Historical method

Lore & Background

Historical method encompasses the collection of techniques and guidelines historians use to research and write histories of the past. It draws on secondary sources, primary sources, and material evidence such as that derived from archaeology. The historian's skill lies in identifying these sources, evaluating their relative authority, and combining their testimony appropriately to construct an accurate and reliable picture of past events and environments. In the philosophy of history, the question of the nature and possibility of a sound historical method is raised within the sub-field of epistemology. The study of historical method and of different ways of writing history is known as historiography.

Reader's Guide

Historical method is significant because it provides the foundational framework for how historians research and write history. It involves source criticism, which is the process of evaluating the qualities of an information source, such as its validity, reliability, and relevance. Gilbert J. Garraghan and Jean Delanglez divided source criticism into six inquiries: date, localization, authorship, analysis, integrity, and credibility. The first four are known as higher criticism; the fifth, lower criticism; and together, external criticism. The sixth inquiry is internal criticism. R. J. Shafer noted that external criticism is sometimes said to have a negative function, merely saving us from using false evidence, whereas internal criticism has the positive function of telling us how to use authenticated evidence. Louis Gottschalk set down the general rule that for each particular of a document the process of establishing credibility should be separately undertaken regardless of the general credibility of the author. Bernheim and Langlois & Seignobos proposed a seven-step procedure for source criticism, including that if sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proven, but majority does not rule. Core principles for determining reliability were formulated by Olden-Jørgensen and Thurén Torsten, including that human sources may be relics or narratives, relics being more credible; any given source may be forged or corrupted; the closer a source is to the event, the more trustworthy; an eyewitness is more reliable than hearsay; independent sources with the same message increase credibility; and tendencies should be minimized. Historians also use external and internal criteria of authenticity to separate genuine sources from forgeries. R. J. Shafer offered a checklist for evaluating eyewitness testimony, and Louis Gottschalk added that certain kinds of statements are both incidental and probable to such a degree that error or falsehood seems unlikely.

Did You Know?

• Garraghan's six questions for source criticism include: (1) When was the source produced? (2) Where was it produced? (3) By whom was it produced? (4) From what pre-existing material was it produced?
• Bernheim and Langlois & Seignobos did not claim that unanimous agreement among sources proves an event; they stressed critical evaluation of each source's independence and reliability.
• The core principles of historical method were established earlier by Bernheim, Langlois & Seignobos, and Garraghan, not solely by Olden-Jørgensen and Thurén.

The Craft of Historical Inquiry

Historical method encompasses the full range of techniques and guiding principles that scholars employ when investigating and narrating the past. Rather than relying on a single type of evidence, the working historian draws upon a broad spectrum of materials: primary documents, secondary scholarly works, and physical artifacts recovered through archaeological investigation. The central competency of the discipline is not merely gathering these materials but exercising judgment in identifying which sources are relevant, weighing their relative authority against one another, and weaving their combined testimony into a coherent and trustworthy reconstruction of events and environments that no longer exist. In this sense, the method functions less as a rigid formula and more as a disciplined practice of interpretation, where the historian must constantly negotiate between what the evidence offers and what a credible narrative demands. The ultimate aim is to produce an account that is both accurate in its factual claims and reliable in its overall interpretive framework.

The Architecture of Source Criticism

Source criticism, sometimes called information evaluation, is the structured process by which a historian assesses the validity, reliability, and relevance of any given piece of evidence. In 1946, Gilbert J. Garraghan and Jean Delanglez articulated six foundational inquiries that frame this assessment: determining when a source was produced, where it originated, who authored it, what pre-existing material fed into its composition, what its original form was, and ultimately what evidential weight its contents carry. The first four questions constitute what is termed higher criticism, while the fifth falls under lower criticism; together these form the domain of external criticism. The sixth inquiry, concerning the credibility of a source's content, is classified as internal criticism. As R. J. Shafer observed, external criticism serves a protective, negative function—shielding the researcher from false evidence—whereas internal criticism performs a constructive, positive role by guiding how authenticated material should actually be employed. Louis Gottschalk further emphasized that even a generally trustworthy author requires each individual statement to be independently verified, since overall credibility cannot substitute for case-by-case examination.

Navigating Contradiction and Establishing Trust

When sources conflict, historians must rely on a set of procedural and principled guidelines to determine which claims deserve acceptance. In the late nineteenth century, Bernheim and the pair Langlois and Seignobos proposed a seven-step framework: unanimous agreement among sources can establish an event as proven, yet a mere majority never suffices without passing critical textual analysis. Where two accounts diverge, the historian should favor the source produced by an expert or eyewitness, particularly when the event was widely known among contemporaries. Independent corroboration between separately created sources measurably strengthens each one's reliability, and when no other evaluative means exist, common sense serves as a final arbiter. More recently, Scandinavian scholars Olden-Jørgensen and Thurén Torsten distilled additional core principles: physical relics carry greater inherent credibility than narrative accounts; proximity in time to the described event enhances trustworthiness; and a source's tendency—that is, its underlying motivation for bias—must be identified and either minimized or counterbalanced. They also stressed that demonstrating a witness has no direct stake in distorting the account bolsters the message's credibility, while strong indicators of a source's originality guard against forgery or corruption.

Epistemology, Historiography, and Contested Grounds

The question of whether a truly sound historical method can exist is not merely practical but philosophical, situated squarely within the epistemological branch of the philosophy of history. The systematic study of historical method and the various traditions of writing history falls under the discipline of historiography. Yet despite broad agreement on foundational principles, professional historians remain divided on the specifics: as one observation puts it, particular canons of historical proof are neither widely observed nor generally agreed upon. This fragmentation is especially acute in fields such as religion, art, science, democracy, and social justice, which scholars have described as essentially contested domains. Because these subjects resist a single interpretive framework, they demand diverse analytical tools tailored to each field before any meaningful interpretation can begin. Later formulations of historical method have sought to move beyond the credulity embedded in nineteenth-century approaches—where harmonizing conflicting reports was the primary goal—by articulating principles that allow a historian to judge a statement's reliability or unreliability on its own merits, independent of whether it fits neatly alongside other sources.

Gallery