How History is 'Made'

We always study history in our school ever since we were little. When we had our Social Studies class during Junior High School, a question, which up to now has not been answered, popped into my mind: “How are we certain that those events really happened?”

Observations

As historians, their goal is to answer different questions surrounding the past through collecting and analyzing various sources and information; but, we should keep in mind that the reconstruction of the total past of mankind is unattainable (Gottschalk, 1950).

Historians also interpret the past using their personal experiences, which may get them as close to the truth as possible.

From what I have learned in the reading materials provided in our READHIS class, there are two types of sources: primary and secondary. Simply put, raw and second-hand information. These materials can be written, material, or oral, which may help historians understand the past.

How a source is preserved largely depends on how the technology and transmission of information worked at that time (ex. songs and sagas passed [and somehow altered] through oral traditions vs. speeches being recorded and watched simultaneously by the public).

Insights

It makes sense to me that we cannot re-create the total past because apparently, no human or creature has the ability to remember everything that happened since the beginning of time. In addition to that, primary research can be very time-consuming, sometimes requiring months or even years (“Primary vs. Secondary Research: The Pros and Cons,” 2019). Primary sources (diaries, artifacts, manuscripts, paintings, etc.), aside from being obtained, need to be examined thoroughly to know if it is relevant and credible.

On the other hand, secondary sources (scholarly articles, textbooks, documentaries, etc.) are more accessible and can be conducted more quickly; however, it also has its disadvantages. Information may be colored by the researcher’s own bias or faulty approach (“Understanding Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Sources,” n.d.). This may persuade the reader to lean on a certain perspective.

You might think that once credible sources are being collected and the historians conducted the historical analysis, their job is done. In some cases, more and more questions arise. Take Stonehenge as an example: it is a World Heritage Site that still remains mysterious to many. Many archaeologists have formulated their own theories with corresponding evidence. Professor Darvil said that it was a place of pilgrimage for the people [...] coming to get healed (Wilson, 2011). Some theorized that it was made by extraterrestrial creatures, a calendar, and such. In June 2020, a ring of at least 20 prehistoric shafts about 2 miles from the famous Neolithic site of immense upright stones was discovered (Romo, 2020). Because of the recently discovered primary sources, more questions are being asked and more theories are being developed; though I think that these questions will soon narrow down and we can come up with vivid answers.

Learning

Being able to collect both primary and secondary sources on a certain topic is vital to help historians get closer to the truth of the past. Obtaining such sources is difficult and is only the beginning; they still have to check their credibility and relevance to the topic. Relying on one’s experiences, or historical subjectivity, is always applied. Hence, we cannot say that the history we know is objective. As what Crane (2006) stated in her review article: “Subjectivity and objectivity are related, not opposed...”

Having a broader knowledge about how history is being re-created through the use of different sources, I now understand that the past cannot be reconstructed with 100% accuracy - that is something beyond our skills, considering that time, of course, also portrays a big role in this. However, more information that we used to know as factual is being debunked because of new discoveries with higher accuracy and credibility.

Going back to my question earlier, I think that I now have a clearer understanding of it. No one cannot say what exactly happened to humankind’s entire past. Even if we cannot re-create history itself, such sources, whether primary or secondary, will always be of help to historians in extracting more information; we just need to dig deeper, and soon, we can find answers to history’s biggest questions.

---

References

Crane, S. A. (2006, June 1). Historical Subjectivity: A Review Essay. The Journal of Modern History. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/505803?journalCode=jmh.

Gottschalk, L. R. (1950). Understanding history. Alfred A. Knopf.

Primary vs. Secondary Research: The Pros and Cons. ToxPlanet. (2019, February 8). https://www.toxplanet.com/primary-vs-secondary-research-the-pros-and-cons.html.

Romo, V. (2020, June 23). Immense Neolithic Ring Discovered Near Stonehenge. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2020/06/23/881970286/immense-neolithic-ring-discovered-near-stonehenge#:~:text=the%20summer%20solstice.-,Archaeologists%20on%20Monday%20announced%20the%20discovery%20of%20a,shafts%20about%202%20miles%20away.&text=The%20mystery%20near%20and%20around%20Stonehenge%20keeps%20growing.&text=Archaeologists%20say%20the%20%22astonishing%22%20shafts,(1.2%20miles)%20in%20diameter.

Understanding Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Sources. Thoughtful Learning (n.d.). http://thoughtfullearning.com/inquireHSbook/pg376#:~:text=Disadvantages%3A%20Because%20secondary%20sources%20are,more%20quickly%20than%20in%20others).

Wilson, H. (2011, February 17). Ancient History in depth: The healing stones. BBC History. https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/british_prehistory/healing_stones.shtml#:~:text=A%20new%20theory&text=Instead%2C%20they%20think%20Stonehenge%20was%20a%20site%20of%20healing.&text=%22The%20whole%20purpose%20of%20Stonehenge,prehistoric%20Lourdes%2C%22%20says%20Wainwright.&text=Darvill%20and%20Wainwright%20believe%20the%20reason%20was%20the%20magical%2C%20healing,proximity%20to%20traditional%20healing%20springs.