Until fairly recently, historians
relied on the "scissors and paste" method of reconstructing the past. This method
is described in Collingwood's article "Who Killed John Doe?" Historians would
focus on the specific details they were given in accounts. This left them with
only the ability to determine if a statement was correct. If not, it was deemed
useless. If information was not put in the exact context they wanted,
historians believed it could not be found. Also, that method requires extensive
research which can be an impossible task when dealing with a popular subject. Since
then, they have realized the value in examining what information is missing as
well as what's in front of them. They have made greater attempts to read
between the lines and infer more information than what is specifically stated.
Although using a more scientific
approach to recreating events of the past has improved accuracy and range of
knowledge, several challenges remain. To begin with is language. Most commonly the
meaning of a word is lost in translation because one language does not have a
word that conveys the exact same meaning. Also, words sometimes change meaning
over time. At other times it is difficult to determine whether a phrase is
meant to be taken figuratively or literally.
Another trial is putting events in
chronological order. This may seem like a simple and logical thing to do at
first, but remember that historical evidence is very rarely discovered in the
order events unfolded. Often, there are huge gaps in the evidence and making
sense out of it is much like assembling a puzzle when you do not know what it
is supposed to look like. The most important details may not be the most
obvious ones.
Perhaps the biggest challenge
historians face, when trying to reconstruct the past, is determining fact from
fiction. Several causes factor into this. The first is that people sometimes
fail to tell the truth. They may have a reason for this, such as trying to
protect a loved one from dealing with the consequences of their actions or
wanting to present their country in a more positive light. The whole truth and
nothing but the truth is rarely a motivation for someone's account. People
experience events from different points of view. Depending on the situation a
woman may see through the eyes of a mother, daughter, sister, friend, or any
number of others. A historian's job is to recognize the lens of each account in
order to understand what biases may exist in the account or which details may
receive less attention.
Additionally,
memory is imperfect. Over time events become under or over exaggerated in the
mind. An example of this can be found in Jerome's article "A Lie is a Lie, Even
in Latin" when he discusses an article containing a man's eye witness account
of the Mt. Vesuvius eruption. The witness claimed ash buried his entire garden,
piling up to half a meter high. Jerome pointed out, however, that this could
not possibly be true because evidence shows that the ash formed only a thin
layer, less than half an inch.
Jerome also cites studies conducted
by Bilet and Sterns. Bilet's study focused on how well children remembered the
details of a postage stamp. Nearly all of them remembered the color or price
incorrectly, but he found that even the wrong answers were given with
certainty. Stern's test was constructed similarly, except instead of answering
questions about stamps participants were asked to write detailed descriptions
of pictures they had been shown. Stern asked them to describe the images at
varying intervals after they were shown. He found that the level of error
increased dramatically in only a short amount of time. When looking at historic
documents, it can be difficult to tell how long ago an experience that someone
wrote about happened. Yet, time should be taken into consideration as it, along
with motivation and poor memory, greatly affects the accuracy of statements.
There are no
easy answers that simplify a historian's task. Most important is for historians
to understand the limitations of the evidence they are working with. They need to
recognizes any biases and remember that memory is fairly inaccurate. Take note of
the motives a person had for documenting their account of an event. Asking a
lot of questions and approaching the data from as many viewpoints as possible helps
to filter out incorrect information. Above all, historians need to be willing to
admit they were wrong if presented with evidence that discredits their theories.
Only by working collaboratively and with
an open mind can a semblance of past events reflect the truth.
Recent Comments