Historiography
“History merely suggests, it cannot command. History at
its worst distorts reality, but cannot escape from it entirely.”
- Anonymous
I. DEFINITION OF HISTORY: The “story” of the past.
II. DEFINITION OF “HISTORIOGRAPHY”:
1. The study of historical interpretation, evidence, and understanding.
2. The study of the process how historians come to “know” and perceive history – in other words, an evaluation in
which historical knowledge is found, used, and evaluated.
3. The study and evaluation of the different ways in which historians have interpreted the SAME events.
III. SOME OF THE PROBLEMS WITH STUDYING “THE PAST”:
1. It is impossible to go back to the past - the next best way of knowing what has happened is to find sources of
information (such as pictures, eyewitness) from the past and analyze them.
2. Individual Differences in Historians - Once a source is written, the way that people (Historians) interpret the
same source will often vary significantly. Give 5 different historians the same sources to analyze and they will often
come to different conclusions about the meaning, relevance, or accuracy of the source. Largely, this is due to
differences in culture and experiences.
3. Language - used to describe an event can be unintentionally or intentionally misinterpreted or withheld
4. Information can be forgotten over time.
5. Existing attitudes (bias) can distort perceptions.
6. Perceptions of the people who witness history - Even if a person witnesses the event or situation firsthand,
there account may differ considerably from another person who experiences the same event. Therefore, can we
really ever “know” which description or interpretation is most accurate?
7. History is merely an interpretation – History is a product of what people think or perceive to have happened in
the past based upon the sources they observe. Therefore, it could be argued that we can never be certain of what
exactly what happened in the past.
IV. ANALYZING HISTORY
As students of history, it is essential to take care to recognize the limits of historical knowledge or commentary,
particularly since many argue that history is merely an “interpretation of the past” and doesn’t directly convey the
exact events, situations, or people as they really existed. As human beings, we cannot escape this situation
entirely. Therefore, even the commentary of the most distinguished historian or the most valuable primary source
still falls victim to the limited and subjective nature of human perception. Being a good student of history requires
being able to analyze and understand the relative limits and strengths of any historian or historical sources.
The Key Questions of Historiography:
1. How do Historians “know” what they know?
2. What is possible for Historians to “know”?
3. What are the limits of what Historians “know”?
The 7 TOOLS OF HISTORIOGRAPHY
The following are “tools” that can be used to analyze historical sources or the historians who interpret them:
1. ORIGINS of the Source:










When does the source appear to be written? How and to what extent is the time which it was created, delivered, or written
important to understanding the source?
How did people during this time feel about the issue discussed in the source?
Where was it written or where exactly did the source appear or where was it found? Where did you find it?
Are there any cultural or situational reasons why the source may be reliable or limited?
Who was the author of the source?
Was the source written by a specific individual, group, or historian? How specifically did this type of person or group feel
about the issue discussed or portrayed in the source?
In what manner was the source delivered to its intended audience? Was it a speech, a letter, a conversation, a section of a
book? Why does this matter?
Is it a Primary or Secondary Source? Why does this matter?
Was the source created by someone who you feel is credible and trustworthy? Why or why not?
Could the origins of the source cause it to be limited in some way? Could it be MORE trustworthy because of where it was
found or who or when it was written?
2. PURPOSE of the Source:










Why does it appear this source was originally written or created?
Why does the source appear where it does?
How is this source used? Is it used by the author of a textbook to make a point? Which point?
Was the source created in order to inform, persuade, benefit, or educate a particular person or group of people?
Do you think that the source supposed to be seen by everyone or just a few people?
Does it appear that the source was written to highlight a success or highlight a failure in order to improve or discredit the
standing of a group or individual? Why might this limit the reliability of the source?
Who do you think was the intended audience when the source was originally written?
Do you feel that the purpose for which the source was written limit or enhance the accuracy of the source?
Is the author trying to provide support for an Orthodox, Revisionist, or Post-revisionist view of History?
Does the author belong to a certain group or hold certain beliefs which might intentionally or unintentionally motivate him or
her?
3. USEFULNESS of the Source:








To what extent do you think that this source IS VALUABLE to Historians? What information or perspective can it possibly
provide them with? What person, group, event, or perspective can be understood?
What insight or feeling might provide that other sources do not?
Why is this source possibly NOT VALUABLE to historians who are trying to re-construct the past? What does it leave out or
what can it not provide?
To what extent do you feel the source is useful in providing a glimpse at the personal feelings, foreign policies, domestic
policies, motivations, of a historical figure?
Can you make any historical predictions, explanations, or conclusions based upon this source?
What person, group, event, or situation do you feel the source is NOT useful in providing information about?
Is the source useful in providing a glimpse at why an event might have or not have happened, why it was difficult or easy,
what situations resulted from the event, or why it was controversial?
Even if the author of the source appears not to be credible, or appears to be exaggerating or lying, why might the source still
be useful?
4. LIMITS of the Source:







All sources are limited in some way because of the limits of language, perception, or distortions. However, some sources
are more limited than others.
To what extent do you think the source MIGHT NOT BE reliable or truthful? Reasons?
To what extent do you think the source MIGHT BE reliable truthful? Reasons?
Does the possible purpose, origins, tone of the author, style of the author, or emphasis of the author influence how limited
the source is? In which ways?
Why might the author of the source be biased? Was the author of the source Biased? How might the bias limit the
reliability of the source?
Is it not reliable because of HOW it was written, or WHO it was written for, HOW it was presented, or in what CONTEXT it
was presented?
Could the source have been written in order to make someone or some group look good or bad? Would this cause the
source to be limited? How?
5. EMPHASIS of the Author:







What information does the author choose to emphasize or NOT emphasize?
What situations does the author choose to emphasize or NOT emphasize?
What person or group of people does the author emphasize or not emphasize?
What words or phrases does the author use to emphasize his or her arguments?
What arguments does the author emphasize?
Does the particular emphasis of the author limit the reliability of the source in any way?
Does the author seem to emphasize the original explanation or understanding of the person, event, group, or situation – or –
does the author offer a new perspective which contradicts this original belief? (In other words, does the particular author
emphasize an Orthodox, Revisionist, or Post-Revisionist viewpoint?)
6. TONE of the Author:






What feeling is the author trying to convey to us or wishing for us to accept about a particular event, situation, group, or
person?
What feelings do you believe the author of this source holds regarding this event, person, or group?
How do you feel about the historical event or person after you read the source?
In your perspective, are there words or phrases that give the audience an impression or feeling that is other than objective
and factual? What specific words or phrases send this message?
Is the Author’s tone accusational, arrogant, supportive, objective, critical, joyful, cynical, neutral, sensational, certain,
friendly, hostile, or skeptical? Be as specific as possible.
To what extent do you think the particular tone of the author influence the way information might be perceived by the
reader? Is this a significantly limiting factor or just something to be aware of?
7. STYLE of the Author:








What style does the author or creator of the source use?
Is the style formal, personal, dry, humorous, light, factual, controversial, aggressive, passive, neutral, sensational,
exaggerated, brief, descriptive, cold, dramatic, informal, etc.? Be specific.
Is it difficult to read or follow the author’s reasoning or conclusions? Why is this important to consider?
Does the author use symbolism, pictures, language, other sources, drawings, or statistics to convey his/her points?
How does the author like to organize the information he or she presents?
Does the author use ambiguous words or words which are difficult to understand? Why is this important?
How does this style possibly influence the perception the reader has one has of the historical event, situation, group, or
person?
Do you think that the particular style used by the author limits the reliability of the source in any way? Does the style make
the author more credible? Explain.
Source – Self – Statement
Historiography Example
Josef Stalin ruled the Soviet Union for nearly 30 years. If you had to write a paper evaluating how successful Stalin
was as a leader, it would be necessary for you to find primary or secondary sources about Stalin’s rule. The following is an
excerpt from a book by the Historian Lee. Because he is a historian, Lee is a credible source. However, because all sources
in history are limited in some way we must remember that all sources should be analyzed critically.
Source:
“There is evidence that he exaggerated Russia’s industrial deficiency in 1929. The Tsars had
developed a considerable industrial capacity, based on five main centers: Moscow (textiles), Petrograd
(heavy industry), the Donetz region (coal fields), Baku (oil) and the Ukraine (iron and steel). In a sense
the spadework had already been done and it is not altogether surprising that Stalin should have achieved
such rapid results. He was also reluctant to acknowledge that most of his plans for widespread
electrification were inherited from Lenin. Worst of all was the severe deprivation which accompanied
industrial growth.”
- S.J. Lee, The European Dictatorships 1918-1945 (1987). Pg 72
If you were faced with writing a short essay over Stalin’s leadership and his role in Industrialization, how could you
use the 7 tools to and the source above to respond to the question below?
Research Question:
“Evaluate Stalin’s Role in Soviet Industrialization.”
On the following page you will find examples of arguments and conclusions that could be made about the source
above during Historical Analysis (Historiography) if a person were trying to evaluate the success of Stalin’s role in relation to
Industrialization.
Conclusions
Specific Support
Tone of
the Author
Emphasis of
the Author
Limits of the Source
Usefulness of the Source
Origins of the Source
Purpose of
the Source
Lee’s Tone appears to be somewhat
“Negative” toward Stalin
Lee uses of phrases that tend to leave the reader with a negative feeling towards
Stalin such as “he exaggerated”, and “severe deprivation which accompanied
industrial growth.” Such phrases could make Stalin appear both untrustworthy
and hostile to the reader of his book.
Lee emphasizes the work of Stalin’s
predecessors, not the work of Stalin himself.
Lee points out that much industrialization had been accomplished by the Tsars
before Stalin in places such as Petrograd and the Ukraine. Additionally, Lee also
implies claims that it was Lenin’s plan to electrify Russia that Stalin adopted and
called his own .
Lee could be somewhat biased toward Stalin.
Lee’s Negative Tone could be an indication of personal bias which may have
existed in 1987 during the Cold War between Britain and the USSR. Such bias
could make Lee a less reliable source.
Lee’s commentary was not based upon
sources of information
Soviet archives were not opened up until 4 years after Lee wrote his book.
Therefore, Lee may not have been able to gain an accurate picture of Stalin’s
actions as someone who had access to the documents released 4 years later when
the Soviet Union fell.
No support from other sources or historians.
Having another source by another Historian who made similar conclusions would
add credibility to Lee’s arguments. Furthermore, references to Primary
documents that Lee used to Make his conclusions would help establish credibility.
Lee provides no counter-arguments.
Therefore, before making a conclusion about
Stalin, other sources should probably be
examined to look for counter-arguments.
Lee gives a one-sided account of Stalin’s lack of input into Industry. He does not
seem to indicate or explain other actions by Stalin that allowed him to
industrialize for over 25 years such as the 5 year plans. Such arguments would
provide the reader with a more realistic setting from which to accurately gauge
Stalin’s personal contributions to Industrialization.
Lee’s commentary is a useful source for other
Historians because it raises the possibility that
Stalin was not the mastermind of the success
of soviet industrialization.
Lee points out that much industrialization had been accomplished by the Tsars
before Stalin in places such as Petrograd and the Ukraine. Additionally, Lee also
implies claims that it was Lenin’s plan to electrify Russia that Stalin adopted and
called his own.
This source could motivate historians to look
for other ways in which Stalin was not
responsible for the success of industrial
growth in the Soviet Union rather than the
Traditional view that Stalin was the
mastermind of Soviet Industrialization.
The Traditional Historical understanding of the west during and after Stalin’s rule
was that he was the mastermind of the Soviet Union’s success. Lee’s account
provides the basis for a Revisionist historical understanding. The revisionist
account could be more reliable since it has been written after Stalin ruled and has
the advantage of being able to “look back” on history and seeing the “big
picture.”
The origins of the source are important to
understanding the reliability of the source.
Lee wrote this commentary in a book he published 1987 and is a British Historian.
This was the height of the cold war during which the British staunchly opposed the
Soviet Union because of the their beliefs in spreading communism. It is possible
that Lee was negatively influenced (biased) by this environment when he wrote the
book, causing his commentary to be unduly harsh and therefore limited.
Additionally, the source is written without the benefit of the documents released in
1991 by the Russian Government when the Soviet Union collapsed that could shed
much light on Stalin’s actual role in Industrialization. Therefore, the origins of
his information may not be complete and his conclusions could be limited.
However, it could be argued that since Lee wrote this commentary in a respected
book of History, his account is as reliable as any other historian.
It would appear Lee’s motivations were NOT
to persuade politically or to discredit the
Soviet Union.
Lee’s purpose in writing his book was apparently to either inform his audience or
to sell books. He attempts to raise the possibility that Stalin was not entirely
responsible for the industrial growth seen in the USSR in the early 1900’s. It
appears he was trying to inform his audience about Stalin’s role in industrial
growth.
Sample Essay Illustrating an Appreciation
for Historiography and Analysis
Question: "Evaluate Lee’s Perspective on Stalin’s Role in Soviet Industrialization.”
In his book “The European Dictatorship”, the British Historian S.J. Lee suggests that Stalin
may not have been solely responsible for the Success of Soviet Industrialization traditional historians have
claimed. Lee emphasizes the successes of the Tsars who “…had developed a considerable industrial
capacity..” before Stalin (Lee, 72). Lee raises the possibility that Stalin may have unduly been credited with
success in industry when he may have instead been riding on the coat tails of the industrial reforms initiated by
Nicholas II.
Further evidence offered by Lee that would support the possibility that Stalin was not fully responsible for
Industrial success comes from his claim that Stalin’s “…plans for widespread industrialization were inherited
from Lenin” (Lee, 72). In this reference, Lee again emphasizes the role of Stalin’s predecessors (rather than
Stalin himself) in laying the groundwork for the industrial success Stalin is given credit for.
However, while it is tempting to conclude that Stalin was not the man history has made him out to be,
Lee’s account could be limited for several reasons. Lee wrote his book at a high point in tension between the
Soviets and the West. This tension led to frequent criticism between Socialist and Capitalist countries. It is
possible that Lee could have been influenced by the attitude of such criticism against the Soviet Union that had
been present for the past 40 years in many western nations.
Furthermore, Lee wrote his book prior to the release of primary source information in the Soviet
archives just after the fall of communism in 1991. Much of the information released at that time may have
clarified or even contradicted some of Lee’s assertions. The arrival of such information after Lee wrote his
book therefore, may limit the credibility of Lee’s books relative to those written after the archives had been
opened and further information was made available.
The existence of such limiting bias would also explain why Lee fails to mention any of Stalin’s positive
contributions Industrialization. Stalin led Russia into the industrialized world for 30 years. Lee primarily
speaks of the contributions of the Tsar and Lenin in jumpstarting industrialization. By emphasizing the early
years of Stalin’s Rule, Lee avoids giving credit to Stalin’s plans for Industrialization and how Stalin was able
to maintain his policy of modernization of industry consistently until his death. Therefore, although Lee’s
account is useful in raising questions about the extent of Stalin’s contribution, the source appears to leave out
possibly crucial evidence that would allow a more realistic conclusion to be made based upon evidence from
Stalin’s entire career. In conclusion, it appears Stalin may not be deserving of the credit he has been given for
Industrializing Russia.
Specific Support
Conclusions
Tone of the Author
Emphasis of the
Author
Limits of the Source
Usefulness of the
Source
Origins of the Source
Purpose of the Source
Style of the Author