What Is History? Introduction to Historiography

The Question That Changes Everything

Here is a question that sounds simple but will unravel everything you think you know: What is history?

Go ahead. Try to answer it.

Most students say something like: "History is what happened in the past." That seems obvious, doesn't it? But pause for a moment. Right now, as you read this sentence, billions of things are happening across the planet. People are being born and dying. Conversations are occurring. Decisions are being made. Meals are being eaten. Most of these events will never be recorded. No one will remember them. They will vanish as completely as if they never happened.

So here's the uncomfortable truth: history is not "what happened in the past." The past is infinite, chaotic, and mostly lost forever. History is something else entirely. History is what someone decided was worth remembering, recording, and telling.

And that changes everything.

The Past vs. History: A Crucial Distinction

Let's make this distinction clear, because everything else in this course depends on understanding it.

The past is everything that ever happened. It is complete, finished, and irretrievable. You cannot visit it. You cannot observe it directly. The past exists only in traces—documents, artifacts, memories, ruins—and most of it has left no traces at all.

History is the discipline of studying the past through its traces and constructing meaningful accounts of what happened and why. History is made by historians. It involves selection (choosing what to include), interpretation (deciding what it means), and narrative (telling a story).

❝

"The belief in a hard core of historical facts existing objectively and independently of the interpretation of the historian is a preposterous fallacy, but one which it is very hard to eradicate... The facts speak only when the historian calls on them: it is he who decides to which facts to give the floor, and in what order or context."

This distinction is not just academic nitpicking. It has profound implications. If history is constructed rather than simply found, then we must ask: Who is doing the constructing? What are their assumptions? What are they including—and what are they leaving out?

The Birth of History: Herodotus and the First Questions

c. 484 BCE-484

Our word "history" comes from the Greek historia, meaning "inquiry" or "investigation." The first person we know who systematically inquired into the past was Herodotus of Halicarnassus, writing in the fifth century BCE.

Herodotus wrote about the Persian Wars—the conflicts between the Greek city-states and the vast Persian Empire. But he didn't just record battles. He traveled extensively, interviewed witnesses, collected stories, and tried to understand different cultures on their own terms. He included myths, marvels, and tales that we might consider unreliable today.

❝

"This is the display of the inquiry of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, so that things done by man not be forgotten in time, and that great and marvelous deeds, some displayed by the Greeks, some by the barbarians, not lose their glory, including among other things what caused them to make war on each other."

Notice what Herodotus says he's doing: preserving memory, celebrating great deeds, and explaining causes. He's not claiming to record "objective facts." He's making choices about what matters—great deeds, causes of war—and he's explicitly including both Greek and "barbarian" (foreign) perspectives.

Later generations called Herodotus the "Father of History." But they also called him the "Father of Lies" because he included stories that seemed incredible. This tension—between storytelling and truth-telling—has haunted history ever since.

Thucydides and the Dream of Scientific History

c. 460 BCE-460

A generation after Herodotus, another Greek writer took a very different approach. Thucydides wrote about the Peloponnesian War—the catastrophic conflict between Athens and Sparta that tore apart the Greek world.

Where Herodotus was expansive and inclusive, Thucydides was rigorous and skeptical. He rejected divine explanations. He refused to include stories he couldn't verify. He claimed to pursue something closer to scientific truth.

❝

"And with reference to the narrative of events, far from permitting myself to derive it from the first source that came to hand, I did not even trust my own impressions, but it rests partly on what I saw myself, partly on what others saw for me, the accuracy of the report being always tried by the most severe and detailed tests possible... The absence of romance in my history will, I fear, detract somewhat from its interest; but if it be judged useful by those inquirers who desire an exact knowledge of the past as an aid to the interpretation of the future... I shall be content."

Thucydides established an ideal that has influenced historians ever since: the notion that history should be rigorous, evidence-based, skeptical of sources, and useful for understanding the present and future. He wanted to create a "possession for all time"—an account so accurate that future generations could learn from it.

But here's a question that cuts deep: Was Thucydides really as objective as he claimed? Modern scholars have noted that he invented speeches for historical figures—putting words in their mouths that expressed what he thought they should have said. He selected which events to include based on what he considered important. He had his own biases and blind spots.

The dream of purely objective history—history as science—turns out to be more complicated than it first appears.

The Nineteenth Century: History Becomes Professional

For most of human history, "historians" were not professionals. They were monks, politicians, retired generals, or curious gentlemen with time on their hands. The idea that you could be trained as a historian—that there could be a methodology, a discipline, a profession—emerged in nineteenth-century Germany.

The key figure was Leopold von Ranke. Based at the University of Berlin, Ranke trained generations of students in what he considered the scientific method of history. His approach centered on:

• Archival research: Going to the original documents, not relying on secondary accounts
• Source criticism: Evaluating documents for authenticity and reliability
• Objectivity: Suppressing personal bias to show the past "as it actually was" (wie es eigentlich gewesen)

❝

"To history has been assigned the office of judging the past, of instructing the present for the benefit of future ages. To such high offices this work does not aspire: it wants only to show what actually happened."

Ranke's influence was enormous. The modern history profession—with its PhD programs, archives, peer-reviewed journals, and emphasis on primary sources—descends from his model. But later generations have questioned whether Ranke actually achieved the objectivity he claimed.

Consider: Ranke focused almost exclusively on diplomatic and political history—the actions of states and great men. He assumed that documents from government archives told the real story of the past. He worked within the framework of nation-states, seeing nations as the primary actors of history. His "objectivity" was shaped by assumptions that now seem quite limited.

The question isn't whether Ranke was a good historian—he was. The question is whether any historian can truly escape their own perspective to show the past "as it actually was."

The Twentieth Century: Crisis of Confidence

The twentieth century brought profound challenges to the idea of objective history. World wars, genocides, decolonization, and social revolutions forced historians to confront questions they had previously avoided.

Whose history? The traditional focus on political elites excluded most of humanity. What about workers, women, colonized peoples, the enslaved? Starting in the 1960s and 1970s, "history from below" emerged, seeking to recover the experiences of ordinary people.

Whose categories? Concepts like "civilization," "progress," and "the West" weren't neutral descriptions—they were tools of power. Postcolonial thinkers asked whether these categories could be used at all without perpetuating domination.

Whose truth? The postmodern turn, influenced by thinkers like Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, questioned whether any narrative could claim access to truth. All knowledge, they argued, is constructed within systems of power. There is no neutral standpoint from which to observe the past.

❝

"The historical work is a verbal structure in the form of a narrative prose discourse. Histories combine a certain amount of 'data,' theoretical concepts for 'explaining' these data, and a narrative structure for their presentation as an icon of sets of events presumed to have occurred in times past."

Hayden White argued that historians didn't simply find stories in the past—they imposed narrative structures drawn from literature. Whether a historian wrote a tragedy, a comedy, a romance, or a satire depended not on the evidence but on their choice of narrative mode. This meant that multiple, contradictory histories could all be "true" to the evidence while telling radically different stories.

This was deeply unsettling. If history is just storytelling, what separates it from fiction? If all perspectives are equally valid, does that mean we can't condemn Holocaust deniers or Lost Cause mythmakers?

The Defense of History

Not everyone accepted the postmodern critique. Some historians pushed back, arguing that while complete objectivity might be impossible, history was not simply fiction or propaganda.

❝

"It is not true that there is no way of judging the truth or falsehood of historical statements. There are criteria for determining the reliability of historical evidence... History is not a novel. It is bound by the rules of evidence in a way that fiction is not."

Evans and others argued that history has checks that fiction lacks. Historians must account for all the relevant evidence, not just evidence that supports their argument. They must submit their work to peer review. They make claims that can be verified or falsified. A historian who ignores or distorts evidence can be called out and corrected.

This doesn't mean history is purely objective. Historians always select, interpret, and construct narratives. But it does mean history is not merely subjective—not anything goes. There are better and worse histories, more and less honest accounts, interpretations that fit the evidence and interpretations that ignore it.

E.H. Carr and the Dialogue Between Past and Present

Perhaps the most influential twentieth-century reflection on these questions came from E.H. Carr, a British historian and former diplomat. His 1961 book What Is History? argued for a middle position between naive objectivism and radical relativism.

❝

"The historian is engaged in a continuous process of molding his facts to his interpretation and his interpretation to his facts. It is impossible to assign primacy to one over the other... The historian and the facts of history are necessary to one another. The historian without his facts is rootless and futile; the facts without their historian are dead and meaningless."

For Carr, history was a dialogue—between the historian and their evidence, between the present and the past, between interpretation and fact. The historian brings questions shaped by their own time and place. The evidence talks back, constraining and reshaping those questions. Neither side dominates completely.

Carr also emphasized that understanding a historian meant understanding their context. "Before you study the history," he advised, "study the historian. Before you study the historian, study his historical and social environment." This wasn't meant to dismiss historians as biased—it was meant to help readers understand where historians were coming from and what questions they were asking.

What Is Historiography?

By now you've encountered the word "historiography" in this unit's title. Let's define it clearly.

Historiography has two related meanings:

1. The study of how history has been written: How have historians in different times and places approached the past? What methods have they used? What assumptions have they made?

2. The history of historical writing: How has the discipline of history changed over time? What debates have shaped it?

Historiography is, in essence, thinking about thinking about the past. It's meta-history—history about history.

Why does this matter? Because the history you've been taught—in textbooks, museums, documentaries—didn't emerge from nowhere. It was produced by people working within traditions, using particular methods, making specific choices. Understanding historiography helps you see the scaffolding behind the finished building.

Key Debates in Historiography

Let's briefly survey some of the central debates that historians continue to argue about:

Objectivity vs. Perspective

Can historians achieve objectivity? Should they even try? Or is all history inevitably shaped by the historian's perspective?

Some argue that objectivity, while never perfectly achievable, should remain the goal. Evidence constrains interpretation. Historians must be honest about what they know and don't know.

Others argue that the very idea of objectivity is a myth that hides power relations. Better to be explicit about one's perspective and let readers judge accordingly.

Structure vs. Agency

What drives historical change? Great structures—economic systems, class relations, geography, climate? Or individual agency—the choices and actions of particular people?

Marxist historians emphasized structures, arguing that individuals were shaped by their material conditions. "Great man" historians emphasized agency, seeing history as shaped by exceptional individuals.

Most historians today try to balance both, but the tension remains.

Narrative vs. Analysis

Should historians tell stories or analyze structures? Narrative makes history accessible and compelling but may distort complex realities. Analysis captures complexity but may bore readers or miss what actually matters to people.

Political History vs. Social/Cultural History

Should historians focus on politics—wars, treaties, elections, laws? Or on social and cultural life—how ordinary people lived, worked, loved, believed?

The traditional focus on political history has been challenged by social historians who argue that most people's lives were barely touched by high politics. But others counter that politics ultimately shapes the conditions in which social life unfolds.

Applying Historiographical Thinking

Let's practice applying these ideas to a concrete example.

Consider the question: What caused World War I?

Over the past century, historians have given radically different answers:

1920s-1930s: German war guilt. The Treaty of Versailles blamed Germany, and many historians agreed that German aggression caused the war.

1960s: Shared responsibility. Fritz Fischer's research revealed German war planning but also prompted questions about other nations' imperialism and militarism.

1990s-2000s: Structural causes. Some historians emphasized the alliance system, imperial competition, nationalism, and arms races—structures that made war likely regardless of individual decisions.

2010s: Contingency and accident. Christopher Clark's The Sleepwalkers argued that the war was not inevitable—that a series of miscalculations and poor decisions by leaders "sleepwalking" toward catastrophe caused it.

None of these interpretations simply reflects "what happened." Each asks different questions, emphasizes different evidence, and reflects the concerns of its own time. The debate over German war guilt in the 1960s was shaped by Cold War politics. The emphasis on contingency in the 2010s reflects postmodern skepticism about grand narratives.

This doesn't mean all interpretations are equally valid. Some fit the evidence better than others. But it does mean that historical interpretation is ongoing, contested, and shaped by the present.

The Practical Stakes

Why does any of this matter? Isn't it just academic theorizing?

Consider: every political argument about the present is also an argument about the past. When people debate immigration policy, they invoke history—the history of immigration, the history of nativism, the history of national identity. When people debate reparations for slavery, they're arguing about what happened, what it meant, and what obligations flow from it.

If you don't understand how history is constructed, you're vulnerable to manipulation. You'll accept narratives that serve someone else's interests. You'll miss the assumptions baked into the stories you've been told.

Historiography is not just for professional historians. It's a form of self-defense.

Looking Ahead

This unit has introduced the fundamental questions that will occupy us throughout this course:

• What is the relationship between the past and history?
• How do historians construct knowledge about the past?
• What role do narrative, interpretation, and perspective play?
• Can history be objective? Should it try to be?
• How has the discipline of history changed over time?

In the units ahead, we'll explore these questions in more depth. We'll examine memory and how societies remember and forget. We'll investigate the nature of historical evidence and truth. We'll analyze how narratives shape—and potentially distort—our understanding. We'll consider causation, progress, and the ethics of representing the past.

Throughout, we'll practice thinking historiographically—not just learning history, but learning how to think about how history is made.

Assessment Suggestions

Essay Options

1. Comparative Analysis: Compare and contrast Herodotus and Thucydides as historians. What were their methods? What did they see as the purpose of history? What are the strengths and limitations of each approach?

2. Historiographical Investigation: Choose a historical event (e.g., the French Revolution, the American Civil War, the fall of Rome). Research how historians' interpretations of this event have changed over time. What accounts for these changes?

3. Reflection: E.H. Carr wrote, "Before you study the history, study the historian." What does this mean? Do you agree? Apply this principle to a historian or historical work you've encountered.

Discussion Questions

1. Is there a meaningful difference between "the past" and "history"? What are the implications of this distinction?

2. Can a historian ever truly show the past "as it actually was"? What would that even mean?

3. If all history involves selection and interpretation, how is it different from fiction?

4. What are the dangers of thinking that history is purely objective? What are the dangers of thinking it is purely subjective?

Primary Source Analysis

Analyze the excerpts from Herodotus, Thucydides, Ranke, Carr, and White included in this unit. What does each reveal about their author's assumptions about what history is and how it should be practiced?

Recommended Resources

Books

• E.H. Carr, What Is History? (1961) - The classic introduction to historiographical thinking
• Richard Evans, In Defence of History (1997) - A response to postmodern challenges
• John Lewis Gaddis, The Landscape of History (2002) - An accessible meditation on historical method
• Peter Novick, That Noble Dream (1988) - A history of the objectivity question in American historical scholarship

Primary Sources

• Herodotus, The Histories (selected passages)
• Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War (selected passages)
• Leopold von Ranke, prefaces to major works

Videos

• "What Is History For?" - The School of Life
• Crash Course World History: "How and Why We Read"

Vocabulary

• The past: Everything that has ever happened, complete and irretrievable
• History: The discipline of studying the past and constructing accounts of it
• Historiography: The study of how history has been written; the history of historical writing
• Primary source: Evidence from the time period being studied
• Secondary source: Later interpretation or analysis of primary sources
• Objectivity: The attempt to understand events without personal bias
• Perspective: The particular viewpoint from which someone sees events
• Narrative: A story that organizes events into a meaningful sequence
• Interpretation: The process of deciding what evidence means
• Source criticism: The method of evaluating sources for reliability and authenticity
• Postmodernism: A philosophical movement questioning objective truth and grand narratives
• Agency: The capacity of individuals to make choices and affect outcomes
• Structure: Large-scale patterns (economic, social, political) that shape human action