Studying the past is not as easy as it may seem. You have probably tried it and yes you have succeeded but
it's not the same way Historians study it. Comparing the way we study about the past and the way Historians do is pretty simple if you get the basic points. There are may steps to it, I'm telling you.
Let's start basically, the major methods and resources historians use to learn about the past are:
Written and Non-written sources
The most useful ones are written because they have some proof behind them, unfortunately these go only back to 3.000B.C. During the prehistoric time period we only have non-written proof to soppourt our theories of what happened.
Natural disasters such as volcanoes, hurricanes etc. give them information about the past. Written sources
include: Not only books but also: letters, diaries, speeches, songs, posters, government papers, maps and blogs. On the other hand non-written sources include fossils, artifacts or objects made by humans. Finding reasons of why your reasoning is correct and not just imaginary is very important, this is why historians examine information and ask them selves many different questions. The first step to studying the past would be:
Who was the writer/creater?
What kind of source is it?
When was the sources produced?
Where was the source produced?
Why was the source produced?
There are two other main sources historians refer to, primary and secondary.
Primary sources are produced during the same period as the event. What I mean by this is that if for example you were a citizen of Pompeii while the volcano was erupting, you lived through it and you remember everything, you could write a letter about what you just went through, not only would this be a written source but also a primary because you were there.
Secondary sources is an other way of saying materials that get created later by people who studied the original source. In a way these could be changed and there are more then just 2 secondary sources for nearly everything.
History is many times compared to puzzles, some parts have been lost forever, other were found, and this will be like it for ever.
Just to summarize, this is was historians do while studying the past:
it's not the same way Historians study it. Comparing the way we study about the past and the way Historians do is pretty simple if you get the basic points. There are may steps to it, I'm telling you.
Let's start basically, the major methods and resources historians use to learn about the past are:
Written and Non-written sources
The most useful ones are written because they have some proof behind them, unfortunately these go only back to 3.000B.C. During the prehistoric time period we only have non-written proof to soppourt our theories of what happened.
Natural disasters such as volcanoes, hurricanes etc. give them information about the past. Written sources
include: Not only books but also: letters, diaries, speeches, songs, posters, government papers, maps and blogs. On the other hand non-written sources include fossils, artifacts or objects made by humans. Finding reasons of why your reasoning is correct and not just imaginary is very important, this is why historians examine information and ask them selves many different questions. The first step to studying the past would be:
- Find sources
- Separate those sources into Written and Non-written
- Examine information and decide how to interpret it
- Sources of evidence are always open to interpretation -Point of view (think of winner vs. loser)
Who was the writer/creater?
What kind of source is it?
When was the sources produced?
Where was the source produced?
Why was the source produced?
There are two other main sources historians refer to, primary and secondary.
Primary sources are produced during the same period as the event. What I mean by this is that if for example you were a citizen of Pompeii while the volcano was erupting, you lived through it and you remember everything, you could write a letter about what you just went through, not only would this be a written source but also a primary because you were there.
Secondary sources is an other way of saying materials that get created later by people who studied the original source. In a way these could be changed and there are more then just 2 secondary sources for nearly everything.
History is many times compared to puzzles, some parts have been lost forever, other were found, and this will be like it for ever.
Just to summarize, this is was historians do while studying the past:
- Gather a variety of sources
- Categorize sources
- Evaluate sources
- Interpret sources
- Share their founding
No comments:
Post a Comment