David P. Henige - Historical Evidence and Argument - Chapter 2
References
Footnotes - David P. Henige, Historical Evidence and Argument, (Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin
Press, 2005), Chap 2.
Bibliography - Henige, David P.. Historical Evidence and Argument. Madison, Wis.:University of Wisconsin
Press, 2005. Chap. 2.
Notes and Quotes
- The process of history is in many ways more important than the answers, as answers are so rarely certain
and therefore the process behind them is equally as valuable to understanding them as the answers
themselves
- ‘I argue that one cannot consult a large body of historical evidence without encountering problematic
issues, In short, I cannot understand why all historians do not eventually transmute into some breed of
skeptic’ - 6
- This argument demonstrates that history is never definitive, and never has only one answer. It also
suggests that in order for a historian to get the most out of the evidence they are presented with,
they must be skeptical enough about every aspect of the evidence, and be able to question its
validity, accuracy and objectivity
- ‘The more evidence that became available, and the more critically it was examined, the less certain
historians have had to become’ - 7
- The argument here shows that a greater amount of evidence which a historian can access about the
period in to which they are investigating, the less clear the answers to their questions become, as all
evidence provides a slightly different perspective depending on who wrote it and what its purpose is.
This argument supports the idea that over time the role of the historian has evolved, from simply
discovering and relating seemingly concrete information, to evaluating the validity or a wide range of
sources, and questioning the purpose of them in order to understand the evidence in more depth
- ‘Laying out a purely speculative, but not overtly incorrect, argument can stimulate discussion that might
bring to bear new evidence or new uses for existing evidence. It is important to make it unequivocally
clear in this that the purpose is stimulus, not closure’ - 7
- Again this assertion demonstrates Henige’s view that historians main purpose is not to relate facts but
to challenge evidence and explore different interpretations of evidence in order to initiate new
perspectives on historical events
- ‘Whatever might be said for theory, it interacts with evidence like a teeter-totter; only one can
predominate at any given moment. The thrust of the present work is that the study of history is better
served when the teeter-totter favours evidence’ - 8
- Here he asserts that although theory has value in stimulating discussion of topics, evidence itself is
more valuable to historians not only because it provides information, but also because it provides a
source for multiple interpretations, whereas focussing on one specific theory can lead to a narrow
understanding of a historical event
- ‘Dating issues underlie most studies of the past, usually with some divergence of opinion. Efforts to
define and refine chronology are among the earliest and most continuous in all historiography’ - 10
- This assertion demonstrates that there are wide ranging issues which historians are faced when
analysing historical evidence. Aside from the more obvious issues when reading a source, such as
identifying its motive, its author and its intended audience, the date is perhaps the most crucial part
References
Footnotes - David P. Henige, Historical Evidence and Argument, (Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin
Press, 2005), Chap 2.
Bibliography - Henige, David P.. Historical Evidence and Argument. Madison, Wis.:University of Wisconsin
Press, 2005. Chap. 2.
Notes and Quotes
- The process of history is in many ways more important than the answers, as answers are so rarely certain
and therefore the process behind them is equally as valuable to understanding them as the answers
themselves
- ‘I argue that one cannot consult a large body of historical evidence without encountering problematic
issues, In short, I cannot understand why all historians do not eventually transmute into some breed of
skeptic’ - 6
- This argument demonstrates that history is never definitive, and never has only one answer. It also
suggests that in order for a historian to get the most out of the evidence they are presented with,
they must be skeptical enough about every aspect of the evidence, and be able to question its
validity, accuracy and objectivity
- ‘The more evidence that became available, and the more critically it was examined, the less certain
historians have had to become’ - 7
- The argument here shows that a greater amount of evidence which a historian can access about the
period in to which they are investigating, the less clear the answers to their questions become, as all
evidence provides a slightly different perspective depending on who wrote it and what its purpose is.
This argument supports the idea that over time the role of the historian has evolved, from simply
discovering and relating seemingly concrete information, to evaluating the validity or a wide range of
sources, and questioning the purpose of them in order to understand the evidence in more depth
- ‘Laying out a purely speculative, but not overtly incorrect, argument can stimulate discussion that might
bring to bear new evidence or new uses for existing evidence. It is important to make it unequivocally
clear in this that the purpose is stimulus, not closure’ - 7
- Again this assertion demonstrates Henige’s view that historians main purpose is not to relate facts but
to challenge evidence and explore different interpretations of evidence in order to initiate new
perspectives on historical events
- ‘Whatever might be said for theory, it interacts with evidence like a teeter-totter; only one can
predominate at any given moment. The thrust of the present work is that the study of history is better
served when the teeter-totter favours evidence’ - 8
- Here he asserts that although theory has value in stimulating discussion of topics, evidence itself is
more valuable to historians not only because it provides information, but also because it provides a
source for multiple interpretations, whereas focussing on one specific theory can lead to a narrow
understanding of a historical event
- ‘Dating issues underlie most studies of the past, usually with some divergence of opinion. Efforts to
define and refine chronology are among the earliest and most continuous in all historiography’ - 10
- This assertion demonstrates that there are wide ranging issues which historians are faced when
analysing historical evidence. Aside from the more obvious issues when reading a source, such as
identifying its motive, its author and its intended audience, the date is perhaps the most crucial part
