https://alphahistory.
com/what-is-history/ Top 10 Reasons to Study History
History is the study of the past – specifically, the
people, societies, events and problems of the past
– and our attempts to understand them. It is a
pursuit common to all human societies.
History can be a tremendous story, a rolling
narrative filled with great personalities and tales of
turmoil and triumph. Each passing generation adds
its own chapters to our history while reinterpreting
and finding new things in those chapters already
written.
History gives us a sense of identity. By
understanding where we have come from, we can
better understand who we are.
K. Kris Hirst
Updated October 01, 2019
History is the study of the human past as it is
described in the written documents left by human
beings. The past, with all its decisions completed,
its participants dead and its history told, is what the
general public perceives as the immutable bedrock
on which we historians and archaeologists stand.
But as purveyors of the past, we recognize that the
bedrock is really quicksand, that bits of the story
are yet untold, and that what has been told comes
tainted by the conditions of what we are today.
That's my opinion, of course—here are a collection
of others.
History is the study of change over time, and it covers all
aspects of human society. Political, social, economic,
scientific, technological, medical, cultural, intellectual,
religious and military developments are all part of
history.
Why study history?
By Peter N. Stearns:
History Helps Us Understand People and Societies
History Helps Us Understand Change and How the
Society We Live in Came to Be
History well told is beautiful.
History Contributes to Moral Understanding
History Provides Identity
Studying History Is Essential for Good Citizenship
Updated on 11 January, 2013 at 11:08 am By Arun
Thakur
10. History helps us understand the world:
9. History tells us who we are:
8. History helps understand cultures:
7. History helps us judge wisely:
6. History helps understand change:
5. History helps us become good citizens:
4. History helps us learn of world events:
3. History is interesting:
2. History makes you a better student:
1. History repeats itself:
Primary source
In the study of history as an academic discipline,
a primary source (also called an original source)
is an artifact, document,
diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any
other source of information that was created at the
time under study. It serves as an original source of
information about the topic.
https://guides.lib.uw.edu/c.php?
g=344285&p=2580599
http://www.uw.edu/
What is a Primary Source
Primary sources include documents or artifacts
created by a witness to or participant in an event.
They can be firsthand testimony or evidence
created during the time period that you are
studying.
Primary sources may include diaries, letters,
interviews, oral histories, photographs, newspaper
articles, government documents, poems, novels,
plays, and music. The collection and analysis of
primary sources is central to historical research.
When thinking about what constitutes a primary
source, here are some major types:
Books
Journals
Letters
Annals
Dissertations
Public records
Census data
Eyewitness accounts
Scripture
Inscriptions
Newspapers
Diaries
Chronicles
Government documents
Personal or institutional papers
Genealogies
Manuscripts
Laws
Scrolls
Period literature and poetry
What are Primary Sources?
A primary source is a record left by a person (or
group) who participated in or witnessed the events
you are studying or who provided a contemporary
expression of the ideas or values of the period
under examination.
Examples of primary sources include letters,
autobiographies, diaries, government documents,
minutes of meetings, newspapers, or books written
about your topic at that time. Non-written sources
include interviews, films, photos, recordings of
music, clothing, buildings, or tools from the period.
What are Secondary Sources?
Secondary sources are accounts written by people
who were not themselves involved in the events or
in the original expression of the ideas under study.
Written after the events/ideas they describe, they
are based upon primary sources and/or other
secondary works. Thus, an early 20th-century
historian could prepare a secondary study of the
American Civil war through her reading of
documents from that period, interviews with
veterans, examination of weapons, and so on.
The information above was based on the part of the
University of Colorado’s History Department
Guideline to Writing Papers
What is a Secondary Source
Secondary sources analyze a scholarly question
and often use primary sources as evidence.
Secondary sources include books and articles
about a topic. They may include lists of sources,
i.e. bibliographies, that may lead you to other
primary or secondary sources.
Recognizing secondary sources
Secondary sources were created by someone who
did not experience first-hand or participate in the
events or conditions you’re researching. For a
historical research project, secondary sources are
generally scholarly books and articles.
A secondary source interprets and analyzes
primary sources. These sources are one or more
steps removed from the event. Secondary sources
may contain pictures, quotes or graphics of primary
sources.
Some types of secondary source include:
Textbooks; journal articles; histories; criticisms;
commentaries; encyclopedias
Examples of secondary sources include:
 A scholarly journal article about the
history of cardiology
 A book about the psychological effects
of WWI
 A biographical dictionary of women in
science
 An April 2007 newspaper or magazine
article on anti-aging trends
For a historical research project, secondary
sources are most often scholarly books and
articles.https://guides.library.harvard.edu/HistSciInf
o/secondary
https://community.dur.ac.uk/4schools.resou
rces/History/Writtenintro.htm
If you asked people to give you example of a
historical record or primary source, most
would people would probably mention some
kind of written source. They might say
official reports, files, court documents,
financial papers, newspapers, old family
papers or official files. All these written
sources can be used by historians to find out
about the past. They might not have been
created for that purpose but they are still
very useful.
We're going to take a look at some examples
- an official document, entries from a
diary, an inventory, extracts from
a newspaper and a map - to see how written
sources can be used. When you look at the
sources think about why they were made or
created and how this differs from how we
use them today.
Images
Every day we find things out by looking at
different kinds of images. We look at
photographs, cartoons, watch television and
look at the internet. Historians are no
different. They can use different kinds of
images from the past to find things out. We
are going to use three examples
- photographs, cartoons and film - to
discover what they can tell us about the past
and how we can use them. Choose one and
get started!
Artefacts
As well as using books, documents, images
and oral testimony, historians also use
artefacts or objects to help them learn about
the past. People have learnt a lot about
history by looking at things that
archaeologists have found. We know things
about the Iron Age, the Bronze Age, the
Romans and Medieval history that we
wouldn't have known if we only had written
evidence to look at. But using artefacts is not
just useful for the study of ancient and
medieval history, artefacts can enliven any
period of history.
We're going to look at a number of artefacts
that are all from the Sudan to see how they
can help us in our study of history. To get
started, just choose one of the objects listed
below.
Oral testimony
Oral testimony can be described as the
oldest type of evidence. Before people
started to write down or otherwise record
their history, they passed information from
generation to generation through story-
telling. It still goes on today. How do you
know about the lives of your grandparents,
your Mum, your Dad, other family members?
Probably because you have heard them talk
about it to you or to other people. It's not
hard to understand therefore why oral
testimony is such an important source of
evidence.
 Slogans
 Fossils
 Tools
 Toys
 Coins
 Paintings or other artwork
 Clothes
Historiography, the writing of history, especially
the writing of history based on the critical
examination of sources, the selection of particular
details from the authentic materials in those
sources, and the synthesis of those details into a
narrative that stands the test of critical examination.
The term historiography also refers to the theory
and history of historical writing.
by Richard T. Vann
1. the writing of history
2. the study of
the development of historical method,
historical research, and writing
3. any body of historical literature
by collinsdictionary.com\

1. External Criticism is that part of the
historical method which deter-
External criticism is concerned with establishing the
authenticity or genuineness of data. It is also called
lower criticism. It is aimed at the document itself rather
than the interpretation or meaning of them in relation to
the study.

mines the authenticity of the source. The

document is somewhat like a prisoner
at the bar. Its genuineness must be
tested, where possible, by paleographical Internal criticism which is also known as higher
criticism is concerned with the validity, credibility, or
and diplomatic criticism. It must be worth of the content of the document. Both the accuracy
localized in time and place. It must be of the information contained in a document and the
truthfulness of the author need to be evaluated. Internal
ascertained, whether in its present state
criticism has to do with what the document says.
it exists exactly as its author left it.
In order to test its genuineness, the
student must ask himself if it is what it
ap-
pears to be or if it is a forgery.

2. Internal Criticism is that part of the

historical method which deter-
mines the historicity of the facts
contained in the document. It is not of
abso-
lute necessity that the document be
proven genuine; even forgeries or
Part of a series on the
documents
with truncated truths may contain Bible
available material. But before any
conclu-
sion is admissible, the facts contained
in the document must be tested. In
order to determine the value of these
facts, the character of the sources, the
knowledge of the author, and the
influences prevalent at the time of
writing Canons and books
[show]
must be carefully investigated.
Authorship and development
[show]

Translations and manuscripts

[show]

Biblical studies[hide]

 Archeology
 Artifacts
 Dating
 document, record or source for reconstructing the
Historicity
 Internal consistency
 biblical interpretation, the historical critic would be
People
 Places
 Names
 Novum Testamentum Graece
 Documentary hypothesis
 Synoptic problem
 NT textual categories
Biblical criticism
 Historical
 Textual
 Source
 Form
 Redaction
 Canonical
Interpretation[show]
Perspectives[show]
Outline of Bible-related topics
Bible book Bible portal
 v
 t
 e
Historical criticism, also known as the historical-
critical method or higher criticism, is a branch of
criticism that investigates the origins of ancient
texts in order to understand "the world behind the
text".[1] While often discussed in terms of Jewish
and Christian writings from ancient times, historical
criticism has also been applied to other religious
and secular writings from various parts of the world
and periods of history. The primary goal of historical
criticism is to discover the text's primitive or original
meaning in its original historical context and its
literal sense or sensus literalis historicus. The
secondary goal seeks to establish a reconstruction
of the historical situation of the author and
recipients of the text. That may be accomplished by
reconstructing the true nature of the events that the
text describes. An ancient text may also serve as a
ancient past, which may also serve as a chief
interest to the historical critic. In regard to Semitic
able to interpret the literature of Israel as well as
the history of Israel.[2] In 18th century Biblical
criticism, the term "higher criticism" was commonly
used in mainstream scholarship[3] in contrast with
"lower criticism". In the 21st century, historical
criticism is the more commonly used term for higher
criticism, and textual criticism is more common than
the loose expression "lower criticism".[4]
Historical criticism began in the 17th century and
gained popular recognition in the 19th and 20th
centuries. The perspective of the early historical
critic was rooted in Protestant Reformation ideology
since its approach to biblical studies was free from
the influence of traditional interpretation.[5] Where
historical investigation was unavailable, historical
criticism rested on philosophical and theological
interpretation. With each passing century, historical
criticism became refined into various
methodologies used today: source criticism, form
criticism, redaction criticism, tradition
criticism, canonical criticism, and related
methodologies.[2]
What is Historical Criticism?
Historical criticism (also known
as historicism or higher criticism) refers to the
study of literary texts, particularly ancient texts and
especially the Bible, in terms of their historical
origins and development within those contexts. It
is an umbrella term which describes the dominant
method of study used by biblical scholars today.
Technically, this term refers specifically to
questions about the historical character of a work,
but, as it is impossible to do this without studying
the literary character of a work, this article will also
address questions of literary criticism as they relate
to historical criticism and the Bible.
Historical criticism is not criticism in the sense of
disapproval or the examination of faults and
mistakes, but instead is an analysis of the text in the
hope of better understanding it.
What is the goal of Historical Criticism?
Historical criticism seeks greater understanding of
biblical texts by analyzing the historical and social
contexts in which they developed. The goal of
historical criticism, traditionally, has been to try to
understand the text’s meaning in its original
context and to answer questions about the text,
such as:
* Who wrote it?
* When was it written?
* What else what happening at the time of its
writing?
* How did it come to be in the form we have it
today?
* What did it mean to the people who first read or
heard it?
Historical criticism has also often sought answers
to the ever-elusive question of what is called
“authorial intent”: What did the author intend for
this text to mean in his or her time and place?
Freebase(3.43 / 7 votes)Rate this definition:
1. Historical criticism
Historical criticism, also known as the
historical-critical method or higher criticism,
is a branch of literary criticism that
investigates the origins of ancient text in
order to understand "the world behind the
text". The primary goal of historical criticism
is to ascertain the text's primitive or original
meaning in its original historical context and
its literal sense or sensus literalis historicus.
The secondary goal seeks to establish a
reconstruction of the historical situation of
the author and recipients of the text. This
may be accomplished by reconstructing the
true nature of the events which the text
describes. An ancient text may also serve
as a document, record or source for
reconstructing the ancient past which may
also serve as a chief interest to the
historical critic. In regards to Semitic biblical
interpretation, the historical critic would be
able to interpret "The Literature of Israel" as
well as "The History of Israel". In 18th
century Biblical criticism, the term higher
criticism was commonly used in mainstream
scholarship in contrast with lower criticism.
In the 21st century, historical criticism is the
more commonly used term for higher
criticism, while textual criticism is more
common than the loose expression lower
criticism.
Historical criticism, literary criticism in the light of
historical evidence or based on the context in which
a work was written, including facts about the
author’s life and the historical and social
circumstances of the time. This is in contrast to
other types of criticism, such as textual and formal,
in which emphasis is placed on examining the text
itself while outside influences on the text are
disregarded. New Historicism is a particular form
of historical criticism. See also literary criticism.
zoilobernal Ambitious
To explain the difference between factual
history and speculative history, we first need to
take a look on what "factual" and "speculative"
means. Here we have the speculative vs factual.
Factual coming from the word "Fact" means
that it is something that can be proven or
something that is already proven.
Specualtive coming from the word "Specualte"
means that something that can be viewed from
different angles or views.
Factual History meaning events in history that
happened with proof of the event or thing
taking place. This type of history can be backed
up by writings or even footage of the event that
took place.
Speculative History meaning events in history
that may have an alternate history or
questionable history. This type of history is
mainly used when two or more parties have
different answers on why a certain event had
taken place or how a certain event had taken
place.
Read more on Brainly.ph -
https://brainly.ph/question/1981327#readmore
Factual History
-it can be proven
-it is real
-facts rather than theories
Speculative History
-based on guessing or opinions
-it can lead to controversies
-proposes concepts or interpretations that do
not exist
Read more on Brainly.ph -
https://brainly.ph/question/1899520#readmore
Historical method is the collection of techniques
and guidelines that historians use to research and
write histories of the past. Primary sources and
other evidence including those
from archaeology are used.
Source criticism[edit]
Main article: Source criticism
Source criticism (or information evaluation) is the
process of evaluating the qualities of an information
source, such as its validity, reliability, and relevance
to the subject under investigation.
Gilbert J Garraghan and Jean Delanglez divide
source criticism into six inquiries:[1]
1. When was the source, written or unwritten,
produced (date)?
2. Where was it produced (localization)?
3. By whom was it produced (authorship)?
4. From what pre-existing material was it
produced (analysis)?
5. In what original form was it produced
(integrity)?
6. What is the evidential value of its contents
(credibility)?
The first four are known as higher criticism; the
fifth, lower criticism; and, together, external
criticism. The sixth and final inquiry about a source
is called internal criticism. Together, this inquiry is
known as source criticism.
R. J. Shafer on external criticism: "It sometimes is
said that its function is negative, merely saving us
from using false evidence; whereas internal
criticism has the positive function of telling us how
to use authenticated evidence."[2]
Noting that few documents are accepted as
completely reliable, Louis Gottschalk sets down the
general rule, "for each particular of a document the
process of establishing credibility should be
separately undertaken regardless of the general
credibility of the author." An author's trustworthiness
in the main may establish a background probability
for the consideration of each statement, but each
piece of evidence extracted must be weighed
individually.
The Raven BY EDGAR ALLAN POE Once upon
a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and
weary, Over many a quaint and curious volume
of forgotten lore— While I nodded, nearly
napping, suddenly there came a tapping, As of
some one gently rapping, rapping at my
chamber door. “’Tis some visitor,” I muttered,
“tapping at my chamber door— Only this and
nothing more.” Ah, distinctly I remember it was
in the bleak December; And each separate
dying ember wrought its ghost upon the floor.
Eagerly I wished the morrow;—vainly I had
sought to borrow From my books surcease of
sorrow—sorrow for the lost Lenore— For the
rare and radiant maiden whom the angels name
Lenore— Nameless here for evermore. And the
silken, sad, uncertain rustling of each purple
curtain Thrilled me—filled me with fantastic
terrors never felt before; So that now, to still the
beating of my heart, I stood repeating “’Tis
some visitor entreating entrance at my chamber
door— Some late visitor entreating entrance at
my chamber door;— This it is and nothing
more.” Presently my soul grew stronger;
hesitating then no longer, “Sir,” said I, “or
Madam, truly your forgiveness I implore; But
the fact is I was napping, and so gently you
came rapping, And so faintly you came tapping,
tapping at my chamber door, That I scarce was
sure I heard you”—here I opened wide the door;
— Darkness there and nothing more. Deep into
that darkness peering, long I stood there
wondering, fearing, Doubting, dreaming dreams
no mortal ever dared to dream before; But the
silence was unbroken, and the stillness gave no
token, And the only word there spoken was the
whispered word, “Lenore?” This I whispered,
and an echo murmured back the word,
“Lenore!”— Merely this and nothing more. Back
into the chamber turning, all my soul within me
burning, Soon again I heard a tapping
somewhat louder than before. “Surely,” said I,
“surely that is something at my window lattice;
Let me see, then, what thereat is, and this
mystery explore— Let my heart be still a
moment and this mystery explore;— ’Tis the
wind and nothing more!” Open here I flung the
shutter, when, with many a flirt and flutter, In
there stepped a stately Raven of the saintly
days of yore; Not the least obeisance made he;
not a minute stopped or stayed he; But, with
mien of lord or lady, perched above my
chamber door— Perched upon a bust of Pallas
just above my chamber door— Perched, and
sat, and nothing more. Then this ebony bird
beguiling my sad fancy into smiling, By the
grave and stern decorum of the countenance it
wore, “Though thy crest be shorn and shaven,
thou,” I said, “art sure no craven, Ghastly grim
and ancient Raven wandering from the Nightly
shore— Tell me what thy lordly name is on the
Night’s Plutonian shore!” Quoth the Raven
“Nevermore.” Much I marvelled this ungainly
fowl to hear discourse so plainly, Though its
answer little meaning—little relevancy bore; For
we cannot help agreeing that no living human
being Ever yet was blessed with seeing bird
above his chamber door— Bird or beast upon
the sculptured bust above his chamber door,
With such name as “Nevermore.” But the
Raven, sitting lonely on the placid bust, spoke
only That one word, as if his soul in that one
word he did outpour. Nothing farther then he
uttered—not a feather then he fluttered— Till I
scarcely more than muttered “Other friends
have flown before— On the morrow he will
leave me, as my Hopes have flown before.”
Then the bird said “Nevermore.” Startled at the
stillness broken by reply so aptly spoken,
“Doubtless,” said I, “what it utters is its only
stock and store Caught from some unhappy
master whom unmerciful Disaster Followed fast
and followed faster till his songs one burden
bore— Till the dirges of his Hope that
melancholy burden bore Of ‘Never—
nevermore’.” But the Raven still beguiling all
my fancy into smiling, Straight I wheeled a
cushioned seat in front of bird, and bust and
door; Then, upon the velvet sinking, I betook
myself to linking Fancy unto fancy, thinking
what this ominous bird of yore— What this
grim, ungainly, ghastly, gaunt, and ominous
bird of yore Meant in croaking “Nevermore.”
This I sat engaged in guessing, but no syllable
expressing To the fowl whose fiery eyes now
burned into my bosom’s core; This and more I
sat divining, with my head at ease reclining On
the cushion’s velvet lining that the lamp-light
gloated o’er, But whose velvet-violet lining with
the lamp-light gloating o’er, She shall press, ah,
nevermore! Then, methought, the air grew
denser, perfumed from an unseen censer
Swung by Seraphim whose foot-falls tinkled on
the tufted floor. “Wretch,” I cried, “thy God hath
lent thee—by these angels he hath sent thee
Respite—respite and nepenthe from thy
memories of Lenore; Quaff, oh quaff this kind
nepenthe and forget this lost Lenore!” Quoth
the Raven “Nevermore.” “Prophet!” said I,
“thing of evil!—prophet still, if bird or devil!—
Whether Tempter sent, or whether tempest
tossed thee here ashore, Desolate yet all
undaunted, on this desert land enchanted— On
this home by Horror haunted—tell me truly, I
implore— Is there—is there balm in Gilead?—
tell me—tell me, I implore!” Quoth the Raven
“Nevermore.” “Prophet!” said I, “thing of evil!—
prophet still, if bird or devil! By that Heaven that
bends above us—by that God we both adore—
Tell this soul with sorrow laden if, within the
distant Aidenn, It shall clasp a sainted maiden
whom the angels name Lenore— Clasp a rare
and radiant maiden whom the angels name
Lenore.” Quoth the Raven “Nevermore.” “Be
that word our sign of parting, bird or fiend!” I
shrieked, upstarting— “Get thee back into the
tempest and the Night’s Plutonian shore! Leave
no black plume as a token of that lie thy soul
hath spoken! Leave my loneliness unbroken!—
quit the bust above my door! Take thy beak
from out my heart, and take thy form from off
my door!” Quoth the Raven “Nevermore.” And
the Raven, never flitting, still is sitting, still is
sitting On the pallid bust of Pallas just above
my chamber door; And his eyes have all the
seeming of a demon’s that is dreaming, And the
lamp-light o’er him streaming throws his
shadow on the floor; And my soul from out that
shadow that lies floating on the floor Shall be
lifted—nevermore!