Iolo

No, no - it's politicians who live in the past, mun! Historians just study it!

DreamWeaver

lol

Lucius

But in 200 years, will not historians point back at our present-day historians and remark upon their obvious revisionist agendas?

Just asking.

DreamWeaver

Quite likely so, but thats the future.

Its a matter of building blocks. Newer works are built upon (directly upon or in direct opposition to) the foundations of older ones.

gaius valerius

"New" does not mean since last year. New-old must be seen in terms of methological approaches, we're talking about a 100 years ago to be talking old. Runciman is rather "new" from that perspective. The greatest bar is set by WW I, which more or less hails the end of the 19th century approaches and opens the way to the 20th century innovations (Annales, Linguistic Turn, New Social History, Interdisciplinarity, Gender, etc).

You putting forth a postmodern idea? Then why even bother with history as at best you can argue it's an interesting work of fiction and you can go have a cup of tea with Jenkins.

Do point out how the thesis of Kuhn (only as far as history goes - for Kuhn's paradigm-theory applies to many fields of science) is no longer valid? Sure history has known a lot of different angles and these fundamentally constitute the paradigmatic shifts that Kuhn has argued, the theory very well applies to history. The fact that context is important changes nothing to the whole discussion, at least, I don't see how you think it does. Do digress. Currently historians are obviously in consensus that they can't know everything, this has been the last and final challenge as of yet: the relativism of the postmodern onslaught. But again, that doesn't change what I said before.

Linschoten

New methodological approaches do not necessairily render old ones obsolete, they are just alternative approaches; and the OP was asking whether older historical works are likely to be less accurate. That depends largely on whether new written sources have become available, or new sources of information have become available (e.g. archaeological), or new techniques have opened up new modes of investigation. In any historical research that I have done (in relation to aspects of the ancient world, and to Dutch maritime history), I have almost invariably ended up using a range of secondary literature dating back to at least the mid-19th century, sometimes earlier. History is not generally like science in which the literature becomes dated in no time. Older works are not necessarily less accurate, but they may be more limited in some respects, and may have to be corrected or supplemented in the light of more recent investigations, one has to judge according to the case. As for bias, I am inclined to think that one is much more likely to be misled by the biases and prejudices of one's own age than those of past ages, which one recognizes at once and makes allowances for. On the matter on which I have been working most recently, the standard work (and only very complete one!) was written as long ago as 1898, and it is a work of the highest quality which is barely marked by its age at all. And it deals with an aspect of colonial history too, an area in which historians from past ages are often thought to have been particularly blinkered by their prejudices.

Ovidius

I think most Historians are influenced by Postmodernism. I have actually met Keith Jenkins, he is essentially an intellectual holocaust denier and a bit of a fool. I do not follow his overtly Postmodernism is the be all and end all. Nor do I believe that History is fictional - however, that doesn't mean that it isn't interpretation of events. Hence why many interpretations about events come about (or any subject anywhere). Historians of different periods and different paradigms do have different interpretations no less and no more valid than the next. There are of course exceptions to this - there are historians that attempt to derail consensus and those that simply make things up.

I don't believe in Paradigm shifts - Scientific Revolutions in History. I am quite sure that Kuhn is still relevant, to some extent, to Science. This comes down to the differences between Science and History. The main problem with applying Kuhn to History is the very suggestion that History shifts in the same way Science does - quite simply it does not.

For example, if there is a new discovery in Science a Paradigm shift can occur and totally change the understanding of how Science should be studied. Take Darwinism and its shift in to Genetics. That has a profound impact on the study of Science across many different arenas. It creates a new consensus between Scientists worldwide and opens up a new arena of study.

There is no consensus in History - not really. I think Historians have always been aware that they don't know everything. Relativism is also not a consensus. I fail to see what exactly is in consensus? The holocaust? In Science, things get put to bed, they get solved, there is an answer at each state of Scientific development. History goes back over the same ground continually. New things come along, but that doesn't cause a significant shift, the opposite happens. The reason for this is because History is not a Science and is based far more on interpretation and the feel of a Historian at the time.

gaius valerius

I met Jenkins myself to . Consensus is methodological btw, it has nothing to do with 'agreeing on the holocaust', it is methodology. The methodology of Historism and Ranke was the godlike absolute power of the original written sources, and though factually this kind of history was not wrong (for example writing on Luther he would not be making things up) yet the historical power of explanation is ultimately limited. The approaches of the 3 generations of Annales for example are a much more potent form of history (and all 3 differ from each other and create an even more total picture). Febvre and Bloch are much better to read then Ranke or Michelet.

Ovidius

Consensus can be on anything. My point on the Holocaust it is the only thing historically that Historians appear to agree (or not?).


I am aware of this, as all undergraduates of History are forced through the same Historiography introduction!

With the exception of very early Historians, what changes have really happened. Lets face it, there are still Marxist Historians and there are people who believe Marxist Historians have been discredited. There are still Historians very close to the Historism of Ranke.

Anyhow, I don't believe there aren't changes, methodological, theoretical and Philosophical - I just don't believe that there is really any agreement!

tjadams

One cannot, or should not, automatically reject information from 100 years ago. Often in the archeology, using Belzoni as an example, what he saw and uncovered might not be available today and all we have is what he wrote.
But, I welcome all and any new information that might be uncovered or that has come to light.