Lauren Preston

February 25, 2018

The Historian’s Craft

Journal Entry #4

“…the historian never arrives until after the experiment has been concluded.” (Bloch, The

Historian’s Craft). The job of a historian becomes exceptionally difficult when it comes to

reconstructing the past. As quoted, the historian never directly sees or senses the action being

examined in any way but in actuality arrives at the scene afterwards. John Lewis Gaddis in

Chapter 3 of The Landscape of History begs the question of whether or not history is a science.

“They…saw science as a model for historians, but not because they thought historians were

becoming…more scientific. It was rather because they saw scientists as becoming more

historical.” (Gaddis). He argues that with recent nineteenth century achievements in science,

there was no longer a concern for timelessness but for development. In other words, evolution.

However, there are only a finite amount of sciences that can legitimately relate to history

and vice versa. In some sciences, where experiments are constructed and manipulation of

processes allows for results that always amount to the same answer, historical methods do not

coincide. In other sciences such as paleontology and astrology, more thought processes are

necessary to construct conclusions. “…phenomena rarely fit within laboratories…” (Gaddis).

Often these disciplines call for time scales for historical mapping and remote sensing.

Gaddis explains that historians seek to find the best possible “fit” to a conclusion in three

steps. First, we reiterate what is there in plain sight. This is typically done by searching through

archives. Next, we construct what we see into a rough explanation based on our viewpoints.

Finally, we present these finding before an audience where it is either rejected or approved.
 This begs the question of what separates history from other social sciences. The answer

can be found in the difference between reductionism and ecological views. Gaddis defines

reductionism as the comprehension of reality by breaking it into parts. “Historians work with

limited, not universal, generalizations.” (Gaddis). This however does not mean there is no

applicability.

In the midst of presenting historic findings it is imperative to cite sources. “Historians

depend on their primary sources and the secondary work of other historians in order to do their

work.” According to Robert Williams, “They must learn to credit and acknowledge the work of

others so that another historian can repeat and validate (or invalidate) their work by examining

the original sources that they used.” (Williams, The Historian’s Toolbox). Footnotes are used to

credit a primary or secondary source while also giving information about the sources themselves.

Another way to cite sources is through a bibliography: a list of documents that are

referenced or quoted in the piece. This helps the writer avoid plagiarism, a form of theft and

cheating that means acknowledging someone else’s work as your own. It is noted that even

professional historians sometimes unintentionally plagiarize. (Williams).