||||||
| Related |
| ||||||||
| |||||||||
|
| |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Key topics |
| ||||||||
|
|
| ||||||||
| Calendars |
| ||||||||
| Astronomic time |
| ||||||||
| Geologic time |
| ||||||||
| Chronological dating |
| ||||||||
| Genetic methods |
| ||||||||
| Linguistic methods |
| ||||||||
| Related topics |
| ||||||||
