If I write a mediocre non-fiction book about the Civil War, does that make me a historian?
If I write a mediocre non-fiction book about the Civil War, does that make me a historian?
Research from primary sources.
Don't overrate primary sources.
There is this stele erected by an Egyptian pharaoh after returning from a war against Assyria(?) reporting his victory. But in fact he lost and had to pay heavily.
This was finally found in old Assyrian accounting records, but for thousands of years his lies were believed true.
The Assyrians didn't even care enough about this victory to create a monument therefore the Egyptian stele was the only primary source.
When finally those clay accounting records were found nobody expected to find not only local tributes recorded but the tribute payed by pharaoh! IIRC, the translation of these records was done by underlings not by the first tier historians.
HM.
Don't overrate primary sources.
The value of the primary sources varies with the age, and quality, and the number of them. However, primary sources always trump opinions of the author.
Don't overrate primary sources.
This is true. Primary sources can be biased.
However, until someone invents a time machine, they are the best sources we have.
The point is if you want to be a historian, you need to research/study the primary sources rather than rely on secondary sources (some other historian's interpretation of the primary sources) or tertiary sources (a recent historian's interpretation of a prior historian's interpretation of the primary sources).
Primary sources can be biased.
For that reason historians should try to locate primary sources that describe the same event from two or more perspectives.
For that reason historians should try to locate primary sources that describe the same event from two or more perspectives.
And when they have two primary sources that disagree, they call the archeology department to see if physical evidence to back one account over the other can be had.
And maybe the archeology department tells them that the physical evidence(artifacts) point to a third account and that both primary sources a wrong. :)
You have to watch for the bias of the author of the source. A leaflet from a whisky drummer will be as "correct" as one from the WCTU!
You have to watch for the bias of the author of the source.
No matter how biased the author, a primary (contemporary ,first-hand) source will always be better than second and third hand accounts from 100 years after the fact.
No matter how biased the author, a primary (contemporary ,first-hand) source will always be better than second and third hand accounts from 100 years after the fact.
Too true. A few years back I was on a forum where the causes of the US Civil War were being discussed and someone raised the often said line: 'The leaders of the Southern States would never have joined the Union if they knew they wouldn't be allowed to leave it again if they wanted to do at a later date.'
Anyway, I simply pointed out one other simple historical fact and primary source document, and that's how I found out that person was one of the moderators and I got banned from the forum.
The simple fact I pointed out was that the leaders of the Southern states who signed and ratified the US Constitution (a primary source) were almost all the same Southern leaders who had signed and approved the document known as the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (a primary source). I did add the comment it looked like they knew there was no later opt out choice from the very start.
No matter how biased the author, a primary (contemporary ,first-hand) source will always be better than second and third hand accounts from 100 years after the fact.
Really? You'd trust the contemporary biographical writings of Chairman Mao or Josef Stalin above modern critique?
AJ
You'd trust the contemporary biographical writings of Chairman Mao or Josef Stalin above modern critique?
ETA: The question of trust them for what is important.
An autobiography of Mao or Stalin would only count as a primary source for thing of which they had first-hand knowledge.
End ETA.
If the modern critique wasn't citing other primary sources? Yes
If the modern critique was citing primary sources, and I was interested in that area, I'd probably mostly just skim the critique and then go look at the cited primary sources for myself.
An autobiography
I wrote 'biographical'.
Compare, for example, Vladimir Putin's heroic war against western neo-naziism.
AJ
I wrote 'biographical'.
Edited:
A biography not written by the subject even if contemporary is not necessarily a primary source.
To be considered a primary source for historical purposes (when it comes to people and/or events) requires two conditions to be met.
1. It has to be contemporaneous.
2. The author had first-hand knowledge of what he/she was writing about.
Unless both of these conditions are met, it is not a primary source.
So a biography of Mao, to qualify as a primary source would have had to have been written by Mao himself or at a minimum, a member of Mao's inner circle.
So if that's the sort of thing you meant, no, a contemporary biography not based on first-hand knowledge would not automatically be a superior source to a modern critique.
A biography not written by the subject even if contemporary is not necessarily a primary source.
You're right. Sometimes I'm so stupid it's a wonder I remember to breathe.
I should have used 'autobiographical', to indicate Mao's, Stalin's and Putin's own accounts.
AJ
I should have used 'autobiographical', to indicate Mao's, Stalin's and Putin's own accounts.
But I substituted "autobiography" in my initial response and you complained about that.
awnlee jawking
3/20/2022, 8:27:25 AM
@Dominions SonAn autobiography
I wrote 'biographical'.
So at this point, I have no idea what you meant or what point you were trying to make counter to my comments about primary sources.
Even a autobiography would only count as a primary source for things of which the author/subject has/had first-hand knowledge.
Go back to:
Compare, for example, Vladimir Putin's heroic war against western neo-naziism.
Putin's own account would be the authoritative record of his actions and motives.
However, the idea that he would have direct, first-hand knowledge of "western neo-naziism" is absurd and his writings on such would not constitute a "primary source" on those matters.
Putin's own account would be the authoritative record of his actions and motives.
Nope, nope, nope. That would be the authoritative source of what the person was willing to write for publication at the time it was written. No more "authoritative" about actions or internal states than the statement of a criminal defendant to police about where she was at the time of the crime or her feelings towards the victim.
It wouldn't be the authoritative source by virtue of being infallible.
It it is the authoritative source because on the question for which it is being used, no better source will ever be possible.
It wouldn't be the authoritative source by virtue of being infallible.
Barring an omniscient observer, all human propositions have a probability greater than zero of being true or false.
Gary
Okay, if by "authoritative" we mean "a source that should be taken into account in reaching conclusions, then I can accept that terminology. Of course, the fundamental question for a supposedly autobiographical piece would be to what degree the subject actually "wrote" it.
"a source that should be taken into account in reaching conclusions, then I can accept that terminology.
It's a bit more than that. It's a source that it would take a lot to properly rebut.
Of course, the fundamental question for a supposedly autobiographical piece would be to what degree the subject actually "wrote" it.
And if it's not genuinely written by the subject, it's not really a valid primary source.
Dominions Son said: if it's not genuinely written by the subject, it's not really a valid primary source.
I assert that if a competent reporter, historian, intelligence officer, etc. interviews a person who witnessed events, and accurately transcribes it. (Perhaps adding context from verified sources. Such as, even some of the "Rough Riders" mentioned participating in the Battle of San Juan Hill, they actually captured Kettle Hill, and fired upon Spanish forces on San Juan Hill; supporting the attack by other American soldiers.)
If a video or audio recording of the rememberences of a participant of an event is a primary source. So too would be a written record. Such a historian would need to be clear if they added any commentary of their own.
Again, I believe it is acceptable for a writer to include verified information that may confirm, or challenge the statements of the person present. As long as everything is Sourced.
I assert that if a competent reporter, historian, intelligence officer, etc.
I'll concede those, but I will contend that a random author ghost writing an autobiography doesn't fall into those categories.
It's a bit more than that. It's a source that it would take a lot to properly rebut.
Depends on the source. A published autobiography or memoir would be subject to a great deal of skepticism due to its self-serving nature. (By historians, of course. By journalists, not so much if the memoir was from a politician who was part of the party they support.)
If it were a private diary that had been concealed and written in code, then maybe less for intentional reputation polishing, although the question of the depth and clarity of self-awareness would still be an issue.
And if it's not genuinely written by the subject, it's not really a valid primary source.
Which might well not be an easy thing to establish. To put these in context, the letters between Jefferson and Adams would, I should think, raise only miniscule questions of authorship. However, I've heard a Jefferson scholar note that the two men were clearly aware that their words would bear on future interpretations of the events they lived through, their motives, and intentions.
On the other hand, a "memoir" published under Putin's name might well be questioned rather severely on both accounts. Given the analytics that can be done on text actually written by an individual (see the work of James Pennebaker), the question of direct authorship would be important, although even there, I would think an edited document would be less valuable than, say, a trove of emails.
Secondary sources may be better than primary sources because they may be more objective.
Secondary sources may take several points of view, as well as perspective years after the events that includes sources that were unknown or secret at the time.
An example: all known primary sources that witnessed the sinking of RMS Titanic agreed that she remained intact, and disappeared remarkably smoothly when she sank. We now know she broke in half before she sank.
Or.
Primary French sources, including the French General in command claimed that the French had taken back territory to the southeast of Verdun in 1916. Numerous books, travel guides, and even some monuments repeated this tale of the men who were there.
In the 1990's a historian was confused that he could find no record of a German counterattack taking that terrain back from the French. The USA AEF fought the well documented St. Michele campaign. The German Defenses had been held since 1914.
Turns out French losses were so high, that the French called off the attacks, marked success on their Maps, and made the situation on the ground Secret to their own government! In the 1930's, after the influential people died, there was some research by historians, but then WWII occurred.
It took an objective historian, with no political objective. He researched French, German, and US Army records, and compared them to remains of trenches, fortifications that still exist, and cemeteries that combined established what armies had occupied what ground in the years 1914 to 1918.
Just two examples.
We now know she broke in half before she sank.
The last information I saw had the experts deciding it broke up on the way down after it was mostly underwater. That would make the primary source correct for what they saw and also explain the way it ended up on the ocean floor.
Secondary sources may take several points of view, as well as perspective years after the events that includes sources that were unknown or secret at the time.
A lot depends on what the sources are and what is done with them.
Take JFK's murder. There's a huge pile of primary sources, but all of the reports were done by people being selective in which of those sources they used, and many of them were archived without being used in any of the major reports. It was decades later when an independent examination of those primary sources in the archives has the real story been told. The eyewitness reports are all there, as is the film footage, yet for many years only selected excepts to support the official story were made public. Now they know that Oswald shot AT JFK and missed, but the fatal shot was an accidental round from one of JFK's Secret Service Protection Team who was given a rifle he'd to use, one of a make and model he'd never seen until that day. The reason he ended up where he was with the rifle was due to internal politics in the Secret Service. When Oswald fired the SS man brought his rifle up and turned with it in his hand, and in the process he accidentally fired it and got JKF. It was all there in the primary sources, but ignored - as often happens in many events.
Secondary sources may be better than primary sources because they may be more objective.
Not exactly. Your examples misunderstand the nature of the process.
For someone who just want's to study the history of something for personal reasons, secondary sources are usually fine.
If you want to be considered a historian and taken seriously by the larger community of historians, doing research from secondary sources is not acceptable.
An example: all known primary sources that witnessed the sinking of RMS Titanic agreed that she remained intact, and disappeared remarkably smoothly when she sank. We now know she broke in half before she sank.
Which we know from physical evidence which will always trump documentary evidence.
It took an objective historian, with no political objective. He researched French, German, and US Army records, and compared them to remains of trenches, fortifications that still exist, and cemeteries that combined established what armies had occupied what ground in the years 1914 to 1918.
He researched French, German, and US Army records which are all primary sources and combined that with archeological physical evidence.
had he not based his research on primary sources no one else in the community of historians would have taken his work seriously.
IRC, the translation of these records was done by underlings not by the first tier historians.
For a first pass translation that wouldn't surprise me. But when they realized what a bombshell they had for the standing historical account, it's almost certain that first tier historians would have gone back to the clay tablets themselves to verify the original translation.
almost certain that first tier historians would have gone back to the clay tablets themselves to verify the original translation.
Not necessarily true. An ethical one would, but not many are ethical.
Especially when the translation goes against the grain of their bias.
The World War One historian I am referring to is fluent in French and German, as well as his native English. He didn't specialize in WWI, however, it came to his notice that numerous books written in French or German, were significantly different from the English translations authorized by the original writers. Quite some number of foreign language books had been significantly changed to conform to "common knowledge" in the English speaking world.
His travel to the battlefields confirmed some primary sources and cast other, often popularly accepted versions of history in doubt.
Again, the question of the OP was what does it take to be considered a(an) historian.
For that, research from primary sources and/or physical evidence is a must.
Simply regurgitating the research of prior historians (secondary sources) will get you laughed out of the community.
Simply regurgitating the research of prior historians (secondary sources) will get you laughed out of the community.
Unlikely. Even faking a set of Hitler Diaries won't get you laughed out of the community.
AJ
translation of these records was done by underlings not by the first tier historians.
That's normal. The peons normally know more about the subject than the credited author.
Don't overrate primary sources.
You always need to look at what the primary sources are and what they were used for when they were produced.
What does it take to make a historian?
Well, when a Mommy & Daddy really love each other and get together ... :)
To be formerly recognised as a historian you have to show having passed some academic training in history and historical research skills, then you have to show a proven track record of at least two significantly sized well researched documents on historical events.
All this is needed as that industry has a pile of gatekeepers who are all academics and they refuse to accept anyone but another academic can know hoe to do the job.
edit to add: Being accepted doesn't mean a recognised historian actual knows what he's talking about once he gets past a few agreed dates of events.
His story ians are male. Her story ians are female.
Primary sources are from elementary school (primary school). After graduation they are secondary sources from secondary schools.
Do you identify as a historian? If so, you're beyond reproach in your claim. Perhaps you might not be as knowledgeable as other historians. Perhaps you aren't in possession of a degree. But if you SAY you're a historian, you're one.
I agree Oyster.
Barbara Tuchman is acclaimed as a "famous" historian of World War One. Her book "The Guns of August" is mostly a regurgitating of Propaganda. It was required reading when I first started studying the history of the "Great War"
Research reveals what a hack Tuchman was, although her prose was enjoyed by the masses. Historians such as Holger Herwig and Terrence Zuber; who vehemently disagree with each other, agree Tuchman is a hack.
Howard Zimm has written many, if not most of the basic textbooks used in public schools in the USA. Many believe he is heavily biased, and doesn't, or poorly sources his assertions.
Stephen Ambrose, whose writing I like, has been accused of being sloppy. I think his errors in Band of Brothers are minor. When interviewing hundreds of people. Primary sources. It is possible to make a mistaken conclusion.
In particular, it was stated that a particular soldier died of his wounds. Turns out he survived, and died about 2 decades later. He never contacted any of the other survivors. Multiple sources stated he died of wounds, and Ambrose wrote that. It was not the book, but the later HBO dramatization that caused family members of the soldier to rebut Ambrose's writing.
Unfortunately, some of his other books also have less diligence in Research and verification than Mr. Ambrose should have done. He is still a great Historian who has kindled an interest in history they might not have had.
Related, is Tom Hanks a Historian?
What does it take to make a historian?
Someone who aspirates the letter 'h' at the start of words, otherwise it would be 'an historian'. And yes, a few Brits really do say that.
AJ
A very prolific author named Chilton wrote a lot of those.
Chilton is not a single author but a publishing company.
The Chilton company's origins go back to July 1896, and the first issue of Cycle Trade Journal edited by James Artman who became the first president of the future Chilton Company.
Funny thing Chilton has been sold many times through the years and in 1996 the Walt Disney Company purchased Capital Cities/ABC who owned Chilton at the time but they would sell it off a few years latter as it wasn't considered a core business they only wanted control of the publishing company and could care less about repair manuals.
the Walt Disney Company purchased Capital Cities/ABC who owned Chilton at the time but they would sell it off a few years latter as it wasn't considered a core business they only wanted control of the publishing company and could care less about repair manuals.
I suppose if they had cared less, they could have sacked all the staff and shut the business down.
AJ
I suppose if they had cared less, they could have sacked all the staff and shut the business down
It was worse than that. The technical accuracy of those manuals suffered greatly during that time.
Plagiarism and outright lies seem to help become a historian.
Doris Kearns Goodwin, Joseph Ellis, David McCollough all knowingly stole from others or knowingly published false information. In popular "history" Alex Haley just made it up as he went along.
Doesn't seem to hurt any of them.
Plagiarism and outright lies seem to help become a historian.
Especially for the civil war, and Indian wars historians.
Sadly true. I hate those who create or knowingly perpetuate false history, claiming it is the truth.
If I write a mediocre non-fiction book about the Civil War, does that make me a historian?
Yes, speaking literally. But probably not a very good one.