Historical Evidence And Argument
Historians know about the past because they examine the evidence. But what exactly is “evidence,” how do historians know what it means—and how can we trust them to get it right? Historian David Henige tackles such questions of historical reliability head-on in his skeptical, unsparing, and acerbically witty Historical Evidence and Argument. “Systematic doubt” is his watchword, and he practices what he preaches through a variety of insightful assessments of historical controversies—for example, over the dating of artifacts and the textual analysis of translated documents. Skepticism, Henige contends, forces us to recognize the limits of our knowledge, but is also a positive force that stimulates new scholarship to counter it.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
The Anxieties of Ambiguity
Unraveling Gordian Knots
12 other sections not shown
accept Albright ancient appeared Archaeology archeological archeologists archives argue argument argument from silence Assyrian astronomical Bamboo Annals Bayeux Tapestry believe biblical Canek Manuscript century chronology claim Columbus's Copper Scroll critical debate dence dendrochronology discussion document Dogon doubt dynasty earlier early Ebla eclipse edition editors effect evidence example excavations eyewitness fact footnotes Hammurabi Henige historians historiography Iceland idem Inca Indians inscriptions interpretation Israel issue Ithobaal Josephus Josephus's Journal kinglists later least less literary maps Masada matter modern myth notion oral tradition Pankenier past plausible possible published question readers reason recent refer reign reliable rely Review rulers scholarly scholars Shang Shang dynasty Sicarii silence skepticism t]he testimony textual textual criticism tion translation travel accounts treat truth Tyrian W.F. Albright William word writing written Xia dynasty
Recent Themes in Historical Thinking: Historians in Conversation
Donald A. Yerxa
Limited preview - 2008