1

SEM 1, CORE 1 - HY 1141: DISCIPLINE OF HISTORY & SOCIAL SCIENCES:

METHEDOLLOGY AND PERSPECTIVES
COURSE CONTENTS

Module I - Understanding the concept of Discipline and History:

a) History as a discipline: Past, History, multiple/plural Histories.

b) Defining History- perspectives of historians: Carlyle, Carr, Marc Bloch and Fernand
Braudel.

c) History and Social Sciences – Autonomy of History - Need for inter/trans disciplinary
approaches: Sociology-Economics -Political Science – Anthropology.

d) Problems in the construction of history: Bias and Prejudice-Nationality, Communalism,

and Memory studies – Objectivity vs Subjectivity debate.

Module II Methodology of historians:

Method and methodology of History: Ontology – Epistemology – Theories of History-

Philosophy of History - Craft of historical research- Narrative in History- Positivist and Post
Positivist approaches- Geo structural approach Feminist and History from Below approaches.

Module III Understanding Social Sciences

Emergence and nature of Social Sciences– relevance of the Social Science in understanding
and solving contemporary problems – Discussions of basic principles and concepts.

Module IV Understanding Social Structure

Class, Caste, Gender: Marx, Ambedkar and Graded inequality and other Sociological
Perspectives.
Essential Readings:
1) E.H. Carr, What is History, Penguin, re-print edition 2008.

2) Abhijit Kundu (ed.), The Social Sciences: Methodologies and Perspectives, Pearson,
Fourth Impression 2015.

3) Peter Burke, The French Historical Revolution: The Annales School, 1929-89, Polity
press, 1990.

4) Maurice Aymard&HarbansMukhia, French Studies in History, Vol. 1 The Inheritance-

Orient Longman Limited (1988)

5) Maurice Aymard&HarbansMukhia, French Studies in History, Vol. 2, DeparturesOrient

Longman (1990).

6) Marc Bloch, Royal Touch: Sacred Monarchy and Scrofula in England and France,
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973.
 2

7) Fernand Baudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean world in the Age of Philip II,
University of California Press, 1996.

8) Shashi Bhushan Upadhyay, Historiography in the Modern World: Western and Indian
Perspective, Oxford University Press, 2016.

9) M.C Lemon, Philosophy of History: A Guide for Students, Routledge, 2003.

10) B. Sheik Ali, History: Its Theory and Method, Macmillan Publication, New Delhi, 1980.

11) E. Sreedharan, A Textbook of Historiography, Orient Longman, 2003. (Malayalam

translation is also available)

12) John Perry, Contemporary Society: An Introduction to Social Sciences, Allyn& Bacon,
2009. (Chapter: Through the Lens of Science).

13) Elgin Hunt, Social Science: An Introduction to the Study of Society, Allyn& Bacon,
2008. (Chapter: Social Science and its Methods).

14) Donatella Della Porta &Micheal Keating, Approaches and Methodologies in Social
Sciences; Pluralistic Perspective, Cambridge University Press, Delhi, 2008.

15) Sujata Patel, (et al), ed, Thinking Social Science in India, Sage Publication, New Delhi,
2002.

16) M.N. Srinivas, Caste in India and Other Essays, Asia Publishing House, 1962.

17) M. N. Srinivas, Social Transition in Modern India, Orient Longman, New Delhi, 2003.

18) Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol.1, Education Department, Govt.
of Maharashtra, 1979, Re-print Dr. Ambedkar Foundation, 2014.

19) Kumkum Roy, “Kosambi and Question of Caste”, EPW, Vol. 43, Issue No. 30, 26 Jul,
2008.

20) Dipankar Gupta, Interrogating Caste: Understanding hierarchy and difference in Indian
Society, penguin, 2000.

21) Y Naveen babu, From Varna to Jati: Political Economy of Caste in Indian Social
Formation, Danish Book, 2008.

22) Gail Omvedt, Understanding Caste: From Buddha to Ambedkar and Beyond, Orient
Blackswan, 2016.

23) Gail Omvedt, Dalits and Democratic Revolutions, Dr. Ambedkar and Dalit Movements in
Colonial India, Sage Publications New Delhi, 1994.

24) Uma Chakravarti, Gendering Caste: Through a Feminist Lens, Stree, 2003.
 3

SEM 1, CORE 1 - HY 1141: DISCIPLINE OF HISTORY & SOCIAL SCIENCES:

METHEDOLLOGY AND PERSPECTIVES

Module 1 – Understanding the concept of Discipline and History as a discipline

The word discipline comes from the Latin word discipulus (pupil) and from disciplina
(teaching). To be disciplined is to follow instructions, and to be obedient to an authority.
Discipline is commonly used in contexts where a distinct chain of authority exists. In this
sense „academic discipline‟ can be seen as a form of specific and rigorous training that will
turn out practitioners “…who have been „disciplined‟ by their discipline‟ for their own good."
To Michel Foucault, „discipline‟, in its more general sense, is part of a often brutal political
force that police certain behaviours while excluding those that deviate from the norm, and
eventually the „disciplining‟ comes to be internalised by the subject itself (Foucault, 1995
[1975]).
In an attempt to distinguish what characterizes an academic discipline we may posit
six characteristics such as: (1) a particular object of research, (2) a body of accumulated
specialist knowledge referring to their object of research, (3) theories and concepts that can
organise knowledge effectively, (4) specific terminologies or technical language, (5)
developed particular research methods, (6) some institutional manifestation in the form of
subject taught at universities, respective academic departments and professional
organisations. An additional point might be that disciplines usually have control over specific
channels for disseminating their knowledge (journals, book series and conferences).
Moreover, international recognition and generally shared norms regarding academic
credibility are other characteristics that often are associated with an academic discipline.
HISTORY AS A DISCIPLINE
In recent times the study of history has been condemned as a low intellectual activity which
recites or repeats names, dates, places and events. Some view history as dead, dusty and
buried. Henry Ford uttered one of the most demeaning remarks about the discipline when he
said, “I don't know much about history, and I wouldn't give a nickel for all the history in the
world. History is more or less bunk. It is tradition. We want to live in the present, and the
only history that is worth a tinker's damn is the history we make today.” As careless and
unreasonable as such statements appear, they have had a profound impact in bringing into
disregard the study of history in comparison to other disciplines.
But such criticisms against history arise mainly from a misunderstanding of the dynamics
involved in the discipline. A detailed understanding of the manifold values of history
explained below will lead us to think it as an area worthy of academic pursuit.
The rigorous intellectual applications that the study of history develops in, and demands
from its practitioners, dismiss the misnomer that it constitutes a low academic activity.
History trains the intellect in very useful and profound ways. These include, but are not
limited to, reading and research, thesis formulation, data analysis and the writing up of
findings.
Studying history makes avid, meticulous and critical readers out of its students. The
historian must read and research widely, not only to grasp the content of historical writing but
also to ascertain the lines of argument, the kinds and ranges of sources, the style of writers as
 4

well as to carve out original spaces within the historical discourse. Criticism of sources, a
vital dimension of historical enquiry, can involve the application of complicated and
sophisticated methodologies.
The need to analyse historical data is one of the major and intellectually challenging
objectives of the discipline. While it is taken for granted that the historian will be careful
enough to be accurate about the discrete and particular issues with which his or her
investigation deals, the primary responsibility is to derive meaning through exhaustive and
exhausting interrogation of the remnants of the past. Meticulous care and attention are also
required for the accurate inclusion of references, such as footnotes and bibliographies, in
historical writing. That referencing is vital is reflected in the historians‟golden rule: no
sources, no history”. Citing references is also crucial to avoid plagiarism.
Synthesizing Multiple Writings
The skilled historian is normally involved in a highly complex balancing act in terms
of the kinds of writings employed in presenting historical findings.Basically, three kinds of
writing are simultaneously at work. First, there is historical narration, (not be confused with
literary narration), which furnishes the necessary details of an experience of the past, thereby
providing context for the work under investigation. Second, historical description, having
nothing at all to do with metaphors and similes, organises the discussions into appropriate
dividers and sign posts such as themes, periods and geographical and other spaces. Third,
historical analysis applies interpretation to the data being researched. The historian must
continuously be conscious of the need to balance these three kinds of writing. Without
sufficient narrative, a vacuum will be created. Without sufficient description, the reader,
lacking sign posts, can become lost, as developments and phenomena lose distinctive
location, form and context. Without interpretation, the work will become a mass of
meaningless chronicles. Writing history necessitates the synthesis of multiple kinds of writing
in the right proportions.
Interpretation Controlled by Procedure
The interpretative dimension of history reading and writing is a major feature
esteemed by historians. For history‟s critics, however, it is this very quality that has been
scorned as interpretative flux. Well known British historiographer, Keith Jenkins, identifies
interpretation in history as its prime epistemological fragility. Yet he insists that history
ought not to be dismissed as being all relativist. Jenkins admits that several historians, using
the same sources, may reach different and even contradictory conclusions. The fact remains,
however, that the past (i.e. what had happened) is fixed. It is not invented nor can it be altered
by its researchers. There may be many histories, (i.e. multiple interpretations of the past), but
there is only one past. The fixity and finiteness of the historians‟materials mark the extreme
possible limits of the subject. And, even in the deconstruction and construction of many
histories, properly referred to as historiography, the demand for wide reading, empiricism,
rigorous questioning, close referencing, logical, wellarticulated and supported arguments, and
the sometimes hostile peer reviews act as a brake on careless and hasty historical analysis.
Sound historical interpretations do not emanate from fanciful whims. To find acceptance, the
credibility of historical writing has to be justified by the independent, objective past, through
fairly standardized methodologies and procedures.
 5

The Interconnectivity of Past, Present and Future

The study of history will always be relevant because it is an important trajectory
connecting the past to the present and the future. This does not mean, of course, that the past
explains the present in its exact form or anticipates the future exactly as it will occur.
History‟s emphasis is on the uniqueness of events, and the acknowledgement that no two
activities of the past are exactly alike. The past furnishes insightful explanations about the
present. While over time all things change, remnants of the past always “walk into” the
present because of the abiding principle of continuity. Things are therefore the way they are
partly because of the way they used to be. And if the past exerts influence on the present
which is tomorrow‟s past, then it will most assuredly affect the future which is tomorrow‟s
present. Several writers have presented poignant defenses for studying history by
underscoring its role in linking past, present and future. Noted historian, Edward Hallett Carr,
asserts that “History is an unending dialogue between past and present” H. P. R. Finberg
posits that “… the present is only an indivisible dividing line between the future and the
past.” The novelist William Faulkner wisely observed that “The past is never dead. It‟s not
even past.” George Orwell, in his well-known novel, Nineteen Eighty Four, warned, “Who
controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past”. Marwick
suggests, and this might be the most significant implication, that “Without history we shall
not begin to understand the problems of the present, and will be without the basic knowledge
essential for grappling intelligently with the future” These statements capture the critical
relevance of historical understanding with regards to its interconnectivity with time.
A People’s Memory Bank
A continuum of the past‟s influence on the present and the future is the crucial role
that the discipline of history plays in crafting for a people their sense of self. History is our
memory bank. If we have no history, we have no memory and, consequently, no identity.
Keith Jenkins explains that “People in the present need antecedents to locate themselves now,
and legitimate their ongoing and future ways of living. Thus people literally feel the need to
root themselves today and tomorrow in their yesterdays” Consequently, in the absence of
historical understanding, people experience virtual amnesia, and find no anchorage in time; a
dangerous, psychologically traumatic situation. Through the study of history, however, a
sense of belonging, national pride, patriotism, understanding and appreciation of present
circumstances, especially relations with others, can take root and flourish, and can be used by
leaders to motivate people to move in one direction or the other. These are the reasons, as
Marwick points out, why nations take special care and pride in maintaining museums,
archives and libraries, devoted to the preservation of sources and relics of the past History in
Action. History is the only proof that a group of people did exist in the past. This function
alone furnishes the discipline with the esteem it deserves. History is a prerequisite for giving
and shaping the identity of all peoples of the world. Careers for Historians
The utilitarian functions of history have, at least, always been appreciated by
historians themselves. In ancient times, between the 4th and 7th centuries when Herodotus,
the father of history, and his colleagues such as, Thucydides, Polybius, Livy, Tacitus and
Plutarch, wrote history, their intentions was not merely to teach the discipline but also to
provide a leadership manual for those earmarked for power. To meet this objective, they
sometimes embellished their records. While their methodology may not have been altogether
 6

sound, they did succeed in making history required reading for those selected for political and
military leadership. In the modern world, the career opportunities opened to history students
is comparatively much wider. With relative ease, history graduates gain entry into the
professions of teaching and lecturing. Some pursue careers in law, politics, journalism, the
diplomatic and foreign service. In this regard, G. N. Brooke makes the useful observation
that, since history touches on other academic disciplines such as art, literature, philosophy
etc., it is not surprising that a history graduate is both well rounded and marketable.
Intellectually Entertaining
History‟s entertainment value makes it both endearing and irresistible. The
intellectually alert and curious are fascinated by the varied and extensive data base history
stores and generates; which, over the years, has led to the emergence of multiple variants of
the discipline such as social, economic, gender and family history. The multiplicity of
branches of the discipline makes it possible to ask both big and small questions of the world,
and produce answers that other fields of academic enquiry cannot possibly ask or answer.
History also makes it possible to enter vicariously into the lives of the rich, powerful, famous,
as well as the lives of the poor and downtrodden. Biographies and autobiographies, and
myriad categories of historiography, continue to satisfy the curious gaze with which both
historians and non-historians peer into the lives of those who lived in the past.
To conclude, reading and writing history is an exacting and meticulous craft. It is a
discipline that both taxes and trains the mind. It narrows the gap between the past, present
and future and amasses and distils people‟s collective memories. It satiates the hunger of the
intellectually curious and is also a gateway to a multiplicity of professions. Both the student
and professional are likely to find the discipline both highly functional and entertaining.
History has conferred, and will continue to confer, multiple and important meanings to a
wide-cross section of people.
--------------------------------------

PAST, HISTORY, MULTIPLE/PLURAL HISTORIES

The difference between ‘history’ and ‘the past’
In school, college or university, when we study the subject called „History‟, it is
common to hear people use the terms „history‟ and „the past‟ interchangeably, as if the two
mean the same thing. In fact, when we talk about the past or history most people certainly do
use the terms as synonyms. However, when undertaking History as part of our studies, these
terms are used to mean two different things. A genuine student of history should know the
difference so that we may have a correct perspective of the subject.
What is ‘the past’?
When we use the term „the past‟, we mean all of the things that have ever happened
since the beginning of time until the present. In other words, it is everything that has occurred
before this exact moment: every person, society, event, and idea that existed before now, is
part of „the past‟. The past is a vast, quite unknown space of enormous magnitude, leaving
comparatively few traces in various forms for posterity. Unfortunately, we only know about
„the past‟ based upon what has survived to the present. Sadly, almost everything from the
past has disappeared forever and only fragments of evidence that it ever existed remain. The
awareness each society has of its past varies enormously, both in terms of what is recollected
 7

and how such memories are put into time brackets. Think about the billions of people that
have ever lived and how we will never know anything about them, or their lives, because
nothing about them remains. Similarly, think about the countless weapons, tools, houses,
clothes, and ideas that must have been made over the millennia, and how most of them
crumbled, rusted, fragmented, and disappeared in just a few weeks, years, and centuries after
they were made. „The past‟, as a term, refers to all of these things, even if they no longer
exist.
What is ‘history’?
In contrast, the term „history‟ refers to how someone has tried to reconstruct „the past‟
in a way that we can understand. Most of the time, „history‟ is when a professional historian
writes a book to explain what a society, culture, person, or event might have been like, based
upon the evidence that remains. The most common ways that historians construct a history is
to present it in the form of a story, which we call a „narrative‟. Stories are easily
understandable for most people, and presents the past in a chronological way, from beginning
to end, taking you on a journey through the highlights of the narrative. However, all
historians admit that their histories are incomplete, because they have had to fill in a lot of the
gaps in their story, since we don‟t have all the evidence we would like from the past in order
to write a complete story.
However, historians don‟t simply „make up‟ the gaps in the past. Instead, they spend
years on dedicated research, trying to find out as much as possible to make an educated guess
about different aspects of the past. Ultimately, every historian admits that their story is only
their best conclusions about what is most likely, based upon the evidence we have. As a
result of the need to „fill the gaps‟ in order to construct a narrative about the past, historians
are open to hearing about how other historians attempts at writing history. If another historian
can provide a better version of history, they are willing to change their minds. This is why we
say that there is multiple „histories‟ about the past: every historian has their own
interpretation about the past that is open to revision and correction.
How are ‘the past’ and ‘history’ related?
Now that you know the difference between the past (everything that happened before now)
and history (a historian‟s attempt to tell the story of the past), let's look at how they relate to
each other. „The past‟ is completed and can never be changed, but „history‟ is the ongoing
discussion of trying to explain the past and is open to change and revision. „History‟ relies
upon what we know about „the past‟, and this is dependent on the evidence available. We
cannot write a history that is not based upon evidence.
What is Historiography?
While history cannot be equated with the past, the relationship between the terms 'history' and
'historiography' is rather close. Historiography is generally understood as either the practice
of writing history or as an analytical account of the way in which history has been written
over centuries. In other words, it has been taken both as history and the history of historical
thought and writing. These two meanings join together rather frequently and legitimately.
Historiography is ultimately a form of historical writing and follows the same methods. Both
history and historiography are forms of texts that are different from the processes of the past.
Quite often, historiography is also designated as the 'history of history'. In many dictionaries,
 8

the term historiography is used as a synonym for history in the sense of a written narrative,
mainly to distinguish history as a linguistic artifact from history as actual events',
Multiple / plural histories

The past is a vast, quite unknown space of enormous magnitude, leaving comparatively few
traces in various forms for posterity. The awareness each society has of its past varies
enormously, both in terms of what is recollected and how such memories are put into time
brackets. Thus, the representations of the past would vary in different societies. Even in a
particular society, the 'awareness of its past is plural, not singular'. Thus, a society 'may have
as many pasts, and modes of dependence on those pasts, as it has past-relationships'. Though
now enormously influential, history is not the only way of relating to the past.
Some ways of representing the past in written forms, which are available, were first
found in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia about five thousand years ago. But there was no
comparable term to 'history'. In the Chinese historical tradition, which is one of the earliest in
the world, the representation of the past was captured in the genre known as 'shi'. This term,
however, originally referred to a person (and not a genre of writing) who dutifully recorded
the words of the shaman through whom the gods were supposed to communicate their
message. The 'shi' was originally the recorder and the preserver of this message. Later, the
'shi' also came to denote the recorder of the words of the king. Then it came to mean the
historian. Finally, when it meant history, it did not mean history as 'the past' or as 'the events
of the past', but rather as the record of the past. Moreover, the dominant Chinese thinking
about the past was not exactly concerned with the objective reality-not about what actually
happened, but with what was represented in the official records or in earlier, mostly official
histories. Traditional Chinese historians did not use the term 'shi' (history) in the sense of the
past, but only to refer to historical texts. At another level, it was basically conceived in a
moral frame, as a way to find the 'Dao' (the true path).
The term itihasa, which has been used to denote history in India, literally means 'so
indeed it was', which claims that the function of history is 'to show how it essentially was'.
However, contemporaries understood it rather broadly, encompassing quite different
compositions, from the Dharmashastra (code of ethics) to Arthashastra (economics). It
covered most of the literary developments in the post-Vedic era and emphasized on ethics
and morality rather than on actual events. Many of these forms cannot be even remotely
connected with history today. In Arabic, the terms used to connote the representations of the
past were khabar (plural, akhbar), which literally means 'information', and tarikh meaning
'dating'. They were used to primarily to denote chronologies.
Even in the Western tradition, the present meaning of history crystallized only since
the eighteenth century. Until then, the conceptualization of the term 'history', despite its
association with 'truth' and distinction from myth and fable, always carried a variety of
meanings. The ancient word 'histor', from which the term 'historia' was derived, was used
both as a noun and an adjective to denote a person who was capable of judging correctly from
among conflicting versions or the capacity of such judgement as a quality of someone.
Historian, another word derived from 'histor', was used as a verb to mean the activity of
finding out the correct version of events from disputed accounts. 'Historia' was first used to
mean either enquiry or the results of such enquiry. In the pre-Herodotean period, most uses
 9

of these terms emphasized the activity of enquiring for correct information about persons,
things, or events. With Herodotus, the word 'historia' began to acquire the meaning of the
product of enquiry. The root meaning of the term historie implying 'see' or 'know' from
visual experience, reached its climax in Thucydides' work, and subsequent Greek historians
followed him in taking contemporary events as proper subjects of history. But, despite having
coined the word 'history', the Greeks did not value it very highly.
During the subsequent Hellenistic period (following the death of Alexander) both in
Greek and Latin, the word 'historia' came to predominantly connote a written account, a
literary genre with its rules and styles, canons of greatness and social utility'. In the Roman
age, the literary meaning of the term gained greater prominence. As gods and legendary
humans found their ways into historical texts, the strict requirement of accuracy declined.
Now, 'historia' came to be identified with 'story' in many cases. It became closely identified
with rhetoric. With this, it also acquired a function different from pure enquiry. Thus,
Dionysius of Halicarnassus asserted that 'history is philosophy from examples. Although its
relationship with facts was not abrogated, the emphasis shifted.
The Jewish and Christian concepts of history also emphasized more its moral value
than the notion of literal truth. In the period of the later Roman Empire, the connotation of
historia' began to shift away from 'story' to more factual and informational accounts. In
Christian historiography, there was a divide between the eastern part of the Empire, where
history was written in Greek, and the western part, where it was written in Latin. While the
Greek writings persisted with 'historia' as 'story', the Latin Christian writers emphasized
veracity and truthfulness by questioning the accounts of the pagan gods in earlier histories.
There was another significant development in this period-that is the view of history as
the past. The Christian writers viewed history as a collective past of the chosen people, which
they distinguished from that of non-Christian peoples. The great Christian writer St
Augustine introduced another innovation in the meaning of history by dividing it into sacred
and profane histories, the former related to the 'city of God' while the latter provided accounts
of the earthly city. Moreover, the idea of history as rhetoric was much strengthened by the
persistent Christian polemic against 'pagan' historians. Persuading and convincing Christians
and non-Christians about the truth of the Christian doctrine were important tasks that were
then assigned to history. Thus, the ideas of history in Western antiquity were diverse and
varied, implying truthful enquiry (Herodotus), utilitarian purposes (Polybius), theoretical and
literary genres (Cicero), teaching philosophy by example (Dionysius), and so on.
During the European Middle Ages, the word 'historia' referred to a wide variety of
narratives. It could refer to narrative works of art, saints' lives, parts of the Bible, the literal
sense of scriptural texts, liturgical offices, epic poems, other texts and objects. Although
during the European Middle Ages associated 'historia' with 'truth, the meaning they attached
to 'truth' varied widely. The various terms used for history were 'historia', 'chronica', 'annales',
and 'gestae', which differed from each other in their meanings. According to one scholar.
Throughout the middle ages historia in the broad sense of the word was seen (1) as a way of
knowing (either depicted as an activity... or as the medium by which is known): (2) as
something like a literary genre; or (3) as the object of cognition itself.
Throughout the Renaissance and even later, history was conceived of in two major
ways, quite often opposed to each other: (a) as educational, didactic, or moral composition, a
 10

meaning that derived from old Roman tradition, and (6) as critical writing, particularly
concerned with the authenticity of the sources, a new concern during the late seventeenth
century. However, as late as the eighteenth century, history was considered to be a reservoir
of instructive stories.
It was during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries that the two separate
aspects of history - past events and the study and writing of history were merged into a single
whole. The past and its representation became indistinguishable from each other. History
itself became the past. Historical events were rendered unique and unrepeatable, and value
judgement was effectively prohibited as a task of the historian. The historian and his/her
audience were both removed and it appeared as if historical works were writing themselves
and the sources were speaking on their own without the intervention of the historian. It was
assumed that if the facts were properly laid out, it did not matter who the historian was.
It is now increasingly clear that the past and history cannot be equated, they are two
different things. The past can be represented in a variety of ways, history being just one mode
of representation in a narrative form. It is a specific form of representation of the past as it
evolved in Europe over centuries. For about two centuries now, it has subsumed various other
forms of representations of the past all over the globe.
While history cannot be equated with the past, the relationship between the terms
'history' and 'historiography' is rather close. Historiography is generally understood as either
the practice of writing history or as an analytical account of the way in which history has
been written over centuries. In other words, it has been taken both as history and the history
of historical thought and writing. These two meanings have combined rather frequently and
legitimately so. In whatever manner we conceive of historiography, it is ultimately a form of
historical writing and follows the same methods. Both history and historiography are forms of
texts that are different from the processes of the past.
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
 11

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.
12. History is philosophy in motion. To exist is to change, to change is to mature, and to
mature is to advance and make progress. History is the barometer to record this progress of
mankind. The nature of history is too complex and its scope too vast, touching almost every
domain of human activity.
13. History is enquiry, research, exploration or information. History offers us the
quintessence of human experience whose study has universal value. When lessons are drawn
from real life, and when these lessons are ordered to form a coherent whole, we have history.
It indicates the growth of the human mind in which the unique facts of life are collected,
classified and interpreted in a scientific way.
14. Historical activity involves three different types of functions which should be performed
simultaneously. The first is to get at the truth, to know the entire human past as it actually
happened, and to be sure that solid facts are at hand. The second job is to interpret the facts,
to assess, to evaluate and to explain their significance. The third task is to present the ideas in
a clear and attractive manner. These three functions make the historian a scientist to gather
facts, a philosopher to interpret them and a litterateur to express them.
15. History is concerned with analysing, explaining and describing the events of the past.
The standard of values which the historian applies to his study of the past is determined by
the general, social, philosophical, religious and economic ideas of his age, either because he
 12

is in accord with the predominant thoughts of his time or because he is in revolt against them.
A Rousseau or a Voltaire would not objectively depict the situation of his age but would
unchain the tigers of emotion to present it in as romantic a way as possible. To a Marxist
historian the story of the growth of human thought and behaviour is primarily the story of the
influence and effect upon man of his economic conditions.
16. History to be rewritten from time to time. The past events have got to be revalued in the
light of fresh developments and new ideas. In addition, advances in other branches of
knowledge bring to the historian new means of discovering the facts of the past, and suggest
to him new methods of handling his sources. For example, archaeology, statistics,
graphology, photography, radiography, psychology, and even pollen analysis have brought to
light new facts about the past. Another point to be noted is the influence on the historian of
the educational and social standards of the civilisation in which he lives. He caters to the need
of that society, and therefore even his style and subject matter is greatly influenced by the
society for which he is writing. Herodotus belonged to the epic age, and hence the element of
story-telling is strong in him.
17. There are quite a few other aspects involved in the nature of historical facts. First a few
scholars think that history repeats itself, whereas others refute this idea vehemently. The truth
is that both these ideas are partly true. History repeats itself in the sense that things of the
world are the same all the time but the ways are different every time. Most of the diversity is
more apparent than real. The forces that influence the human mind and shape the course of
action are uniform all over the world. They indicate that the events that occur are not merely
in an order of time and sequence but also have a link in a chain of cause effect, and are
related to one another in a systematic and permanent manner. Although historical events do
not occur in the same order and in the same place, they have a basic unity, and conform to a
pattern which is easily discernible on closer study. In the absence of this basic unity,
historical laws could never have been drawn.
18. Those who oppose the view that history repeats itself contend that change is the law of
nature, and even if apparently two events seem alike, they are not really the same, for history
is a record of unique, individualistic and remarkable events. If historical events are repeated,
the problem of growth, development and progress would not arise. Toynbee says that the
growth and development of a civilisation depends upon differentiation to integration and
withdrawal and return'. Thus, those who refute the repetition of history point out the futility
of any attempt to reduce all facts to a common pattern.
But the truth of the matter is that both have needlessly raised a controversy. History
neither repeats itself in the way its contenders uphold, nor is it totally free from the basic
unity of all its facts. On the conceptual level there is a definite pattern or scheme but at the
concrete or realised level, the form takes a different shape.
19. As a corollary to the above concept of repetition, the view is advanced that all history is
contemporary history. Croce is a strong advocate of this view, whereby the past and the
present are linked in one chain of common process. The modern thinker, R. G. Collingwood,
too subscribes to this idea through his philosophy that history is nothing but the re-enactment
of past experience and that the subject matter of history is reflective thought.
20. Quite connected with the thought of contemporaneity in history, a view is held by E. H.
Carr that history is an unending dialogue between the present and the past. A history without
 13

a problem to solve or a fresh idea to display is a bare chronicle, a sort of catalogue of events
lacking in soul and spirit. What gives history real life is the mental activity of the historian
who poses a series of questions and gets an answer. The value of a historian lies in solving as
many controversies relating to the past as possible, and in throwing as powerful a flood of
light as he can. The past is never fully known to us and every historian attempts to discover a
portion of it and comes closer to reality either by adding new information or by offering a
new interpretation. All this involves a very intimate dialogue, between the historian, who is in
the present and the events, which are in the past. It is the contemporary consciousness of the
philosopher who investigates, which forms the essence of history. As the objects of the past
are not present before him, he adopts the indirect method, uses his imaginative power,
reflects on the subject, and thus enters into a dialogue with the past. The dead data of the past
is brought back to life through his discursive and discerning power.
21. A tendency is there in history to be coloured by the current ideas of a country or age. The
Greeks emphasised the rational interpretation of history, the Romans gave a political twist to
it, the Church historians made God live in history, the Germans made it more philosophical,
the Marxists more materialistic, the French more socialistic and the British more
imperialistic. The Arab view, the Chinese view and the Indian view of history are all
different. The historiography of the Enlightenment era, Romanticist era, Positivist era and
Scientific era are all different. The nature of history varies according to the prevailing
philosophy of the time, and even from historian to historian
22. Finally, historical forces are considered to be linear by some and cyclical by others. Those
who hold the linear view of history think it to be a straight line from an unknown past passing
through the known present to the unknown future. According to this view there is close
continuity in history, forward thrust in its movement, never reversing its course, and making
progress as it goes. The idea of progress links up the past with the present, and gives unity to
history. Those who hold the cyclical view of history think that history moves in a circle.
There is a starting point, and then the upward movement until it reaches the peak. Thereafter
the downward movement sets in until it touches the lowest point where it disappears. The
process starts all over again, and hence the cyclical view conforms to the organic view of
birth, growth, maturity, decline, down- fall and disintegration. Yet another culture in the
place of one that has disappeared would emerge and the same fate would overtake it in course
of time. The rise and fall of all cultures conform to this pattern.
A third view, apart from the linear and cyclical, is advanced by Turgot and Condorcet.
It is the idea of progress. Progress is a movement from a less desired to a more desired
position. Lord Acton says. "The law of all progress is one and the same: the evolution of the
simple into complex by succession differentiation.
Thus the nature of history is very complex. It lends itself to various explanations. No
one branch of history is more than a single glimpse of a vast complex of phenomena. History
repeats itself in one sense but does not repeat itself also. History has contemporaneity and it
is an unending dialogue between the past and the present. Value-judgment is an aspect of
history which we cannot ignore. It is very often coloured by the current ideas of a period or
country. It is a prophecy in reverse, as it helps to some extent in knowing what to expect in
future. It is regarded as linear by some and cyclical by others. However, no one can dispute
the dynamic nature of history, which concerns itself with an ever changing drama of life
 14

which has a purpose and a meaning. A historian is confronted with the three main issues of
what, how and why of a problem. He has to discuss every issue in the context of its time,
space, nature and extent in order to make the story exhaustive and meaningful. Namier has
beautifully summed up the nature of history. He says, "The functions of the historian is akin
to that of the painter and not of the photographic camera; to discover and set forth, to single
out and stress that which is of the nature of the thing and not reproduce indiscriminately all
that meets the eye.... What matters in history is the great outline and the significant detail;
what must be avoided is the deadly morass of irrelevant narrative. History is, therefore,
necessarily subjective and individual.

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.
The scope of history includes all activities of man. The historian must look beyond
government to people, beyond laws to legends, beyond religion to folklore and the arts, and
he must study every phenomenon, whether intellectual, political, social, philosophical,
material, moral or emotional relating to man in society. History has to consider all human
achievements in all their aspects such as science, technology, discoveries, inventions and
adventures. But primarily the social life of man, his political achievements, his cultural
attainments, his constitutional management and his economic endeavours form the main
scope of history, as it is through the medium of state and society that man finds his identity.
Nevertheless, the history of ideas, the history of science, the history of art are all quite
relevant to us. Even the common man and his life is now attracting the attention of the
historian, who had so long neglected the study of this essential element. It was only the great
man who had become the centre of attraction. According to a Chinese proverb, the great man
is a public misfortune. It is the common man who has played the vital role in assisting the
great man to achieve fame. The rank and file of the Napoleonic legion shed their blood but
fame went to their master. From the pyramids of Egypt to the skyscrapers of America, the
common man has given his sweat and blood to make nations great. It was only the mass
movement that helped the Indian freedom fighters achieve their goal.
 15

The common man has suffered, endured, aided and abetted bene volence and tyranny,
and yet only the higher-ups in the social ladder figure prominently in history. We have had
too much of kings and courts and central Government. It is time the historians switch over to
the life of ordinary men, women and children. The intensive study of the rural set-up and the
minute examinations of every element in society is called micro-history which is becoming
very popular in modern times.
b) Defining History - perspectives of historians: Carlyle, Carr, Marc Bloch and Fernand
Braudel.
History is so versatile a subject that not a single comprehensive and all packed
definition can be given. Different thinkers and historians used to define it in accordance with
their experiences, understanding and theoretical perspectives. However, every definition
contains one or other aspects of the subject. Though the words used are different, the
implications are not so different fundamentally. By their nature certain definitions are simple
while others are complex. Some are optimistic while some are pessimistic. Some are narrow
in sense while some are wider even transgressing the limit. . Most definitions of history point,
for the most part, to its nature and scope or to the value of its study. Hence a student of
history is to be more prudent while selecting a definition of history. He has to take into
account the multiple nature of history each historian tries to present through his or her
definitions since history has a universal validity and use and is the only kind of knowledge
that seeks a perspective of man in time.
Droysen makes a short definition that "History is Humanity's knowledge of itself.”
History is knowledge derived from inquiry into the past. Ancient Greeco-Roman historians
had not given a formal definition though they refer to its practical utility in life. Aristotle
gave a formal definition to history in the following words. „History was an account of the
unchanging past.‟ Polybius a great practitioner of history calls it a „lantern of understanding
held up to the present and the future and a ready corrective of conduct.‟ Dionysius of
Halicarnusus defines it as „philosophy teaching by example.‟ Francis Bacon viewed history
as a „discipline which made men wise‟.
Some historians have approached their study from particular viewpoints. Thomas
Carlyle has defined it as “ the history of the world .......was the biography of great men”. This
is a famous but misleading statement. It is true that behind great changes in history there are
personal forces or individual attempts at work. But it is equally true that general mass of men
cannot be kept out of history in the enthusiasm for the hero. Karl Marx holds that even the
hero himself is the result of or mere instrument or agent of mass movements or impersonal
forces. He is a product of society and a symbol of the spirit of the age (Hegel‟s zeitgeist). The
importance of the general mass of the people in history has come to be increasingly
recognised and the emphasis in historical writing has accordingly moved from just kings and
political leaders to the mass of the people and from mere political events to economic and
social development. We have, in fact, moved towards a position where history is concerned
not with Great Men, but with the Great Mass.
An even narrower definition of history than that of Carlyle came from Professor John
Seely. He says, History, is 'past politics' and present politics is 'future history'. Woodrow
Wilson also is said to have defined history as 'past politics'. The exclusive idea of political
history, to which most of the Graeco-Roman and Islamic historians subscribed and to which
 16

Ranke in the nineteenth century held so firmly, has yielded to more comprehensive
definitions which in one form or other embrace the entire story of the material, cultural, and
spiritual development of man in society from the stone age to our own age. Politics is but a
small, very small, part of that story.
The great British historian, F W. Maitland, comprehensively defines history as 'What
men have done and said, above all what they have thought...‟ The first part of the definition,
'What men have done and said', is self-explanatory and includes all that man has uttered and
accomplished in his material, moral and spiritual life from stone age onwards if the
knowledge of them could be reconstructed. But Maitland adds a new and significant
dimension to history when he says that it is, above all, what men 'have thought'. Thought in
history is no mere thinking, it is thinking new things; it is thought directed towards improving
upon what has been achieved. Maitland's emphasis on thought is proof of his faith in the
progress of the human mind, an idea which the thinkers of the Enlightenment had been
obsessed with. Progress of the human mind could be equated with the growth of civilization
which is the theme of history. Indeed, historical writing has entered into a highly
sophisticated area, namely, intellectual history or the history of ideas. This branch of
historiography regards certain fundamental ideas as the ultimate source of the events,
material structures and institutions of society. To Schiller, the genuine history of mankind is
its history of ideas. The primacy of the mind, of thought and ideas, in Maitland's definition of
history, is to be contrasted with the precedence Marx and Engels accord to the material
conditions of life. Their doctrine of historical materialism contends that thought itself is the
ideological reflux, the echo, the sublimate, of their material life- process.
Ernest Bernheim‟s definition of history satisfies all the conceptual and practical
conditions of what history is: „ History is a science that investigates and presents in their
context of psycho-physical causality the facts determined by space and time of the evolution
of men in their individual as well as typical and collective activity as social beings. The
implications of this inductive and highly analytical definition are: that history is a science that
investigates what is not already known about the human past; that the object of this inquiry is
humanistic, the object is to present the facts of the evolution of men in their individual and
collective activity as social beings; that man cannot develop by himself alone but only in
concert with his fellow-men; that the facts of this individual and social evolution (which form
the theme of history) are caused by man's responses to his mental and physical needs; and
that those facts are themselves determined by space and time (events occur at particular times
and places)
In his Historian's Craft, Marc Bloch defined history as the science of men in time.
History is a science, but unlike the other sciences, it is the science of the evolution of human
civilization. The use of the plural 'men' stresses collective activity in this evolution, and
Bloch takes an 'integral' view of the growth of mankind through the millennia. In a true
account of this evolution no aspect of human activity is to be left out. Bloch's faith is in total,
integrated history. Again, in this evolution the critical element is the human one. The 'science
of men in time' is a science sui generis,( unique).
In the first of the six G.M. Trevelyan Lectures delivered at the Cambridge University
in 1961, Edward Hallet Carr characterised history as "a continuous process of interaction
between the historian and his facts, an unending dialogue between the present and the past."
 17

Believing in the primacy and autonomy of facts and trusting in the efficacy of the Rankean
method, historians like Lord Acton had even hoped that it would one day be possible to
produce 'ultimate history' written from a hard core of facts, a history that would not need any
change, once it was written. But the hope could hardly be realized as works of history are
superseded from time to time. This is because our approach to the past changes. That
approach is conditioned by what Carr calls 'our own position in time, and the view we take of
the society in which we live. It is this subjective element in history, this conscious and
unconscious intrusion of the present in our evaluation of the past that has been summed up in
Carr's famous characterisation of history as an 'unending dialogue between the present and
the past'. Philosophically, such a position must be termed historical relativism. It is the belief
that there does not exist a hard core of historical facts ready-made for the historian to seize
upon, and there cannot be ultimate historical truths for the historical process itself is an
endless exploration. This extreme relativism together with Carr's assertion that history means
interpretation lays the subject open to attack at the crucial point, wiz, its truthfulness and
reliability.
Fernand Braudel was a member of the Annales School of French historiography
and social history in the 1950s and 1960s. Braudel emphasized the role of large-scale socio-
economic factors in the making and writing of history. He can also be considered one of the
precursors of the world-systems theory. World-systems theory also known as world-
systems analysis or the world-systems perspective is a multidisciplinary approach to world
history and social change which emphasizes the world-system (and not nation states) as the
primary (but not exclusive) unit of social analysis.
According to Braudel, before the Annales approach, the writing of history was
focused on the courte durée (short span), or on histoire événementielle (a history of events).
His followers admired his use of the longue durée approach to stress the slow and often
imperceptible effects of space, climate and technology on the actions of human beings in the
past. The Annales historians, after living through two world wars and massive political
upheavals in France, were very uncomfortable with the notion that multiple breaks and
discontinuities created history. They preferred to stress inertia and the longue durée, arguing
that the continuities in the deepest structures of society were central to history. Upheavals in
institutions or the superstructure of social life were of little significance, for history, they
argued, lies beyond the reach of conscious actors, especially the will of revolutionaries. They
rejected the Marxist idea that history should be used as a tool to foment and foster
revolutions. A proponent of historical materialism, Braudel rejected Marxist materialism,
stressing the equal importance of infrastructure and superstructure, both of which reflected
enduring social, economic, and cultural realities. Braudel's structures, both mental and
environmental, determine the long-term course of events by constraining actions on, and by,
humans over a duration long enough that they are beyond the consciousness of the actors
involved.
 18

c) History and Social Sciences – Autonomy of History - Need for inter/trans disciplinary
approaches: Sociology-Economics -Political Science – Anthropology.

History as Science and 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.
History is a science in the method and manner in which it studies the evidence and
ascertains the facts, and an art in the way it communicates the results - the discoveries - to the
readers. The collection and classification of data, the determination of the authenticity and
reliability of the collected data, the building up of hypotheses and generalisations-in all these,
the spirit that moves the historian's work is entirely scientific. With communication, i.e.,
presentation of the work of science and imagination to the public, the historian passes from
the scientific to the artistic and literary phase of his work. The presentation in an intelligent
and pleasing manner of the results of his work to the readers at large is a task specially
attending upon the historian's work. Neither the natural scientist nor the social science
investigator has any direct involvement with a wide audience. But the historian cannot avoid
having such an audience, which, as Arthur Marwick repeatedly reminds us, is the direct
consequence of the function of history. Good history is that in which the scientific and
literary qualities are balanced.
II HISTORY AND SOCIAL SCIENCE
1. History: Social Science or Humanity?
The nature of history in comparison with that of the physical sciences is just one part of the
problem whether it is a science or not; the other part is that of its position in relation to the
social sciences. Is history to be counted along with social sciences like economics, sociology,
anthropology and politics, or with humanities like philosophy and literature? Though history
as a scholarly discipline is relatively new, the subject, as a semi-rational activity, has existed
for about two-and-a- half millenniums. In comparison, the social sciences are of recent origin.
But history‟s long and legitimate association with philosophy and literature, despite many
historians already treat their subject as a social science in a bid to make it more 'scientific',
though historians of the 'professional' cast denounce the social sciences, particularly
sociology. However there seems to be a consensus that history should stand with the social
sciences. Historians are genuinely moving in the direction of making their subject more like a
social science.
E.H. Carr, Mare Bloch and the Annales school, and possibly most Continental
historians, are clear that history is a social science. Some in this school have gone so far as to
argue that history is the central social science, of which all the others must feed. History,
H.C. Darby has suggested, is basic to social science rather in the way that mathematics is
basic to natural science.
 19

Yet, professional veterans like G.R. Elton would object to such a position and assert
the full autonomy of history in purpose and method. And Professor W.O. Aydelotte, who has
profitably used statistical methods in historical inquiry, has been foremost in indicating the
limits to the use of statistics in such inquiry. The domain of history seems to lie on the
borderland between the humanities and the social sciences and having contacts with both.
Thus, Professor Richard Hofstadter sees the "historian as having contacts with the social
sciences rather than as being a social scientist". Some in this school have reverted to the
notion put forward by distinguished historians in the past, that history is both art and science.
Still others hold that history, being neither truly art nor science, is sui generis
Differences between History and the Social Sciences
History is a central subject having equally close relations with the social sciences and
the humanities. History and the social sciences are alike concerned with man and his
activities in society, and they contribute alike to man's knowledge of man. Such association
the social sciences do not have with the physical sciences, which deal with natural
phenomena. Yet, they have modelled themselves on the natural sciences. Professor Arthur
Marwick lists four differences between history and the social sciences.
Experimental Data or Controlled Experiments and Proof: The first of these differences
concerns the method of investigation. The social scientist employs experimental data and
controlled experiments. Unlike the historian, he conducts 'experiments' of opinion samples or
studies the reactions of controlled groups of human beings to certain stimuli. The historian
makes extensive use of social surveys, census returns, and so on, but does not himself
conduct controlled experiments. For this reason, the theories of the social scientists, unlike
the hypotheses of the historians, are a little bit more provable at least in mathematical and
statistical terms.
Hypotheses and General Law: In their respective aims also, history and the sciences differ.
The historian may present general formulations, but his first concern is with the particular,
the unique and the contingent. But the work of the social scientist, based on abstract models
and theoretical constructs on a far greater scale than that of the historian, is essentially
oriented towards the recurrent and the universal, rather than the detailed recreation of unique
events.
Value Judgements: The third difference is that while the intrusion of the subjective element is
an inescapable condition of the historian's craft, the social scientist, through his greater use of
empirical data and greater resort to abstract models, can avoid the constant entanglement with
value judgement.
Communication: Lastly, neither the natural scientist nor the social scientist has any direct
involvement with a wide audience, which is a special privilege of the historian. The historian
cannot avoid having a good number of readers which is a direct result of the social function
of history.
The Autonomy of History - Need for inter/trans disciplinary approaches:
The Berlin Revolution in Historical Methodology
By „autonomy of history‟ we mean the capability of history to stand independent as an
academic discipline. There has been great challenge to history casting doubt on its validity as
well as value from Rene Descartes onwards. But the challenge has been partially met by the
ecclesiastical historians of the late seventeenth century, particularly Mabillon and the
 20

Bollandists, who founded the science of the criticism of the sources. History could now
regard itself as an independent form of enquiry seeking its own answers to its own problems,
and following its own canons of proof and purpose.
But the tradition of belief so persisted that a great deal of the historian's reconstruction of the
past must be invention, useful and instructive, of course, but without any rigour, certainty or
standard of truth. It was this situation that Niebuhr and Ranke tackled by presenting history as
a genuine, independent, scientific discipline, through a methodological revolution.
Barthold Neibuhr's two-volume History of Rome (1811-12) reconstructed the
historical origins of the Roman state by employing the most advanced methods of philology
and textual criticism. The new method was twofold: the first part was the analysis of sources
into their component parts enabling the scholar to distinguish the more and the less
trustworthy portions, known in the present day as external or textual criticism, and the
second, the internal criticism of the more trustworthy parts showing how the author's point of
view affected his statement of the facts. This would help detect distortions.
Leopold von Ranke completed the work of establishing the new scientific
methodology and giving to history the status of an independent science. Ranke insisted that
historical reconstruction should be based on strictly contemporary, that is, primary sources.
The epochal preface to his first book, The Histories of the Latin and Germanic Peoples, listed
memoirs, diaries, letters, diplomatic reports and original narratives of eye-witnesses as his
sources. Again, he founded the science of evidence by the analysis of authorities in the light
of the author's temperament, affiliation and opportunity of knowledge and by comparison
with the testimony of other writers. Lastly, to ensure objectivity further, Ranke divorced the
study of the past from the passions of the present. The historian's duty, he insisted, lay in
understanding the past on its own terms, not judging it to instruct the present or future ages.
The German historian was content to show what actually happened.
For long regarded as part of philosophy and literature, history had always remained an
art; by investing it with a methodology of its own, Niebuhr and Ranke had turned the subject
into an independent science of the first rank, a science which, in the words of Elton, is
"appropriate to the highest abilities of the human reason.”
How History Differs from the other Studies of Man?
Yet, there have been loud cries for the employment of statistical, sociological or other
scientific methods in the work of historical reconstruction. Elton goes into the fundamental
question whether history has an identity independent of other forms of study, an existence as
an intellectual pursuit possessing its own rules and principles like archaeology, anthropology,
economics, sociology, and social psychology which are all autonomous. The question is only
too relevant as there are social scientists who think of the study of the past as superfluous,
because a true understanding of the present, arrived at by sociological analysis, enables one to
extrapolate and explain the past. Elton asserts the independence and autonomy of history by
showing that apart from its concern with the past, history differs from all other studies of man
in its concern with events, its concern with change, and its concern with the particular.
The Event, Change, and the Particular
History deals with happenings or events, not states or conditions; it investigates things
that happen and not things that are. Archaeology can only uncover and describe states,
conditions and circumstances; it is unable to handle the fact of life which is movement.
 21

Archaeological states follow one upon the other without description or explanation of the
change as gradual or catastrophic. Any attempt to incorporate events in an archaeological
analysis could be done only as description of a state. So also, such interest as anthropology or
sociology displays in the event as in a circumcision ceremony or a wedding, or the building
of a school or the formation of an opinion, will not be for the sake of the event but for the
purpose of drawing static conclusions from moving elements.
The historian's second great concern is the fact of change. History treats
fundamentally of the transformation of things (people, institution, ideas, and so on) from one
state into another. To suppose that causal relationships are the main content of history is an
error. If ‘a’ can be said to have caused „b‟, the relationship happens to be Causal; but it is
nevertheless properly historical if a and b are linked by coincidence, coexistence, or mere
temporal sequence, all relations very often encountered in history.
Elton insists that history's preoccupation with the particular fact or event should not be
taken to mean that it treats the fact or event as unique, as it is often asserted. He draws an
important distinction between what is particular and what is unique. The historian treats all
facts or events of the past as particular, not unique. No one can deal with the unique fact,
because facts and events require reference to common experience before they acquire
meaning. But the unique event is a freak lacking every measurable dimension and means of
assessment. History, writes Elton,
“is concerned with all those human sayings, thoughts, deeds and sufferings
which occurred in the past and have left present deposit; and it deals with
them from the point of view of happening, change, and the particular.
Since no treatment of man's experience answers to this definition, the
autonomy of history-its right to be distinguished from cognate sciences-is
established.”
Should History Borrow from Cognate Disciplines?
It is suggested by many that history should learn from and approximate to other
cognate disciplines that deal with man. But Professor G.R. Elton warns that it should be with
extreme skepticism. He writes that the reason for the loud demand that history should learn
from sociology, economics, anthropology, and psychology springs from the claim of the
latter disciplines to be "sciences' and that they produce certainty, whereas the historian is at
best able to produce only dialectical argument. The other reason for this constant looking
over the other subjects for method and tools of research is the historian's inability to establish
scientific laws of human history, such as the fate of civilizations, wars, tidal movements of
nations, and so on. Many historians yearn for certainty and precision in history, which
traditional historical methods lack. So they turn to other social sciences for inspiration and
method.
History and the Allied Disciplines (Social Sciences)
The issue whether history is to be grouped with the social sciences or the humanities
compels a scrutiny of certain aspects of the nature of the subject. The social sciences are
geography, economics, sociology, political science, psychology, statistics, and anthropology.
The humanities are philosophy, language and literature. A subject so vast and complex in
nature as history is apt to be allied by vital contacts to every department of human
knowledge.
 22

History is bound to develop along more scientific lines and into more sophisticated
subdivisions. In this development, historians have recently been advocating the employment
of interdisciplinary approach to the study of their subject. This means turning to the social
sciences: geography, economics, sociology, political science, statistics, psychology, and
anthropology.
History & Geography
Geography is the scientific study of the physical features- land formations, seas,
climate, etc. of the countries and continents of the world. Universally regarded as a genuine
social science¹, geography is inseparably allied to history. In the hands of Hippocrates in the
fifth century B.C., Jean Bodin in the sixteenth century A.D., Montesquieu in the eighteenth,
and Henry Thomas Buckle and Friedrich Ratzel in the nineteenth, the influence of
physiography on the physical as well as the mental and moral constitution of peoples and the
legal constitution of states has been repeatedly emphasized and a theory and philosophy of
the geographical determinants of history developed. History's relation to geography is one of
complete dependence. A rudimentary geographical knowledge is absolutely necessary for
understanding any history, be it diplomatic, military, national or local. Michelet, Maitland,
and J.R. Green were all deeply aware of the importance of geography to historical
investigation. In the preface to his famous History of France (1833) Michelet stated that
history in essence was founded upon geography. The preface to the 1869 edition contained
the more positive assertion:
“Without a geographical basis, the people, the makers of history, seem to
be walking on air……. The soil, too, must not be looked upon only as the
scene of action. Its influence appears in a hundred ways, such as food,
climate, etc”
Such titles as K.M. Panicker's „The Geographical Factors in Indian History and India and the
Indian Ocean‟ are suggestive of the importance given to geography in the history of a
country.
History & Economics
Economics is the study of mankind in the ordinary business of life; it examines that
part of individual and social action which is most closely connected with the attainment and
the use of the material requisites of well-being. No two subjects could be more closely allied
to each other than history and economics. The subject matter of economics is man's activity
in society and a large part of that activity is concerned with economic matters, ie, production,
distribution and consumption of wealth. The increasing awareness of the importance of
economic factors in history developed in the hands of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels into a
total philosophy, the philosophy of the materialistic conception of history, the doctrine that
the basic factor in history is at all times the economic factor. For the historian, such a position
meant that he must have a rudimentary knowledge of economics and, by the early twentieth
century, most historians had come to possess some basic knowledge of economic theory. The
excessive role of economics in history has lead to the emergence of a sub-history- economic
history recently. Since the Second World War, two new forms of economic history have
developed. They are quantitative history and econometric history or clio-metrics, which do
not borrow from economics but are themselves rooted in the methodology of economic
science. Quantitative history is concerned with the concepts of economic growth and the
 23

study of national income statistics in the aggregate. The main characteristic of Cliometrics or
Economic History are the emphasis laid on statistical methods; the enlistment of economic
and statistical theory; and the use of the counter-factual conditional concept, which is the
most distinctive and ambitious aspect of econometric history.
History and Politics
Politics is the science that deals with the State or political society; and political
society means a people organised for law within a definite territory. The interdependence of
history and politics is too well known and has been expressed in quotable phrases. The
utterances of Professor John Seely and Lord Acton about that relationship would suggest that
the two subjects are hand in glove with each other. Seely thought of history as 'past politics'
and present politics as 'future history'. He called political science the fruit of history and
history the root of political science. To Lord Acton, the science of politics is the one science
which is deposited by the stream of history like the grains of gold sands and share a common
border at various points. Both are concerned with man in society. The two are mutually
dependent for some of their facts and ideas. History supplies large share of facts that
constitute the ground-work of political science, though only such facts that bear directly or
indirectly on study of the State, i.e., which are significant to the study of political ideas and
institutions. In this sense, historical facts form the raw material of political science. On the
other hand, history gains in significance and value because of political science.
History & Sociology
Sociology is the scientific study of human societies. The relationship between history
and sociology had been noted by great historians like Ibn Khaldun, Auguste Comte, Karl
Marx etc. History and sociology have had continued and fruitful interaction between each
other, particularly in France. Emile Durkheim's (1858-1917) notions of the irrationality of
human actions and collective consciousness or group psychology influenced Lefebvre,
Lucien Febvre and Marc Bloch. Perhaps, Durkheim had a more direct influence on Henry
Berr, who saw sociology as "primarily a study of what is social in history". Both history and
sociology are concerned with the study of man in society and the historian and the sociologist
handle much the same materials. But the essential difference between the two is there.
History, says G.R. Elton, treats fundamentally of particular events and of change, i.e., the
transformation of things, peoples, institutions, ideas, and so on.
History and Anthropology
Anthropology is the science of man, and history as Marc Bloch has defined it, is "the
science of men in time". Physical anthropology studies human races, their varieties and
characteristics, whereas cultural anthropology treats of the origin and development of human
institutions, and problems and aspects of acculturation. Mainly, it is not physical but cultural
and social anthropology that comes to the aid of historical investigation and interpretation,
particularly in the non-literate or pre-historic phase of the human past. Among the positive
methods by which historical knowledge could be widened and deepened, Giambattista Vico
includes the study of modern savages as a key to learn what ancient savages were like. This
would help interpret the savage myths and legends that concealed the remotest facts of
history. Again, modern peasants are unreflective and imaginative persons and their ideas
throw light on the ideas of primitive society. In India, one who has made liberal use of
 24

anthropology in historical analysis is Dr. D D Kosambi, His multi-disciplinary approach to

historical investigation included the anthropological tool also.
History & Psychology
Psychology is the science of the mind. Whatever be the physiographical environment
in which man lives and works, he himself is the chief actor. For this reason history must
concern itself with the human mind. As the study of human actions in the past, history, ipso
facto, becomes a study of the motives and intentions behind those actions. Thus, to discuss
and analyse the motives behind actions of men and societies, historians have had to venture
into the realms of psychology. Historical inquiry in the psychological context is as old as
history writing itself. That Thucydides tried to reconstruct the motives and intentions of
historical characters is the reason why Collingwood regards him as the father of
psychological history. The biographical approach to history with its hoary tradition always
had need of psychological insights into the doings of great men.
History & Statistics
Quantitative history, the numerical revolution in historical study, has led to precision
in historical thought and utterance. Historians take care to avoid such imprecise statements as
'the people thought', a majority favoured', 'the king had wide support' and, so on. They now
endeavour to know the precise number, quantity or location involved. This we owe to the
computer which handles enormous quantities of material at great speed with precision. This
quality of precision the computer imparts to the scholar also, who, in preparing his material
for the computer, is forced to ask precise questions. Use of the computer can enormously ease
historical investigation and make it more precise. Use of computers and statistics will bring
greater precision in sectors like historical demography concerned with population movement,
births and deaths, fertility rates and immigration.
Auxiliary sciences or Ancillary Disciplines of History
To make history meaningful and worth the historian needs the assistance of what are
called the 'auxiliary sciences' or 'ancillary disciplines' of history such as chronology,
archaeology, epigraphy, numismatics, linguistics, diplomatic, palaeography, graphology and
sigillography. These different sciences, which may be called the 'handmaids of history'
provide the historian with 'methodical repertories of facts". The accuracy of facts - at least of
the basic facts of history - is a necessary condition of any kind of historical composition. For
the accuracy of his facts, the historian borrows the results achieved by experts in the different
sciences. For such expertise, some very special skills are required that of the chronologist,
archaeologist, epigraphist and numismatist. It is the result of the work of these specialists that
the historian uses. The number and quality of the auxiliary skills which the historian has at
his disposal bear on the quality of his work.
1. Chronology
Of such auxiliary sciences, chronology, may be placed first. Chronology is the science
of arranging the events of the past in the order of their occurrence. By fixing the time or
period of past events and movements, chronology serves as the very basis of history and
determines the structure of historical works. The post- modernist may urge that the concept of
sequential time be dispensed with. But the concept of sequential time, on which depends the
concept of causality, cannot be dispensed with, for it is equal to defeating the very purpose of
history, of understanding the past. That the past, the present and the future are not one and the
 25

same and that they stand respectively in a cause-effect relationship is the one great postulate
of history. The chronology of events provides the clue to solving problems of origin, growth,
development and decay. Without the knowledge of the sequence of events and movements,
and their priority and posterity to other events and movements, causal links cannot be traced,
and plagiarisms, indebtedness and borrowing cannot be discussed. Though the arrangement
of events in their chronological order is not the ultimate object of the historian, it is the first
step to any serious historical investigation. History, in the absence of dates, would not only be
blind but also spineless. Knowledge of events, however true, unaccompanied by the time of
their occurrence, cannot be deemed fully historical.
The lack of a full-fledged historical sense, characteristic of ancient Indian intellectual
life, is matched by a comparable sense of chronological sense. Many known facts of ancient
Indian history still remain unsolved problems of chronology. Synchronism has partly solved
the difficulty. Sir William Jones effected a breakthrough in the recovery of India's ancient
past by synchronising Chandragupta Maurya with Alexander the Great and Seleukos Nikator.
The synchronistic date, 325 B.C., is one from which other dates and periods could be
reckoned and fixed. Truly has 325 B.C. been called 'the sheet anchor' of Indian history. Other
instances of fruitful historical synchronism in Indian history are those of Asoka with
Antiochos Theos, the Satavahanas with the Western Kashatrapas, Senguttuva Chera with
Gajabahu I of Ceylon, and Samudragupta with Meghavarna of Ceylon. Ancient Indian history
is plagued with imprecise dates: the chronology of the Gangas of Karnataka is controversial,
while Kushan chronology is still, for the most part, a Gordian knot.
2. Archaeology
Archaeology is the science of reconstructing man's past life through the scientific
study of its material remains. The term owes its origin to the conjunction of two Greek words
archaios (ancient) or anbe (beginning) and logor (theory or science). Archaeology as a
science of scholarship was established by Flavio Biondo (1388-1463). The humanist
rediscovery of ancient Greece and Rome, the Romantic Movement, and the phenomenal
development of natural science- all encouraged the study of antiquities. Digging up history or
reading it on stone, tablets and coins, once started, has pushed the frontiers of man's
knowledge of his past further and farther back.
Archaeology and history are both concerned with the study of the human past. But
since history proper begins only with written records, it can tell the story only of literate
societies before which lay vast uncharted stretches of human existence- the pre-historic
period which only archaeology can reveal. Collingwood has rightly said that the task of the
historian is not to remember the past as it was, but to reconstruct it by using archaeological
and other data. Archaeology provides primary sources for the reconstruction of the preliterate
period. It is on archaeology that history depends for the earliest, longest and pre- literate
phase of human history. Pre-historic archaeology provides a picture of the various stages in
the slow evolution of human culture in the different parts of the world, an evolution which
exhibits uniform patterns of change and development: how the Palaeolithic or Old Stone Age
Man responded and adapted himself to his environment on the one hand and how, on the
other, with his crude tools modified that environment to serve his needs
Archaeological aids are important for the proto-historic period also in that such aids
supplement the patchy fragmentary literary evidence available for that period. By proto-
 26

historic period is meant the period of human development for which some kind of literary
sources are available. Ancient history anywhere in the world must rest upon the tallying of
archaeological finds with written documents, inscriptions and the like. Archaeology
powerfully supplements the written record.
The service of archaeology even for the historical period, the period for which
written records are available, must be duly recognised. Historical archaeology provides
substantial supplementary evidence and fills in gaps within or between periods of known
history.
3. Epigraphy
Epigraphy is the study of epigraphs or inscriptions, i.e., writings or carvings on seals,
stone, copper plates, bricks, images or temple walls. Ever since, epigraphic and numismatic
data have been normal and legitimate sources of historical knowledge. Inscriptions usually
commemorate donations or endowment or they announce some political, religious or other
activity. Such information is itself historically important. But inscriptions often g beyond the
immediate purpose of their composition and may contain all kinds of valuable historical
material: economic relation, caste configuration, cultural forms and religious sects.
4. Numismatics
Another legitimate source of historical reconstruction is numismatic material. Like
inscriptions, coins and medals were among the things collected and studied for historic
purposes. From the late seventeenth century onwards coins and metals and other such objects
came to be systematically collected and shaded to check and illustrate narrative histories.
The science of numismatics becomes important as an auxiliary to the study of Indian history
only after the death of Asoka. It has almost independently resuscitated the history of the Indo-
Greeks and enriched our knowledge of some other dynasties. Though numismatic evidence is
of a subsidiary and corroborative nature, its value for political, administrative, economic,
religious and cultural history cannot be overlooked. The bilingual coins of the Indo- Greeks,
Sakas and Parthians have supplied the master-key to the decipherment of many Indian
inscriptions. The hoards of Roman coins unearthed in south India are an important accessory
to the study of Indo-Roman commercial relations in the early centuries of the Christian era.
Some idea even of the physical character of Indo-Greek kings and queens is provided by the
clear and realistic portraits on the obverse of their coins. Likewise, devices on the reverse
include the elephant and the bull, which supply an excellent example of cultural assimilation.
5. Philology and Linguistics
Philology, the science of language, studies etymology, grammar, rhetoric, and literary
criticism. Comparative philology is the study of different languages by comparing their
history, forms, and relationships with each other. Linguistics studies language in its widest
sense, in every aspect and all its varieties. A linguist is a multilingual person, a polyglot, like
Sir William Jones, who was among the first modern proponents of comparative philology,
comparative mythology and ethnology. Philology and linguistics have a great potential in
solving problems of chronology, detecting forgery, and measuring historical change.
6. Palaeography and Diplomatic
Almost identical in meaning, palaeography and diplomatic study ancient or old modes
of handwriting, or decipher ancient documents like manuscript folios, charters, treaties, etc.,
in order to ascertain their authenticity. The science of diplomatic was founded by Jean
 27

Mabillon in the course of an attempt to establish a more critical and scholarly type of
historiography. De re Diplomatica (1681), Mabillon's classic on the subject, prescribed the
sorts of tests which should be applied to an old document before it could be safely used as
historical evidence. The tests are a kind of detective work on the parchment, the writing
material, the style of writing, the technical terms employed, the abbreviations, the form of
seals, the system of chronology, the content of the document, the kind of language employed,
and the way of introducing and concluding the main text. Such scientific scrutiny enabled
experts to detect forgeries, date authentic documents and guess their place of origin. De re
Diplomatica established the methods of source criticism - the study of the form of documents
on a firm foundation. Ever since its composition in 1681, its authority has remained
unchallenged.
7. Siglliography
Sigglliography or sphragistic(s) is the scientific study of seals. Just as the science of
diplomatic was an extension of the philological methods employed by humanists like
Lorenzo Valla, siglliography may be viewed as a branch of diplomatic. But siglliography's
approach is principally technical and archaeological.
Sealing, as a means of authenticating written matter, has been practiced from remotest
antiquity. Siglliography is the science which assesses the authenticity of seals or signatures
through a study of their age, history, content and the manner in which they were affixed. The
scrutiny includes the material with which the seal was made. The study of seals belonging to
different periods provides also a rich source for the study of the art of the period.
d) Problems in the construction of history: Bias and Prejudice-Nationality,
Communalism, and Memory studies – Objectivity vs Subjectivity debate.
What is Objectivity in History?
One of the most important problems that history involves is the problem of
objectivity. The new methodology proposed by Niebuhr and Ranke aimed at presenting an
objective account of the past. Ranke's precept that „the strict presentation of facts is the
supreme law of historical writing‟ sums up the traditional meaning in which objectivity is
understood. Objective history means unbiased history or "history strictly in accordance with
facts and uninfluenced by any personal feeling or prejudice. It means dispassionate,
disinterested, and scientific treatment of all events depicted by a historian. Rankean
objectivity aims at “to show what actually happened." The new science of history, as
developed by Niebuhr and Ranke, and marked by a precision of documentation, was
confident of presenting an objective account of the past. It was believed that if one used the
documents in a thoroughly scientific way, the facts would eventually 'speak for themselves',
i.e., without any prompting from the historian, without any need for subjective interpretation.
J.B. Bury's assertion that history was 'simply a science, no less and no more', echoed the same
idea. A Rankean positivist and a believer in the autonomy of historical facts, Lord Acton
called for complete impartiality, for a history that would disclose no personal views. He had
no other object than 'the increase of accurate knowledge'.
None would doubt or question the need for objectivity in history. But, can history tell
the truth of the past (as it was) or is it merely personal interpretation or simply a matter of
opinion? Or, are there hindrances to objectivity?
Is Absolute Historical Objectivity Possible?
 28

The first great pioneers of history as a discipline-Niebuhr and Ranke- and following
them, the positivists in general, believed that the science of an impartial, objective history is
possible. Facts of the past were thought to be the ultimate in history and facts were to be
established by the scientific study of the sources. Based upon this supposed sanctity of facts,
Lord Acton even hoped that it would be possible to produce 'ultimate history', a history that
would not need any change, once it was written. However the question remained whether
history could in fact achieve this kind of precision.
The Individual or Personal Aspect
History is the historian's reconstruction of the past, a past which he has never known,
and which he can neither deduce from first principles nor create by an act of the imagination.
In reconstructing the past, he should take care that he does not violate his responsibility to the
past, viz., in presenting it as it really was. Is this ideal possible of realization with the best of
evidence in its fullness? That is the crux of the problem of objectivity. The subjective element
is an essential condition of the historian's work. Subjective element means the "element of
human intervention" in discussing or exploring or probing or understanding a subject. This
element of human intervention intrudes into the work of the historian to a far greater degree
than into that of the sociologist, the anthropologist or the geographer. Positivism had taught
historians to be severely detached from their work, to be "neutral in thought and action".
But the personal, affective element is an essential condition of the historian's work.
For this reason, history can never be completely 'objective' or 'unbiased' or 'strictly in
accordance with facts'. There is a 'hidden influence' or inevitable subjective quality which
cannot be entirely suppressed. E H Carr suggests that there “cannot be an objectivity of fact,
but only of relation, of the relation between fact and interpretation… the concept of absolute
truth is also not appropriate to the world of history...” There are arguments that even the best
history must in some degree be subjective. This is because even the sources of history – the
documents which the historian consults are the work of one or more human minds and have
been processed by them. Then how could they be free from subjective element?
Another factor of subjective element in the recreation of history comes from the time
bound nature of historical works. The historian who uses them is himself exposed to
subjective influence of various kinds. Our approach to the past has subjective about it. Our
own position in time and the view we take of the society in which we live influence our view
of history. Each age tends to interpret the past in accordance with its‟ own ideas, prejudices
and preoccupations. Gone is the positivist belief in the possibility of an unbiased objective
history of scientific perfection, for the historical process is itself an endless exploration, "an
unending dialogue between the present and the past. In analysing, explaining and describing
the past, it is possible that the analysis and explanation get coloured as much by the motives
and consciousness of the historian as by the social, religious, philosophical and economic
ideas of the age.
Hindrances to Objectivity in History
The subjective element in history writing intrudes at the very first stage of the historian's
work, viz., the selection of a theme, and continues to operate in collecting evidence, in
narrating, interpreting and concluding the work. Among the many hindrances or source of
bias are religion, community, language, race, nationality, even geographical area. David
 29

Thomson's book, The Aims of History, give an excellent account of the various forms of bias
which infect history writing.
a. Nationalistic Bias
Thomson writes that "the most widespread and most dangerous of all forms of bias in
the historiography of modern times is that induced by nationalism and the passions of
patriotism. Bias does the greatest harm through mere selection and omission. There are a lot
of instances of nationalistic bias in history.
b. Bias of Geographical area
Another great factor of bias is in the name of geographical areas. European historians
tend to see world events in a very different way from the Asiatic. To most European
historians the world is Europe, to most historians the centre of the world is their own country.
Terms like the Near East, the Far East, and the Middle East are so only.
c. Religious Bias
Religious and communal prejudice is another strong bias. David Thomson tells us that
to the splitting of the Catholic Church in the sixteenth century the Protestants gave the name
Reformation', a term which betrays a bias. Roman Catholic and Protestant versions of almost
every aspect of the Reformation show obvious partiality; yet both the Catholics and the
Protestants are astonished to find that in the East, Christianity is regarded as having been the
most persecuting and intolerant of all religions.
d. Cultural Bias
Cultural bias is a curious compound of all kinds of bias - nationalistic, religious,
racial, and geographical. It manifests in an incurable complex of superiority and expresses
itself in self-deceptive generalizations. Imagine the bias betrayed by the term 'Oriental
Despotism' and one is sure to find in Turkish books of history a parallel to (the term) Turkish
cruelty. To this category of misleadingly meaningful usages belong such words as
"barbarians' as used by the Graeco-Romans, heathen' used by the Christian, 'mleccha‟ by the
Hindu, and 'kafir’ by the Muslims. Bias does the greatest harm through mere selection and
omission.
In short, bias lead to falsification of historical facts. Though mostly unconscious, it
leads to intellectual distortion and falsification of facts. In most cases bias is built in by man's
social environment and upbringing or by inherited ideas and institutions. And, the subject
matter of history, the language in which it is written, and the tasks, aptitudes and preferences
of the historian are not value-free.
Factors Helping Objectivity
It is true that subjective influences are inevitable and cannot be wholly eradicated; all
that can be done is to minimise its influence by the strict observance of certain principles of
establishing fact. If complete objectivity is unattainable by the nature of man and the nature
of history, it is still the duty of the historian to reconstruct the past as nearly as it really
happened. His fundamental commitment is to the truth of the past. Let us examine the factors
that help to minimise bias and prejudice and thereby that help objectivity in history.
a. Wide Variety of Primary Sources
The historical investigator must gather information from all possible sources,
whatever his preference regarding the subject matter under study. Since history deals with
evidence; the greater the number and variety of the primary sources, the greater will be the
 30

accuracy of the facts that the historian establishes. The scholar should not make a selective
collection and a partial use of the material collected with the aim of hiding information
unhelpful or damaging to his favourite thesis.
b. Discriminate Use of Sources
The historian must make a discriminate use of his sources. David Thomson warns us
that even the seemingly most indisputable facts and dates are always open to question. If
there is the possibility of error in the simplest and best known facts, much greater will be its
incidence in happenings like the renaissance or the French Revolution.
e. Authenticity of the Material
A more important aspect of the historian‟s material is its authenticity. Allan Nevins
writes that "... the first duty of every student of the past is to make sure of the authenticity of
his materials, for not a little history has been vitiated by the careless acceptance of non-
authentic materials". The historian must go about his sources with the utmost circumspection
and sift out the authentic from the fake. Allan Nevins divides spurious or false documents
into two broad categories: the cheating and the dubious. The Cheating Document: When
whole or part of a document is deliberately manufactured, it becomes a cheating document.
While a forged document is entirely false and dishonest, students of history may have to deal
with another class of documents which are composite in character proceeding from various
hands or sources. These are dubious documents (doubtful). The authorship of a document or
a book may be entirely authentic, and yet parts of it may be highly treacherous, as being
products of other hands. Even when a document is partially false, its integrity is destroyed.
One of the most difficult problems in the determination of textual integrity has been created
by the profession of ghost writers.
f. Honesty and Moral Integrity
Intellectual power, a rigorous methodology, and an imaginative faculty are essential
requisites of a historical scholar. But, without personal honesty and moral integrity, of what
avail are the intellectual qualities? There are people who, owing to religious, political,
communal, and other kinds of leanings, distort or suppress material information. Such
leanings obstruct historical objectivity and must be guarded against.
It is to be admitted that history is subjective and that it can never become fully
objective. But, once the historian is aware of the kinds of subjective influences that operate
upon him, he is that much better equipped to guard against them. As Collingwood observes,
to be aware that one has a bias is already to have transcended that bias. Ranke knew it when
he said that he was an historian first and a Christian afterward. Let Ranke's dictum serve as
the ideal of all who pretend to serve Clio, the Muse of History!

--------------------------------------------------