Ancient History – 3rd Year

Paper – II (PYQs Soln.)

Unit I

Language/भाषा

Introduction

History is the study of life in society in the past, in all its aspect, in relation to present developments and future hopes. It is the story of man in time, an inquiry into the past based on evidence. Indeed, evidence is the raw material of history teaching and learning. It is an Inquiry into what happened in the past, when it happened, and how it happened. It is an inquiry into the inevitable changes in human affairs in the past and the ways these changes affect, influence or determine the patterns of life in the society. History is, or should be an attempt to re-think the past. Collingwood (1945) is particularly interested in this concept of history.

History aims at helping students to understand the present existing social, political, religious and economic conditions of the people. Without the knowledge of history we cannot have the background of our religion, customs institutions, administration and so on. The teaching of history helps the students to explain the present, to analyze it and to trace its course. Causeand-effect relationship between the past and the present is lively presented in the history. History thus helps us to understand the present day problems both at the national and international level accurately and objectively.

Concept of History

History is the analysis and interpretation of the human past enabling us to study continuity and changes that are taking place over time. It is an act of both investigation and imagination that seeks to explain how people have changed over time. Historians use all forms of evidence to examine, interpret, revisit, and reinterpret the past. These include not just written documents, but also oral communication and objects such as buildings, artifacts, photographs, and paintings. Historians are trained in the methods of discovering and evaluating these sources and the challenging task of making historical sense out of them. History is a means to understand the past and present. The different interpretations of the past allow us to see the present differently and therefore imagine—and work towards—different futures. It is often said to be the “queen” or “mother” of the social sciences. It is the basis of all subjects of study which fall under the category of Humanities and Social Sciences. It is also the basis of the study of philosophy, politics, economics and even art and religion. No wonder, it is considered an indispensible subject in the complete education of man.

Meaning of History

At its core, history refers to the systematic study and documentation of past events, actions, and transformations within human societies. Derived from the Greek word “historia,” meaning “inquiry” or “knowledge acquired by investigation,” history involves examining sources to reconstruct and interpret the past.

History is not merely a chronological account of events; it involves understanding the causes and consequences of those events. It explores human experiences, cultures, and civilizations, revealing patterns and lessons that influence contemporary thought. Historians utilize diverse sources, such as written documents, oral traditions, artifacts, and archaeological evidence, to provide a coherent narrative of the past.

Defining history

The origin of the word History is associated with the Greek word ‘Historia’ which means ‘information’ or ‘an enquiry designed to elicit truth’.

History has been defined differently by different scholars. Following definitions indicate the meaning and scope of History.

Burckhardt: “History is the record of what one age finds worthy of note in another.”

Henry Johnson: “History, in its broadest sense, is everything that ever happened.”

Smith, V.S: “The value and interest of history depend largely on the degree in which the present is illuminated by the past.”

Rapson: “History is a connected account of the course of events or progress of ideas.”

NCERT: “History is the scientific study of past happenings in all their aspects, in the life of a social group, in the light of present happenings.”

Jawaharlal Nehru: “History is the story of Man’s struggle through the ages against Nature and the elements; against wild beasts and the jungle and some of his own kind who have tried to keep him down and to exploit him for their own benefit.”

The above definitions explain History as a significant records of events of the past, a meaningful story of mankind depicting the details of what happened to man and why it happened. Mainly it deals with the human world.

Nature of History

1. A study of the present in the light of the past: The present has evolved out of the past. Modern history enables us to understand how society has come to its present form so that one may intelligently interpret the sequence of events. The causal relationships between the selected happenings are unearthed that help in revealing the nature of happenings and framing of general laws.

2. History is the study of man: History deals with man’s struggle through the ages. History is not static. By selecting “innumerable biographies” and presenting their lives in the appropriate social context and the ideas in the human context, we understand the sweep of events. It traces the fascinating story of how man has developed through the ages, how man has studied to use and control his environment and how the present institutions have grown out of the past.

3. History is concerned with man in time: It deals with a series of events and each event occurs at a given point in time. Human history, in fact, is the process of human development in time. It is time which affords a perspective to events and lends a charm that brightens up the past.

4. History is concerned with man in space: The interaction of man on environment and vice versa is a dynamic one. History describes about nations and human activities in the context of their physical and geographical environment. Out of this arise the varied trends in the political, social, economic and cultural spheres of man’s activities and achievements.

5. Objective record of happenings: Every precaution is taken to base the data on original sources and make them free from subjective interpretation. It helps in clear understanding of the past and enables us to take well informed decisions.

6. Multisided: All aspects of the life of a social group are closely interrelated and historical happenings cover all these aspects of life, not limited only to the political aspect that had so long dominated history.

7. History is a dialogue between the events of the past and progressively emerging future ends. The historian’s interpretation of the past, his selection of the significant and the relevant events, evolves with the progressive emergence of new goals. The general laws regulating historical happenings may not be considered enough; attempts have to be made to predict future happenings on the basis of the laws.

8. Not only narration but also analysis: The selected happenings are not merely narrated; the causal relationships between them are properly unearthed. The tracing of these relationships lead to the development of general laws that are also compared and contrasted with similar happenings in other social groups to improve the reliability and validity of these laws.

9. Continuity and coherence are the necessary requisites of history: History carries the burden of human progress as it is passed down from generation to generation, from society to society, justifying the essence of continuity.

10. Relevant: In the study of history only those events are included which are relevant to the understanding of the present life.

11. Comprehensiveness: According to modern concept, history is not confined to one period or country or nation. It also deals with all aspects of human life-political, social, economic, religious, literary, aesthetic and physical, giving a clear sense of world unity and world citizenship.

History- A Science or an Art

Opinions are very much divided on the question whether history is a science or an art.

History is a science in the sense that it pursues its own techniques to establish and interpret facts. Like other natural sciences such as the Physics and Chemistry uses various methods of enquiry such as observation, classification, experiment and formulation of hypothesis and analysis of evidence before interpreting and reconstructing the past. History also follows the scientific method of enquiry to find out the truth. Though historian uses scientific techniques, experiment is impossible since history deals with events that have already happened and cannot be repeated.

Arguments against History as a science

1. No forecasting: Rickman has rightly said, “History deals with sequence of events, each of them unique while Science is concerned with the routine appearance of things and aims at generalizations and the establishment of regularities, governed by laws.”A historian cannot arrive at general principles or laws which may enable him to predict with certainty the occurrence of like events, under given conditions. A scientist on the other hand, looks at knowledge from a universal angle and arrives at certain generalizations that help him to control the present and predict the future.

2. Complex: The facts of history are very complicated and seldom repeat in the real sense of the term.

3. Varied: The underlying facts of history have wide scope. They are so varied that they can seldom be uniform.

4. No observation and experimentation: Historical data are not available for observation and experimentation.

5. No dependable data: Historical data are the products of human thoughts and action which are constantly changing. They therefore cannot provide dependable data for the formation of general principles and laws.

History is both a Science and an Art

History is a unique subject possessing the potentialities of both a science and an art. It does the enquiry after truth, thus history is a science and is on scientific basis. It is also based on the narrative account of the past; thus it is an art or a piece of literature. Physical and natural sciences are impersonal, impartial and capable of experimentation. Whereas absolute impartiality is not possible in history because the historian is a narrator and he looks at the past from a certain point of view. History cannot remain at the level of knowing only. The construction and reconstruction of the past are inevitable parts of history. Like the work of art, its wholeness, harmony and truth are inseparable from a concrete and vivid appreciation of its parts. History, in fact, is a social science and an art. In that lie its flexibility, its variety and excitement.

Scope of History

The scope of History is vast; it is the story of man in relation to totality of his behavior. The scope of history means the breadth, comprehensiveness, variety and extent of learning experiences, provided by the study. History which was only limited to a local saga, has during the course of century become universal history of mankind, depicting man’s achievements in every field of life-political, economic, social, cultural, scientific, technological, religious and artistic etc., and at various levels-local, regional, national, and international. It starts with the past; makes present its sheet-anchor and points to the future. Events like wars, revolutions, rise and fall of empires, fortunes and misfortunes of great empire builders as well as the masses in general are all the subject matter of history. History is a comprehensive subject and includes-History of Geography, History of Art, History of Culture, History of Literature, History of Civilization, History of Religion, History of Mathematics, History of Physics, History of Chemistry, History of Education, History of Biology, History of Atom, History of Philosophy-in fact history of any and every social, physical and natural science we are interested in. History today has become an all-embracing, comprehensive subject with almost limitless extent.

Importance of History

The significance of history lies in its role as a repository of collective memory and its ability to guide humanity toward a better future. Its relevance spans multiple dimensions, including intellectual, cultural, moral, and practical aspects.

1. Understanding Human Identity:
History is essential for understanding human identity at individual, community, and national levels. It fosters a sense of belonging and continuity by linking people to their heritage. For instance, Indian history connects citizens to a legacy of ancient civilizations, cultural diversity, and independence struggles.

2. Learning from the Past:
History serves as a guide for future action by revealing patterns and lessons from the past. The causes and consequences of wars, revolutions, and social movements provide insights into avoiding similar mistakes or replicating successes.

3. Preservation of Culture and Heritage:
Through history, societies preserve their traditions, values, and achievements. Monuments, manuscripts, and oral traditions are studied and celebrated, ensuring that cultural heritage is transmitted to future generations.

4. Developing Critical Thinking:
History enhances analytical skills by encouraging individuals to question, compare, and evaluate sources and interpretations. It teaches students to discern biases and construct evidence-based arguments, skills that are valuable across disciplines.

5. Building Empathy and Tolerance:
By studying diverse societies, histories, and experiences, individuals develop empathy for others. History fosters an appreciation for pluralism, helping to combat prejudice and promote social harmony.

6. Foundation for Political and Social Understanding:
History provides the context necessary for understanding current events and institutions. For example, a study of the French Revolution elucidates the origins of modern democracy and human rights.

7. Inspiration for Innovation and Progress:
Historical figures and movements often inspire individuals and societies to strive for excellence. The stories of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and others who overcame adversity resonate with people worldwide.

Challenges in the Study of History

Despite its importance, the study of history faces challenges, including biases, gaps in evidence, and the politicization of narratives. Historians must navigate these issues to present balanced and accurate accounts.

One common issue is the Eurocentric bias in historical narratives, which often marginalizes non-European perspectives. Efforts to decolonize history aim to address this imbalance, highlighting the contributions of Asian, African, and Indigenous civilizations.

Another challenge is the limited availability of sources, particularly for ancient and marginalized communities. This often results in incomplete narratives that require imaginative reconstruction.

The politicization of history is another concern, as governments and institutions may manipulate historical narratives to serve ideological or nationalistic agendas. For instance, debates over historical figures and events in India often reflect contemporary political concerns.

Conclusion

History is an indispensable discipline that illuminates the human experience across time. Its meaning lies in its pursuit of truth and understanding, its nature reflects its complexity and diversity, and its importance is evident in its ability to inform, educate, and inspire. By studying history, societies gain the tools to navigate present challenges, preserve their cultural heritage, and envision a better future. However, the study of history requires vigilance and integrity to ensure that it remains a genuine reflection of the past, free from distortion or bias. As the famous historian E.H. Carr noted, “The function of history is to promote a profound understanding of both the past and the present, and thereby provide a vision of the future.”

Historical knowledge is not purely intuitive because it is derived from a critical examination of source material and is checked by further reference to the source. Historical objectivity is closely related to value-judgment.

By objectivity, we mean dispassionate, disinterested and scientific treatment of all events which would be depicted by a historian as if he was a judge pronouncing his verdict in the most impartial way without any fear or favour.

Knowing as we do human nature, prejudice to a certain extent is a built in complex in man. With confidence a historian declares the fact is……………… but many of these alleged facts are better than his own observation, remarks and opinion. They are the result of judgments not necessarily compelled by the facts but flowing from the mental make-up of the historian.

It is because this historian cannot back up the statements he makes with scientific proof that many people feel that historical knowledge is subjective rather than objective. The very subject matter of history being reflective thought such subjectivity become inevitable.

Voltaire pointed out that history is a pack of tricks we play upon the dead. An element of subjectivity enters at every step in the process of investigation; the present can and does influence our knowledge of the past.

Every historian has his own likes, tastes, aptitude and preferences. He may choose either political or social or economic or military or constitutional or art-history and because he or she is specially inclined towards that particular subject, he or she is likely to be affected by it. Froude’s history gives us an impression of the course of events that is entirely different. Karl Marx would pick only the class struggle, Hegel would concentrate on human spirit. Acton on freedom.

The problem of selection such that the history of Europe from 1861 A.D. to 1890 A.D. is only the history of either unification of Germany or expansion of Prussian kingdom or its leader Bismark. Imagine the events of 1857 A.D. in India.

The English historian think that it was the first war of Indian independence and the historian, either from Russia or America would not agree with either of these views.

An element of subjectivity enters at every step in the process of investigation; the present can and does influence our knowledge of the past because past events do not any longer exist anywhere except in mind of the historian, who has now become both subject and object. He reconstructs or reenacts the past in his own mind and in doing so super imposes at least some of his ideas on past events.

Talking about the Asoka’s renunciation of war, the historian cannot resist the temptation of evaluating Ashoka in the light of present potential danger to peace because of nuclear weapons. The historian would fail to achieve his main goal of narrating an event as it really happened.

Historical objectivity is not attainable because of three factors such as- the nature of historical events, the selection of historical events and the personality of the author, his motives intentions and temperament.

Historian works under certain limitations. All the facts or events are not well preserved or stored for him. The source material or evidence that might have contained facts might have been destroyed, or those who recorded the events might not have observed very well or even if they observed, they might have, deliberately omitted to record them.

The historian himself be a victim of ideological considerations, political thoughts and commitment, group prejudice, national feelings, patriotic zeal and partisan attitude. Ideological considerations such as theological, philosophical, materialistic or any other intellectual bias might distort his vision. He is not free from his own viewpoint.

When Barani or Abul Fazl wrote their “Tarikh-i-Ferozshahi” and “Akbarnama” respectively, they were not free from their political considerations or loyalty to their master. The whole ranges of medieval chronicles have a direct impact of political prejudice.

The historical material of medieval Empire contains lot of distorted material. Religious superiority, racial prejudice, group affiliations, national pride, party inclination and connection, social inhibition, linguistic inclinations have influenced the historical writings.

The racial complexion also mars the objectivity of the history such as English vs. Indian historians. The exponents of the philosophy of history have generally followed such a selective approach as to establish that history has worked along a set pattern.

Certain other factors too might stand in the way of objectivity such as political pressure, party loyalties, religious fanaticism etc. To allow the full scope for imagination would be to reduce history to the level of fiction.

To reconcile ourselves to the presence of subjectivity, which enters at every step in the process of investigation; the present can and does influence our knowledge of the past. Some people have gone so far as to say that the closest we can get to what actually happened is to believe what the records say actually happened. Historical thought about the past and all history, consequently, is the history of thought.

But surely this is to over emphasis the element of subjectivity. It is impossible for us to know something about the world outside the human mind even if our knowledge of it cannot be absolute. Therefore, the historian should consciously make every effort to be objective as far as possible. He should aim at presenting facts with as much accuracy and faithfulness as possible.

He should exhaust all available sources on the subject and should not confines himself to the limited number of sources. The criticism of our sources will enable us to obtain reasonably accurate idea of which state men they make about events and changes can be accepted as valid and which cannot. We can also check one person’s version of what actually happened by comparing it with that of another person or by examining all the relevant sources ourselves.

Historical knowledge is not knowledge of certainties, except perhaps with reference to what did not happen, but of varying degrees of probability. History is not a branch of literature, it is a science.

It must be liberated from rhetoric. Excessive nationalism and a highly philosophic tone would distort history. After we have gone through the steps of historical enquiry ourselves, we will know just how much confidence we can place in our knowledge of a particular set of events and changes.

The conversation which is history does lead to further conversation. The enquiry continues to go on because at no point we can say that we have arrived at the absolute truth. The evidence and our understanding of what comprises sound historical methodology are there as a court of higher appeal.

The study of history, often described as a quest for understanding the past, involves interpreting evidence and reconstructing events, ideas, and processes. Central to this endeavor are the twin concepts of objectivity and subjectivity. While objectivity refers to the impartial and fact-based representation of historical events, subjectivity acknowledges the influence of personal, cultural, and ideological perspectives in interpreting the past. The interplay between these two dimensions has been a subject of intense debate among historians, as it directly affects the reliability, scope, and interpretation of historical narratives.

Objectivity in History

Objectivity in history refers to the unbiased and neutral analysis of historical events. It involves presenting facts and evidence without personal or cultural prejudices, ensuring that the narrative remains true to the realities of the past. The goal of objectivity is to produce a history that is universally valid, transcending individual perspectives.

The pursuit of objectivity is rooted in the Enlightenment ideals of rationality and empirical inquiry. Historians like Leopold von Ranke emphasized the importance of presenting history “as it actually happened” (wie es eigentlich gewesen), advocating rigorous methodologies to separate facts from opinions. Ranke and other positivist historians believed that a scientific approach to history, akin to the natural sciences, could ensure objectivity.

Methods of Achieving Objectivity

Historians employ several techniques to achieve objectivity, including critical source analysis, corroboration, and reliance on primary evidence. These methods help minimize biases and ensure that interpretations are grounded in evidence.

Source Criticism: Historians analyze the authenticity, reliability, and context of sources to eliminate distortions. For instance, examining both British official records and Indian nationalist writings provides a balanced perspective on colonial history.

Cross-Referencing: Comparing multiple sources allows historians to validate facts and avoid reliance on a single narrative. For example, accounts of World War II from Allied, Axis, and neutral countries contribute to a more comprehensive understanding.

Avoiding Presentism: Historians strive to avoid judging the past by contemporary standards, recognizing that historical actors operated within the norms and values of their time.

Challenges to Objectivity

Despite these efforts, achieving absolute objectivity in history is an ideal rather than a practical reality. Several factors challenge the historian’s ability to remain completely impartial:

Incomplete Evidence: Historical records are often fragmentary, biased, or lost over time. For instance, the lack of written records for pre-literate societies forces historians to rely on oral traditions, which can be subjective.

Selection of Evidence: The very act of selecting which facts to include or exclude introduces a degree of subjectivity. Historians must prioritize certain events or perspectives, potentially overlooking others.

Interpretation of Evidence: Facts do not speak for themselves; they require interpretation. Two historians examining the same set of data may arrive at different conclusions, influenced by their backgrounds, ideologies, and methodologies.

Subjectivity in History

Subjectivity in history refers to the influence of the historian’s personal, cultural, or ideological perspective on their interpretation of the past. It acknowledges that historical narratives are constructed by individuals who are products of their time, society, and experiences.

Far from being a flaw, subjectivity is often seen as an inevitable and even valuable aspect of historical inquiry. It allows historians to bring diverse perspectives to the study of the past, enriching the discipline with varied interpretations. For instance, Marxist historians focus on class struggle and economic structures, while feminist historians emphasize gender roles and women’s experiences.

Role of Subjectivity in Historical Interpretation

Subjectivity plays a critical role in shaping historical narratives. By bringing their perspectives, historians provide depth and context to historical events, moving beyond a mere chronicle of facts to explore underlying causes, motivations, and implications.

Cultural Context: The historian’s cultural background often influences their interpretation of events. For example, Western historians initially viewed the colonization of Asia and Africa as a “civilizing mission,” while postcolonial scholars like Edward Said critiqued it as an exploitative enterprise.

Ideological Frameworks: Different ideological lenses lead to varying interpretations of history. Marxist historians like E.P. Thompson analyze the Industrial Revolution in terms of class conflict, while liberal historians emphasize technological progress and innovation.

Empathy and Imagination: Subjectivity enables historians to empathize with historical actors and reconstruct their experiences. For instance, subaltern studies focus on the perspectives of marginalized groups, such as peasants, workers, and women, often overlooked in traditional histories.

The Interplay Between Objectivity and Subjectivity

The relationship between objectivity and subjectivity in history is complex and intertwined. While objectivity provides the foundation for credible historical inquiry, subjectivity adds nuance and diversity to interpretations. The challenge for historians lies in balancing these dimensions, ensuring that personal biases do not undermine the integrity of their work.

Modern historiography recognizes that complete objectivity is unattainable and embraces the constructive role of subjectivity. Schools of thought like postmodernism argue that all history is a form of narrative construction, shaped by the historian’s choices and cultural context. Michel Foucault, for example, highlighted how power relations influence the production of historical knowledge.

Examples of Objectivity and Subjectivity in Historical Writing

The debate over objectivity and subjectivity is evident in various historical narratives:

Indian Independence Movement: Nationalist historians like Bipin Chandra emphasize the heroism of Indian leaders and the resilience of the masses, while British colonial accounts often portrayed the movement as disruptive and chaotic. Both narratives reflect their respective biases.

French Revolution: Liberal historians celebrate the revolution as a triumph of liberty and equality, while conservative historians like Edmund Burke critiqued it as a descent into chaos and tyranny.

Partition of India (1947): The partition has been interpreted differently by Indian, Pakistani, and Western historians, reflecting their respective national and ideological contexts.

Importance of Balancing Objectivity and Subjectivity

Balancing objectivity and subjectivity is crucial for producing meaningful and credible history. Objectivity ensures that historical narratives are grounded in evidence and facts, while subjectivity enriches these narratives with diverse perspectives and interpretations.

The inclusion of multiple viewpoints fosters a more inclusive and holistic understanding of the past. For instance, incorporating Dalit perspectives into Indian history challenges dominant caste-centric narratives, providing a fuller picture of social dynamics.

Conclusion

The concepts of objectivity and subjectivity lie at the heart of historical inquiry, shaping the way the past is studied and understood. While objectivity provides the discipline with credibility and rigor, subjectivity ensures its relevance and depth. Recognizing the interplay between these dimensions enables historians to construct narratives that are both accurate and meaningful. As history continues to evolve as a discipline, the dialogue between objectivity and subjectivity remains central to its pursuit of truth and understanding.

The term ‘cause’ finds its origin from the Latin word ‘causa’ which means a relation or connection between the two events. Thus ‘cause’ is linked with connection with something. A ‘cause’ can be both simple as well as complex. When it is simple it is not difficult to find but when it is complex it needs investigation and patience to find that out.

E.H. Carr says, ‘A study of history is a study of causes’. It implies that as history has distinct discipline of its own, historical causation has its own systematic theory of identifying causes. Historical causation is not interchangeable term with historical narrative. But at the same time it cannot be denied that historical narrative contains a chain of events inter-linked with each other by cause and effect relationship. Hence, historical causation is embedded in historical narrative. It is also a part of historical explanation.

The problem of identification of causes is a difficult one, because the historian cannot objectively and with mathematical precession knew the exact causes of any event. They are always somewhat tentative. Historians like Charles Beard and G.J. Renier believe that ‘cause’ is an ambiguous term, which may refer to anything like motives, influences, forces and other factors. So the term ‘cause’ has been loosely used in history. Atkinson observes that there is no sharp distinction between casual and non-casual language.

W.H. Walsh in his An Introduction to Philosophy of History, gives some practical difficulties in application of historical causation:

  • There are historians are not clear about the nature of historical causes and generally tend to confuse them with conditions, because causes and conditions are interrelated. For example, what caused the downfall of the Moghul Empire is obviously connected with the 18th conditions. So causes cannot operate independently of conditions.
  • There is a set of historians who believe in the multiplicity of historical causes. For them all the events preceding a particular event are its causes because in their opinion variety of factors jointly operates to produce an effect. Arthur Marwick argues it is not possible to give mono-cause explanation in history, we should give importance to all causes. Marwick divides causes into two categories as broad and specific.
  • In history the term ‘cause’ cannot be understood in the manner we do in science. In science the cause is independently of the observer. But in history cause is interpreted by a deliberate conscious and responsible act of the agent,i.e., historian. Fredrick J. Teggart in his Theory and Practice of History argues that motives constitute the ultimate stuff of history, because motives emerge from human desires and aspirations.
  • Michael Oakeshott in his Experience and Modes believes that the term ‘cause’ has no meaning in history because historical causes are always perceived in reference to something entirely external to it and such causes are nothing but explanation of the conditions. He further observes that an attempt to seek causes is equal to the breaking up of integrated reality. So he talks about ‘explanations’. ‘Interpretations’, ‘the inner logic of events’, and ‘the inner logic of given situations’ but not of causes. This is known as functional approach, as it describes, ‘how it came to happen’ and not ‘why it happened’.
  • With the emergence of social Darwinism in the 2nd half of the 19th century, a new theory of causation has become popular with the social scientists. It compares social evolution favourably with the evolution of biological organism. This theory recognises that the causes of change are inherent in the given social reality and external factors only either accelerate or retard the pace of change. The causes according to social Darwinism follow a set pattern not in the form of types of species. As in the biological evolution social changes follow the developmental pattern from simple to complex social organism. Historical reality unfolds itself from the core to the periphery. According to the theory of social Darwinism causes mechanically operate towards a definite goal.
  • In recent years the theory of structural relationship of causes has become very popular among sociologists. Following Marc Bloch and Max Webber, some historians design a structure based on holistic social relations, within which social action takes place. The cause of action lies in the ideas represented as collective entities. But the aim of an historian is to develop coherent argument by proceeding from concrete individual action to the ideal type by grasping the meaning of those actions in terms of pattern according to Kenneth E. Bock. 
  • R.G. Collingwood the 20th century philosopher of history presents the idealist view of historical causation. While explaining the origin of the word ‘cause’ he suggests, that is derived from the word, ‘causa which originally meant ‘guilt’, ‘lame’ or ‘accusation’, it was often used to explain the cause of the war. He suggests that the causes in the form of conscious and responsible acts of persons should be considered as the proper basis of writing history. He relates ‘cause’ to the intention of the agent or historian. Collingwood views ‘cause’ as a resolve or motive of the agent or historian. Historical causes are relative to human conduct. He excludes many causes from his Idea of History, such as accidents, natural calamities etc., these events do not originate in the conscious minds of the agents of actions. Causes are conceiving as forces which ‘impel’, ‘make’, ‘induce’ and ‘compel’ agents or historians to act. Historical causes in this sense are relative to human conduct.
  • It is described as relativity of causes. In simple words, it means that the cause of a given thing is one of its conditions which are able to produce or prevent it. Such a conception of ‘cause’ makes ‘cause’ to remain bound up with human volition, his consciousness of acting. ‘cause’ therefore is conceived as an activity which operates to produce an affect. So Collingwood points that the historical cause is the specific stand point of the explainer, which differs from person to person. For example, for a car accident, the road builder would find its cause in the defects of road building, a mechanic in the car design, the other in the lack of training of the driver.

The above discussion yields three categories of causes;

1. Cause as conscious and responsible act of a person or motivation.

2. Cause as necessary condition type, i.e., situational type.

3. Cause as factor determining the efficacy of causes in relation to their effects which in turn become causes of subsequent facts or progress and revolution.

The modern historians view the subject of historical question from two complementary angles, i.e., individual category and collective category. Individual category includes personal views, opinions, ambitions, sufferings, etc., which have bearing on historical reality that is causation. The collective category embraces institutions like nations, states, continents, churches, business, organizations, political parties and all such institutions which have a character, life and intention of their own.

In the context of situational type of cause, the historical situation transforms into a social project wherein a number of individuals aggregate and make plans to generate pressure in bringing about a change. This category includes the study of movements in which individual opinion or action coalesces in and contributes to the movement. Individual opinion of action in such cases either illuminates the event or supplements the movements or conforms to the action of the collectively. In any historical investigation, the social, economic and political situations assume more prominence than in the case of individuals whose acts have a limited background. It should always be kept in mind that the effect of a cause of the individual type largely depends on the social status and authority enjoyed by the individual in a particular situation. At the same time, the investigator should also be aware of the fact that individual action in an historical project may not be determined by the individual himself, though it has his consent. So one can accept that modern historians view, the individual and collective entities in relation to and in context with historical situations, depending on the requirements of the subject matter.

As regards chances or the accidental causes, Marx offers three explanations. One, they are historically not important as they either accelerate or retard the pace of change’ two, one chance is compensated by another in such a way that both stand cancelled and as such have no bearing on the situation; and, three, chances take place primarily in the realm of individuals.

But E.H. Carr does not accept Marx’s interpretation of chance factors. Basing his argument that historians have to take into account and evaluate all available facts and fix their place in terms of their effects on given historical reality, Carr believes that Marx is as much arbitrary in under assessing the importance of ‘chances’ or accidental causes as the conservative historians exaggerate their importance. Historians attempt at brushing aside some events as chance factors or causes makes Carr suspect them of ‘intellectual laziness’ or ‘low intellectual vitality’. He believes that all causes are meaningful in history and they can be rationally explained and fitted into the broader pattern of events.

Carr says that historian’s concern with causes has dual and reciprocal character. On the one hand, the causes determine his interpretation of the historical process; on the other hand, his interpretation determines his selection and marshalling of the causes. On the basis of the relative significance of cause or set of causes to another, historian puts causes in hierarchy. This ordering of causes provides rational explanation and interpretation to draw valid conclusions. Therefore, historian does not search for causes, but he selects cause or a set of causes in terms of historical significance.

Carr says that a ‘cause’ gets importance due to its subject matter. There are always a large number of cause and effect sequences. The primary task of an historian is to reject all those cause and effect sequences which are not historically significant. There is no definite measure to determine the slandered of historical significance of a given cause and effect sequence. It depends on historical competence to explain these causes in rational terms. The causes which do not fit in the rational pattern of cause and effect sequence are accidental or irrational according to Carr. Whether or not all those causes which are used by the historian are accidental causes. Carr suggests that it depends on the subject matter, because a certain cause may or may not be necessary for developing cause-and-effect sequence for making a rational interpretation of historical reality. Carr illustrates his point by referring to the event of Cleopatra’s nose. He says that it makes no sense as a general proposition to suggest that Generals lose battles because they are infatuated with beautiful queens. Believing that all those explanations which serve some end are rational explanations, Carr rejects ‘Cleopatra’s nose’ for ir serves no end in terms of general proposition. It is, therefore, an irrational cause as far as victory or defeat of a General in the battle is concerned. So we may deduce that accidental causes, being unique themselves, cannot be generalized. Carr’s key to treatment of causation involves interpretation, value judgement and explanation.

“History is Science, no less, no more” is a profound statement that encapsulates the dual nature of history as both a scientific discipline and a humanistic inquiry. This assertion, often associated with thinkers such as E.H. Carr, Leopold von Ranke, and Fernand Braudel, invites an exploration into the methodologies, epistemologies, and objectives of history, aligning them with the scientific domain. 

History as Science: A Methodological Perspective

The assertion that history is science stems primarily from its systematic methodology. Like science, history relies on evidence-based inquiry, using primary and secondary sources to reconstruct the past. The process involves rigorous methods of data collection, analysis, and verification, akin to the scientific method. Historians, like scientists, formulate hypotheses, test them against available evidence, and arrive at conclusions that are subjected to scrutiny and reinterpretation.

For instance, the Annales School, led by historians like Marc Bloch and Lucien Febvre, emphasized the importance of interdisciplinary methods, borrowing tools from sociology, geography, and economics to study historical phenomena. They sought to uncover the underlying structures shaping historical events rather than merely narrating them, showcasing history’s alignment with the scientific quest for causality.

Leopold von Ranke, often regarded as the father of modern historiography, introduced the concept of scientific history by advocating for an objective approach: to “tell it as it actually happened” (wie es eigentlich gewesen). This method underscored the importance of empirical rigor and the reliance on archival research, akin to how a scientist depends on experimental data.

The Empirical Foundation of History

The empirical nature of history further underscores its scientific character. Historians meticulously analyze artifacts, manuscripts, inscriptions, and other tangible remnants of the past, much like a scientist examines physical evidence. For example, the decoding of the Rosetta Stone or the analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls involved a combination of historical inquiry and scientific techniques such as carbon dating and linguistic analysis.

Moreover, historical studies increasingly incorporate scientific tools to validate claims. Advances in archaeology, genetics, and climate science have enriched historical narratives. Genetic studies of ancient human remains have reshaped our understanding of migration patterns, while dendrochronology (the study of tree rings) provides insights into climatic conditions that influenced historical events like the fall of civilizations.

Limitations: Why History Is Not Pure Science

Despite its scientific methodologies, history is not a pure science, for it grapples with human subjectivity and the uniqueness of historical phenomena. Unlike sciences that deal with universal laws, history examines specific events and contexts that cannot be generalized. Each historical event is shaped by a unique confluence of social, cultural, political, and economic factors.

E.H. Carr, in his seminal work What Is History?, argued that history involves interpretation. He famously remarked that facts do not “speak for themselves”; rather, they are selected and interpreted by historians. This process introduces an inevitable degree of subjectivity, as historians’ perspectives, ideologies, and cultural backgrounds influence their interpretations. Such subjectivity stands in contrast to the objectivity sought in natural sciences.

Additionally, the role of narrative in history distinguishes it from science. While scientific theories are often presented in abstract, mathematical, or experimental terms, history relies on storytelling to convey its findings. The narrative form allows historians to reconstruct the human experience, capturing emotions, motivations, and the spirit of the times (zeitgeist)—elements that cannot be quantified.

The Thinkers’ Perspective: Bridging Science and Humanism

Several thinkers have wrestled with the relationship between history and science, offering nuanced perspectives:

  1. Fernand Braudel emphasized the concept of historical time divided into three layers: geographic time (long-term), social time (medium-term), and individual events (short-term). His approach revealed the structural patterns within history, akin to scientific laws, while acknowledging the uniqueness of human experiences.

  2. Karl Popper, a philosopher of science, argued that history does not lend itself to the formation of universal laws like the natural sciences. He maintained that while historical inquiry can be methodical and empirical, its predictions are limited due to the complexity of human behavior.

  3. Isaiah Berlin distinguished between the scientific pursuit of laws and the historical focus on particulars. He asserted that history’s strength lies in its ability to empathize with and understand diverse human perspectives, rather than reducing them to a set of rules.

  4. R.G. Collingwood saw history as a form of re-enactment of past thought, emphasizing the historian’s role in reconstructing the intentions and ideas behind historical actions. This philosophical approach aligns history more closely with the human sciences than the natural sciences.

Conclusion

The statement “History is Science, no less, no more” encapsulates the dual nature of history. It highlights history’s adherence to scientific principles of evidence and rationality while recognizing its unique role as a discipline that engages with the subjective and interpretive dimensions of human life. By blending empirical rigor with a nuanced understanding of human experiences, history bridges the gap between science and art, offering a comprehensive understanding of the past.

History, therefore, is neither fully science nor fully humanistic—it occupies a space that allows for the integration of facts with meaning, making it an indispensable tool for comprehending the complexities of human existence.

History is the academic discipline that gives the human species the ability to understand the present through past events. History allows for a more comprehensible illumination of the present; the possibilities of our future; and the exuberant lineage under a basic past that molds and shapes the outcome of nations, the many traditions and our human endeavors. History is most important in times when the mysteries of the present day can be traced back to its root causes or influential catalytic events of the past. Without history, we as a species would not fully understand the present and the future, as the present would have been directly created and molded from humanity’s historical past. History with some scholars is a discipline that collects data from the past and pieces together such data to create a historical event. Within the collection of data, we find the epicenter of art and science within the study of history. Interpretation of data begins and the fragmentation of historical data is linked together to form a historical event or finding. Now when data is interpreted or understood; the art of this academic discipline would be the ability to conclude or deduce lost pieces of history to establish this historical fact or event. Therefore, History is thought to be an art to some scholars while to other scholars, history is science or both. To further understand this concept we must dig deeper and fully understand history as an academic discipline and unearth history’s academic systems and definitions. Next, as we examine the academic discipline of history, we must take its composition and determine how this discipline correlates to science and or art. Finally, let us re-assemble the fine pieces of the academic discipline of history and see how history functions under a scientific schema or under an artistic schema or both. We will then conclude with our findings, if indeed the academic discipline of history stems from science, stems from art, or a combination of science and art.
 
To fully understand history and its conceptual aspects as an academic discipline; we will need to unravel history’s many systems in order to begin our investigation of history as an academic discipline and unearth history’s academic systems and definitions. First, we must find the answer to the question, “What is history?” As this question brings to light the broad spectrum of history entails; we then appreciate how scholars may distill information or interpretations of the past. “History is not a collection of facts about the past whose primary value is to improve one’s skills while playing trivia games; it is an interpretation of the past based on the weight of available evidence.” History, therefore, allows for a perspective into the present from the past. History provides a basic platform of the present; rooting itself from the past which is history. We may see history as a vital link of present and past and the historian’s interpretive narratives with facts and how they are associated to one another. “What is history?, is that it is a continuous process of interaction between the historian and his facts, an unending dialogue between the present and the past.” History therefore can be seen as a continuous relationship between the historian and his facts. Now without the interaction of the historian and his facts; these facts would not be found or used and the historian would not have evidence or a basis for interpretive conclusions. With all these aspects of history, we may also understand the study of history in a combination of art and science respectively. “Hence the study of history offers living proofs of the complementary nature of art and of science. One might think that this would be a source of pride to historians.” As we further define history we begin to merge the science and art of history and how these concepts merge with one another. History at a broader scale utilizes various academic disciplines and merges these academic disciplines to better ascertain historical facts and how these facts have emerged or played out in history to the present. “Historical scholarship has begun to establish firm ties with such neighboring intellectual disciplines as economics and sociology.” Historians utilize many tools at their disposal; such as various academic disciplines in sociology, economics, anthropology, religion, and many more academic disciplines to assist with facts and interpretive nature of deciphering facts and figures. The historian often finds themselves in the realm of science while some historians begin to combine the areas of art such as literature interpretation and the human psychological nature. It is at this point where we begin to contemplate history as science or a combination of art with science. “The evidence for the past events is therefore always incomplete and fragmentary. Many pieces of evidence are lost, and others are often faded and warped. Historians fit the pieces together as carefully as possible, but holes remain in the picture they try to reconstruct… What emerges may closely resemble what happened, but we can never be completely sure that what we know as history is an exact replica of the past.” Therefore with this understanding the beginning of filling in the gaps of historical facts begins the aspects of art of history and the historian’s ability to deduce a subjective narrative to piece together the facts to form a reconstruction of history. This is where the art in history begins. Although with the pieces of fact and gaps being managed by historians we still have the aspect of hypothesis and theories within history and historical findings. A balance by the historian must be achieved to better enhance historical facts and historical narratives. This area of balance is often a point at which the historian may eschew evidence or interpret such facts to be interpreted subjectively. “Whereas historians might find it impossible to eschew their own point of view, they must be aware of their own prejudices and guards against letting these intrude into their approach to historical study.” We find the battle between objectivity and subjectivity of historical data and evidence, which at most instances are bits and pieces of a much broader historical event or perspective. Thus in this scenario we see how the historian may test the evidence under a hypothesis or under a theory. Under these testable scientific conditions the historian often finds himself with gaps and fragments at which art begins its path for the historian as he must begin to piece together or create a basic structure with missing links or paths toward the historical past. As we begin to further isolate interpretation, subjectivity and objectivity, under the context of history we must further dissect the academic discipline of history to fully see the range of the mechanisms of history, as associated with how history is a form of art and or science.
 
As we explore the academic discipline of history, we must take its elements and investigate how this discipline correlates to science and or art. “Historiography, or the study of the history and methodology of historical interpretation, is of great interest to historians.” We now must understand the processes of history and its methods of interpretation. “Understanding historiography is important to historians in that it shows what questions have received much or little attention, and reveals questions of the past that might be ready for a second look.” Historiography allows for an understanding of historical interpretation upon how the information was constructed in its associated context. With better understanding of different scholars or schools we may better understand the contexts and format for the use of science and art within the academic discipline of history. School of Ranke or the Ranke method, “…argued that while the historian could attempt to understand the past on its own terms, it required a certain leap of imagination.” We may see clearly with Ranke’s method “imagination” begins the point at which history is an art. With the emergence of further scientific approaches with regards to Ranke’s methods, these scientific approaches began to yield from the Ranke school what was called Positivism which claimed, “…to be objective, and in the extreme, argued that by using the scientific method, historians could efface themselves of their biases, report what had occurred, and ultimately uncover the laws of human behavior. By claiming to be scientific historians could confidently make truthful claims about the past.” This aspect was further carried forward and a Progressive school emerged from the scientific approach more into a sociological approach. The Progressive school began to think in terms of the methods of a social scientific emergence with history. Further progression occurred and another interpretive school emerged which was the Annales School approach to history which, “sought to write total history that examined history over the long term. Their interest in studying the rhythms of everyday life…” Through these different interpretive schools we mostly see the aspect of the emergence of the interactive ability of social science and scientific method. As each method evolved or emerged with a scientific objectivity for history; therein we have fragmentation by which is relevant with history, and thus emerges postmodernism. “For postmodernists, fragmentary evidence and the inability of an observer to escape his or her point of view make the past unknowable. Instead, they believe that history is little more than an artistic representation of the past that reveals more about the author than the period discussed.” We now may begin to link past historical fragmentation even with the use of scientific methods, as a rendering of the artistic approach to gaps and missing links of historical events and or the past. Furthermore, such meanings as gender, race, class, and ethnicity have a greater range to institutionalize within history. Thus these elements will lead the historian to the inevitable spectrum of the social science spectrum within the gaps and imaginations of piecing together the artist spectrum. As an artist creates his painting so does the historian with all their methods as his paintbrush of history he begins to piece together a portrait of history. The historian next has different genres or subjects which begin the specialization of history into unique categories such as political, military, diplomatic, intellectual, religious, economic and social history. Perhaps many more are evolving in the field of history as there becomes further expansion of history’s ability to merge with various academic disciplines. Now with each vast specialty therein lies its philosophical attributes and unlimited historical nature of historical examination. Within each historical context lies its scientific and artistic approach to history.
 
Finally let us re-assemble the fine pieces of the academic discipline of history and see how history functions under a scientific schema or under an artistic schema or both. Now that we have looked into the different components of history and have a larger understanding for the academic discipline of history; let us go ahead and relate history in its entirety with regards to science and art. “The two processes, that of science and that of art, are not very different. Both science and art form in the course of the centuries a human language by which we can speak about the more remote part of reality, and the coherent sets of concepts as well as the different styles of art are different word or groups of words in this language.” We may now visualize the adeptness of art and science within history in its entirety and how both shape historical outcomes for the historian. “If a scientific hypothesis is a metaphor, so is a plastic design or a phrase of music. At the same time as metaphors they are radically incommensurate.” Thus we now may see that the study of history offers both spectrums by which complements each other through the endeavors of historical writing and analysis. Science and art complement each other in history as to various aspects of gathering historical facts and events; while art brings the broader approach that the historian investigates, examines, and correlates through years of historian experience the ability of solving mysteries as a true artistic approach. Science and art within history is the essence to historians, due to the fact that historical facts are often extracted orally or secondary through many avenues such as eyewitness testimonials, artifacts or manuscripts; from which the historian begins the creation of historical writings from his previous discovered facts. Thus we may now see the merge of science and art from the historian’s perspective as historical fact or event come to light. As the historian finds these facts or testimonies; the historian may have used scientific methods to extract his findings or a more artistic approach of piecing together his finding from other findings or past discoveries. “Historians-in contrast to investigators in almost any other field of knowledge-very seldom confront their data directly. The literary or artistic scholar has the poem or painting before him; the astronomer scans the heavens through a telescope; the geologist tramps the soil he studies; the physicist or chemist runs experiments in his laboratory. The mathematician and the philosopher are abstracter from reality by definition and do not pretend to empirical competence. The historian alone is both wedded to empirical reality and condemned to view his subject matter at second remove.” Thus by the historian’s realm alone; the historian faces the combination of art and science enabling the historian the ability to write their accounts.
 
We may now conclude with our findings, that indeed the academic discipline of history stems from science, stems from art or a combination of science and art. “Historians are by nature wary of precise definition; they hate to be confined within tight terminological boundaries, and they are ever alert to the fallacy of misplaced concreteness; they much prefer to write ordinary words in their common sense usage and then let the reader little by little become aware of how these words have subtly changed their significance through time.” We may learn that historians through their literary uniqueness tend to gravitate to the artistic medium despite the usage of the scientific medium. A historian with their nature to not pinpoint themselves with precise language therefore leaves room to navigate within the realm of the artistic approaches to history. Again from this standpoint we may conclude the ability for science and art to merge in the event of a historian avoiding precise language in their writing. History allows for a more comprehensible illumination of the present; the possibilities of our future; and the exuberant lineage under a basic past that molds and shapes the outcome of nations, the many traditions and our human endeavors. We are reminded of the influence of history from our daily lives as our traditions, nationalism, and human achievements blossom from a historical past, but yet it is with these influences that artful literary prowess progress and scientific facts adorn each other. History influences the present through its artful historical depictions and records. History is most important in times when the mysteries of the present day can be traced back to its root causes or influential catalytic events of the past. Without history we as a species would not fully understand the present and the future, as the present would have been directly created and molded from humanity’s historical past. History, therefore allows for a perspective into the present from the past. History provides a basic platform of the present; rooting itself from the past which is history. We may see history as a vital link of present and past and the historian’s interpretive narratives with facts and how they are associated to one another. As we further define history we begin to merge the science and art of history and how these concepts merge with one another. Science and art complement each other in history as to various aspects of gathering historical facts and events; while art brings the broader approach that the historian investigates, examines, and correlates through years of historian experience the ability of solving mysteries as a true artistic approach. With better understanding of different scholars or schools we may better understand the contexts and format for the use of science and art within the academic discipline of history. The historian often finds themselves in the realm of science while some historians begin to combine the areas of art such as literature interpretation and the human psychological nature. It is at this point where we begin to contemplate history as science or a combination of art with science. Science and art for history is of essence to historians due to the fact that historical facts are often extracted orally or secondary through artifacts or manuscripts; from which at this point the historian begins the creation of historical writings from previous discovered facts. “Solving such puzzles of history involve both science and art. Science is a synonym for knowledge. But knowledge of what? History includes data–evidence, the names of people and places, when things happened, where they happened, bits of information gathered from many sources. It also includes interpretations of historians and others in the past who have written on the topic that the writer decided to treat in an essay. The art of history lies in combining fact and interpretation to tell a story about the past…” As we have seen, history’s methods of recording and deciding where interpretations of the historian would best fit; establishes the formulation of stories from the past. We have seen the different aspects of which the historian may correlate his or her findings from the past. The historian may seek a better understanding through various aspects of interpretive notion or beliefs; yet the historian’s scientific approach obligates the historian to seek past facts. The historian’s interpretation and approach influences the historical data and depending on the scientific method or objective school of thought (Ranke, Annales, Postmodernism); the historian will still need to utilize a format or artistic additive in order to piece together the fragmented historical data. Next the historian’s actual present day life may also affect the ability of the historian to interpret the historical facts; thereby often influencing the historical events and its context. As the historian may influence the historical context through his daily life it is at this point where art again affects the historical data and better fits the historian’s arrangement of his interpretation for the historical data or finding. Thus we may see that the historian with his known variables must be an artist of making sense to the historical data through such an array of influences. “He cannot escape it, its pressured are all around him. And if his trade has more than antiquarian meaning for him, he will feel impelled to comment on the recent past. For the same dilemmas of personal loyalty and ideal allegiance, of the inborn ruthlessness and good will toward men, which have troubled his mind in his study of remote ages will force themselves upon him when he rests his weary eyes for a moment on the circumstances in which he is actually living.” The historian must understand that his own time may affect or influence his interpretation of the past. This present time affect may develop in the form of present day influential factors such as politics, ideology, and or groups that could change the psychoanalytical objectiveness of the historian. These tremendous variables that affect the outcome of the historian’s interpretation greatly influence the outcome and it is in these variables that the art manifests into the academic discipline of history. The psychological spectrum that influences the imagination and the environmental vectors are mechanisms to art as it is utilized within historical connotation. Through various schools of ideology within the interpretation of history; we may clearly see the evidence of history being a science and an art despite interpretive conclusions. No matter how scientific the historian may administer his ideology of interpretive findings; there will be a point where science ends and art begins. Science alone within the field of history would not be able to piece together the entire historical event as proven by scientific limitation and through the fragmented historical past actualities. “For the historian who sees not incompatibility between his different roles- who is at least as much an artist as he is a social scientist-is uniquely equipped to lead others toward the imaginative fusion of these attributes, and thereby to illuminate the era in which we live.” The historian yields the ability to utilize science within many scientific disciplines and further fuses the imagination to balance a historical outcome and sort through the past and piece together a historical time frame. Perhaps the comparison would be how an artist finds shapes and sizes of material that nobody would see or comprehend and begins to sculpt and piece together a work of art. Where the ordinary person fails to see the possibilities or imagination to construct the art is where also the historian begins to find and see the possibilities of piecing together historical facts and stories. The artist utilizes the laws of science as in molding, sculpting, recreating pieces; thus we have history as an art and as a science.

History as Science

Is history a science? The disciplines concerned with man in his social relations are known as social sciences and History is very clearly considered to be part of the social sciences. The difference of opinion is probably more apparent than real. The discussion practically revolves around the meaning one chooses to attach to the term science. In practically all instances where the claim of history to be a science is denied, the denial is based on the assumption that the term science means an exact science. The crux of this discussion begins with a definition of science.

Most would agree that science is a systematized body of general truths concerning a definite subject matter and established by an efficient, effective method. This definition is sufficient, though there really is no hard and fast, universally accepted definition of the term. Following is a breakdown of the four elements essential to the concept of science as has been defined:

 
  • A body of systematized knowledge – Data or information that is ordered, organized and classified. Not just a heap of isolated facts or truths, but a complex of them knit together according to some principle of rational, logical order, such as time, space, topic or causation.
  • An effective method – Science relies upon sound method more than anything so that conclusions derived from its practice can be deemed legitimate. The method must be correct and effective. History as record employs a recognized correct and effective technique, or method, from which the writer of history, at least scholarly history, cannot afford to depart. The use of a recognized method is a prime factor qualifying history to rank as a science.
  • A definite subject matter – Material can’t be vague or limitless. A science must work within some sharply defined field of human knowledge.
  • Formulation of general truths – History deals primarily with particular happenings, with the unique, but a broader conception makes it pass at will beyond the unique to general and universal. There are two kinds of general truths: those restricted to time and place and those not. It is from broad, comprehensive truths that history derives its practical utility. History as record of human past has been understood to include the reporting of particular facts and interpretation and generalization based upon the facts. It can be concluded that History is a science, though not an exact science, because History includes the above four elements. Thus, we can designate it as science, but only in a broad, qualified sense, as has been described.

What are the differences between history and the “exact” sciences?

 
  1. The central truths of History are only morally uniform, not rigidly uniform as they are considered to be in the exact sciences.
  2. The field of History has no universally accepted technical terminology, except for a few terms used in methodology. It has stock words, but none are rigidly fixed in meaning by usage or convention. Absence of technical terms is a weakness of history as science and results in vagueness and ambiguity in historical writing. The overuse of jargon only complicates matters.
  3. History is not a science of direct observation (except perhaps oral history), which sets it apart from the exact sciences and their endless possibilities of immediate test and verification. The method of indirect observation, through the use of sources, is the only avenue open to the historian except in the few cases where he can draw on personal knowledge of facts.
  4. History is a human story and has to deal with man, the ultimate self-determining agent. Free will, the incalcuble element, is a factor of which a historian must be constantly mindful. Additionally, and very basic to the problem, is the fact that there is no single definition to describe human! The exact sciences have no such incalcuble element.
  5. Prediction in History is less reliable than in the exact sciences. From intimate understanding of an individual or group, one may forecast with great probability, and sometimes with moral certainty. Yet, it is impossible to predict with the same certainty what man, with free will, will do in the future as in the exact sciences and their subjects.
History enables man to predict events, though in a limited manner, and it is a science, though not an exact one. One thing that is for certain, History is not literature. If history is science, it cannot primarily be literature and, as such, fine art. Literary satisfaction is a nice byproduct of historical record making, but it is not a requirement (despite the wishes of some of us!) nor is it essential to the craft. Literary quality, however desirable in itself, belongs to the accidentals, not to the essentials of history. Despite the preceding arguments, the question as to whether History is a science is academic. The resolution of the argument won’t help the historian do his job more effectively. Such traits as honesty, impartiality, thoroughness, accuracy and documentation make a work scholarly, which is more consequential than it being characterized as scientific or otherwise.
 

Characteristics of a Historian

 
A competent historian should strive to have the following characteristics:
  • A zeal for truth, which postulates sincerity and frankness in stating the facts, however much feelings may be hurt. Cicero said, “It is the first law of history that it dare say nothing that is false nor fear to utter anything that is true, in order that there may be no suspicion either of partiality or hostility in the writer.” Additionally, British historian Lord Acton said, “Impartial history can have no friends.”
  • Honesty requires that important facts and circumstances, good or bad, be recorded. To omit can create the wrong impression and is virtually the same as falsification. The suppression of the truth is the suggestion of a falsehood. Additionally, be aware that sources often passively or actively did not hold themselves to this standard. When studying a source, remember that the failure to mention facts does not imply their non-existence. Never forget that the normal is taken for granted, both now and in the past. The argument from silence is invalid as a linchpin of historical “proof.”
  • Industry is also important as research takes a lot of time. A historian must learn to be economical in his work and must be prepared to research to near exhaustion. No research is wasted; a negative result is often as valuable, if less satisfying, as a positive. It must also be remembered that it is the substance of the fact that matters, not the accidentals. All circumstances attending an event in history do not have to be known before the record can be made “as it happened.” It is helpful to think of law and the concept of reasonable doubt as a guide. If historians attempted to acquire all of the facts they would find themselves in indefinite or even infinite study and the field would not advance.
  • Concentration is closely tied to industry. It is the mental alertness that makes a historian ready to recognize and account for every piece of causal information that can help master a subject. Aspects important to particular research automatically reveal themselves as such, at least if one is wide awake to the task. A finely honed ability to simply concentrate helps the researcher separate the wheat from the chaff.
  • A critical sense and sound judgement are a historian’s primary assets. Candor is always desirable, but it must not be restrained. If research reveals something about a subject that is negative and non-essential, omit it. Don’t engage in superfluous, tell-all practices for their own sake. However, also beware of a lack of criticism, which is an injudicious attitude of mind.
  • Both the mania for the extraordinary or narrow and exaggerated conservatism that looks upon criticism as the natural enemy of cherished traditions are both pitfalls. Hypercriticism is the abuse of a good thing. Overrating internal evidence, absorption with trifles, and an itch for novelties and an urge to upset established beliefs and traditions on no grounds of adequate evidence renders any valid criticism suspect. They are the historical version of crying wolf. In the end, the nature and true spirit of critical research is a benefit to the field. For example, the impression may be that modern critical investigation has cast doubt on many ancient and medieval sources of history and that they should be regarded skeptically. The fact is that a considerable proportion of the old historians have stood successfully against rigid scrutiny. This shows that criticism at its best is constructive and is a preservative of traditional viewpoints.
  • Objectivity is really just the other side of the coin from a zeal for truth. It is a detached and neutral attitude in the historian that enables him to deal with material in light of the evidence alone. Von Ranke’s exhortation to record a thing “as it really happened” is especially germane. However, there are some misconceptions about objectivity. It doesn’t require the historian to be free from prejudice or to approach the task free of principles, theories or philosophies of life. It doesn’t mean a historian must divorce himself from sympathy for his subject or refrain from forming judgements or drawing conclusions. Instead, the historian simply needs to be aware of his own biases and predispostions. Impartiality, rightly understood, on the part of the historian is a practical ideal. Events can be recorded “as they happened” as far as the evidence permits and historical truth can be achieved– even though numberless details remain unkown. The question of whether history can be objective is kept alive by loose and unwarranted use of the term. The debate is speculative and has little practical bearing on the historian’s actual task. The temptation to succumb to the ideal of objectivity must be fought with a pragmatic understanding of the term.

Hallmarks of Critical History

Critical history is also referred to scholarly or scientific history. Any of the three terms is acceptable. There are five aspects that establish a historical piece as meeting the standard of a scholarly work.
  1. Method – The application of a correct technique to find and criticize data and the arrangement and presentation of the data according to an effective plan. As Lord Acton said, “Method makes the historian.”
  2. Candor – Critical history makes no attempt to pass for more than it is. It acknowledges all appropriations made by the author and doesn’t conceal or gloss over matters which can’t be so treated without a sacrifice of the truth. Dishonesty or failure to give due credit is plagiarism, which is the act by which one appropriates anothers work and passes it off as one’s own.
  3. Accuracy or Truth – Nothing diminishes interest in history more than the suspicion that facts are missing. A meticulous correctness of statement in all matters of fact is the ideal. Before going to press, a manuscript should be scrupulously checked for errors. History is innacurate when too many mistakes suggest the author is careless, earning him the ultimate negative tag in the field. Sloppy. However, a historian can’t try to be perfect or he would never publish a thing!
  4. Thoroughness – Use of all important sources bearing on a subject and treatment of all significant phases of the subject. There are always working standards at hand that enable one to judge whether a work reaches or falls below the demand of thoroughness.
  5. Verifiability – A work of history must be fortified with indications of sources, which will enable the reader to check for accuracy and reliability.

Nature of History

  • History is the study of human. It deals with man’s struggle through the ages. History is not static. It traces the fascinating story of how man has developed through the ages, how man has studied to use and control his environment and how the present institutions have grown out of the past.
  • History is concerned with human in time. It deals with a series of events and each event occurs at a given point in time. Human history, in fact, is the process of human development in time. It is time which affords a perspective to events and lends a charm that brightens up the past.
  • History is concerned with human in space. The interaction of man on environment and vice versa is a dynamic one. History describes about nations and human activities in the context of their physical and geographical environment. Out of this arise the varied trends in the political, social, economic and cultural spheres of man’s activities and achievements.
  • All aspects of the life of a social group are closely interrelated and historical happenings cover all these aspects of life, not limited only to the political aspect that had so long dominated history.
  • History is a dialogue between the events of the past and progressively emerging future ends. The historian’s interpretation of the past, his selection of the significant and the relevant events, evolves with the progressive emergence of new goals. The general laws regulating historical happenings may not be considered enough, attempts have to be made to predict future happenings on the basis of the laws.
  • The selected happenings are not merely narrated; the causal relationships between them are properly unearthed. The tracing of these relationships lead to the development of general laws that are also compared and contrasted with similar happenings in other social groups to improve the reliability and validity of these laws.
  • Continuity and coherence are the necessary requisites of history. History carries the burden of human progress as it is passed down from generation to generation, from society to society, justifying the essence of continuity. In the study of history only those events are included which are relevant to the understanding of the present life.
  • According to modern concept, history is not confined to one period or country or nation. It also deals with all aspects of human life-political, social, economic, religious, literary, aesthetic and physical, giving a clear sense of world unity and world citizenship.

Scope of History

  • The scope of history has been undergoing constant change. In the past, the world was divided into a number of social, political and cultural units. Each unit possessing independent histories. With the result of industrial revolution and improved means of communication, transportation the different countries of the world were brought closer to each other. This gave rise to the integrated and unified culture and economy. Thus history assumed the universal nature.
  • With the numerous discoveries and availability of various inscriptions, the scope of history has also widened. The knowledge of the ancient history was further widened by geology and archaeology in the mid-nineteenth century. The archaeologist throughtheir excavations pushed back the scope of history by millions of years.
  • With the development of historiography, the scope of the study of history was also changed. Till 19th century history was confined to the study of the political events and institutions. But at present, the social, economic, moral and literary life of the people is also included in the scope of history.
  • Every effort is made for making history more and more interesting. The study of history lays emphasis on the systematic and exhaustive collections of source materials and adoption of scientific, analytical and critical attitude in their assimilation and explanation.

Therefore, the main aims or purposes of the teaching of history are given below:

  1. To create interest for history among the students or learners of history.
  2. To explain and understand the present.
  3. To enlarge the area of individual experience by teaching about human behaviour, relationship, interaction of circumstances and conditions in their effect upon individual and social fortunes.
  4. The study of history provides the intellectual satisfaction.
  5. The study of history developed the mental power and mental horizon of the individual. It helped in the development of power of memory, imagination, logic and decision among the learners. In other words, it give more insight into human mind in a more agreeable way.
  6. The study of history developed the scientific outlook. It enables a person to apply and improve his reasoning faculty.
  7. The purpose of the study of history is to develop the national feelings and to the international understanding among the people.