The profession has developed innovative techniques which have expanded the range of artifacts that it recognizes as evidence.And it has more or less agreed on rules for how to evaluate them.But there is no training and there are no rules for the process of constructing a story out of the disparate pieces of evidence. None of the conventions of historical discourse which signal that we are writing about the real past and not a fictive past address this dimension of our craft; critical practices within the profession set standards for making inferences from evidence, and footnotes offer a mechanism whereby scholars can also verify the existence and content of each others sources. But when it comes to creating a coherent account out of these evidential fragments, the historical method consists of only appealing to the muse Discuss… in 2,000 words. Okay then...
Posted on: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 10:04:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015