CHAPTER 2
HISTORIOGRAPHY THROUGH
THE AGES
Johnson O. Ndubuisi (PhD)
Introduction
Humans have always exhibited an acute interest in their past. It is therefore no surprise that Historiography as a formal field of study began to take shape from very early times, and many different approaches and techniques to reconstruct the past have been proposed over the past two millennia (Mandavilli, 2016). This chapter examines the meaning, importance, evolution, changes and continuity on the subject matter of historiography. The important role historiography plays in the study of history continues to resonate in time and space across regions of the world. Historiography as a concept is what aptly distinguishes the mere facts of history from historical knowledge and practice. Remove historiography, the study of history becomes flattened as all comer’s affair as much as one could regurgitate the memory of events in which he or she had either witnessed or received from ancestors and patriarchs alike.
There is no denying the fact that all human cultures tell stories about the past. Deeds of ancestors, heroes, gods, or animals sacred to particular peoples were chanted and memorized long before there was any writing with which to record them. Their truth was authenticated by the very fact of their continued repetition. History, which may be defined as an account that purports to be true of events and ways of thinking and feeling in some part of the human past, stems from this archetypal human narrative activity.
Merely sharing a common ancestry withmyth, legend, epic poetry, and the novel can pass for story telling or narratives whose proof can be authenticated by the scrutiny of historiography methods of analysis. In historical parlance, the claim to truth of events of the past is based in part on the fact that all the persons or events it describes really existed or occurred at some time in the past, which must be backed up by available evidence, otherwise historians may have little to say about these events. Such evidence customarily takes the form of something written, such as a letter, a law, an administrative record, or the account of some previous historian. In addition, historians sometimes create their own evidence by interviewing people. In the 20th century the scope of historical evidence was greatly expanded to include, among many other things, aerial photographs, the rings of trees, old coins, clothes, motion pictures, and houses.
The field of Historiography took shape during the time of the Greeks, and Greek scholars such as Heredotus, Hecataeus of Miletus, Ephorus, Demophilus, Polybius and Diodorus greatly contributed to the field. Greek scholarship was of very high standard, and most of the basic principles of historiography were formulated during this period. The next major period of growth came during the period of the Romans, and Quintus Fabius Pictor, Cato the Censor, Livy, Cornelius Tacitus and Antipater were the major Roman scholars of Historiography. Historiography also developed independently in China and Japan. In China, the oldest history was recorded in the Oracle bone script around the end of the second millennium BC. The earliest works of history in Japan were the Rikkokushi, a corpus of national histories of Japan from its early mythological beginnings until the 9th century AD.
Other schools of historiography included Church Historiography which was oriented towards religious needs, Arab Historiography (known through writers such as Ibn Khaldun, Waqidi and Al-Madaini) which made an attempt to reconcile ancient Greek methodologies in historiography with Church historiography, and the German School of Historiography and its dialectics (Karl Marx was also greatly influenced by this school).
Major changes have occurred in the field of historiography since the time of Karl Marx, and of late there has been a tendency to view history more as a science than an art. It is being increasingly interfaced with Geography, Economics, Sociology, Psychology, Archaeology, Anthropology, Philology and other sciences. Schools such as the Annales School have also helped incorporate social scientific methods into history. New trends in historiography also include Cliometrics, Comparative history, Cultural history, history of art, history of literature, subaltern history or history from below etc. Postmodernist thoughts and ideas have also been applied in History. This includes critical interpretations of several aspects of the Twenty-first century such as culture, literature, history, art, philosophy, linguistics, economics, and fiction (Mandavilli, 2016).
There also have been other schools of historiography in different parts of the world. The Indian Nationalist School of historiography arose from the desire to set right alleged biases and prejudices in Colonial historiography but was largely discredited due to its methodological flaws. One of the progenitors of this school was Bankim Chandra Chatterjee. Offshoots of this school of thought, are Hindutva interpretations of history, which do not constitute a school at all, and merely seek to propagate Hindu nationalist agendas (Mandavilli, 2016).
In the distant past, history appeared to be an exclusive preserve of the Western scholars whose narratives projected a dominant Europe as the centre of history and historical scholarship, while dismissing other regions as peripheral areas of history that can only be seen from the lens of European history. Besides, history was limited to narratives of facts without really subjecting them to rigorous intellectual scrutiny and analysis. These continued until the Rankean revolution took place in the 19th century, which elicited other methods of looking at history. Thus, just as the methods at the disposal of historians have expanded, so have the subjects they have become interested in. For example, many of the indigenous peoples of Africa, the Americas, and Polynesia, that were long dismissed by Europeans as having no pre-colonial history, because they did not keep written records before the arrival of European explorers, have rigorously provided corpus of historical narratives and evidence to show that they have rich pre-colonial history in deference to the assumptions of Hegel and Trevor Roper. Hence, sophisticated study of oral traditions, combined with advances in archaeology, has made it possible to discover a good deal about the civilizations and empires that flourished in these regions before European contact (www.britannica.com, 2019).
Historians have also studied new social classes. The earliest histories were mostly stories of disasters such as floods, famines, and plagues, or of wars, including the statesmen and generals who figured in them. In the 20th century, however, historians shifted their focus from statesmen and generals to ordinary workers and soldiers. Until relatively recent times, however, most men and virtually all women were excluded from history because they were unable to write. Virtually all that was known about them passed through the filter of the attitudes of literate elites. The challenge of seeing through that filter has been met by historians in various ways. One way is to make use of nontraditional sources; for example, personal documents, such as wills or marriage contracts. Another is to look at the records of localities rather than of central governments (www.britannica.com, 2019).
Through these means even the most oppressed peoples of African-American slaves or medievalheretics, for example, have had at least some of their history restored. Since the 20th century some historians have also become interested in psychological repression in attitudes and actions that require psychological insight and evendiagnosis to recover and understand. For the first time, the claim of historians to deal with the feelings as well as the thoughts of people in any part of the human past has been made good. Nevertheless, in spite these advances, one cannot say that history writing has assumed a perfect or completed form. Be that as it may, 21st-century historians understand the pasts of more people more completely and more accurately than their predecessors did (www.britannica.com, 2019).
This chapter demonstrates the scope of that accomplishment and how it came to be achieved. To this end, the study examines the concept of historiography, the importance/benefits of historiography, and stages in the development of historiography to the present.
Conceptual Meaning of History and Historiography
History has been given various names by different people across the regions of the world. As the name differ, though meaning same history, so also historiography has been approached by people according to time and space. The English word history, as well as the French histoire and the Italian storia, stems from the Greek historia, which was used first to refer to a general inquiry into things and only later to refer to history as it is now understood. Germans speak of Geschichte (from geschehen, "to happen"); Chinese choose shih (meaning both "fact" and "history"); Hindus use terms such as itihāsa (tradition; literally., "verily thus it happened") and purāṇa (ancient lore); and Arabs alternate tarʾikh (derived from the word for dating events), khabar ("report"), and ʿibar (derived from the verb meaning "to pass on, through, over, or beyond"). Because the meanings of these terms are bound to cultures and periods, etymological analysis does not provide a ready explanation for the universality of the writing of history (Mandavilli, 2016), though they serve the purpose of gathering facts as they occur for transmitting from one person to the other or generation to generation. However, this act of gathering facts is systematized in order to achieve meaning purpose, then historiography comes in handy.
When asked a seemingly simple question, what is historiography? It comes with a usual weighty answer as the art and the science of writing history which includes specialized techniques and tools for the study of history. It is also a structured study of the art and methods of writing history and research methodologies pertaining to various aspects of history. There is also specialization by region and period, examples being the “History of the French Revolution,” the “History of South America" or the “History of Ancient China”. Historiography has also broadened in scope, from traditional views of history as narratives of events to Marxist historiography emphasizing historical materialism and more recent post-modern schools of historiography (Mandavilli, 2016).
Historiography is the study of how history is written and how our historical understanding changes over time. Historiography considers the approaches used by historians and seeks to understand how and why their theories and interpretations differ. While the past itself never changes, history – in other words, our understanding of the past – is always evolving. New historians explore and interpret the past through their own methods, priorities and values. They develop new theories and conclusions that may change the way we understand the past. Historiography acknowledges and discusses this process of change (alphahistory.com., 2019).
Lending their own contribution, Zahoor and Bilal (2013, p. 29) defines historiography as ‘the art of writing history’, ‘history of history’, or ‘history of historical writings’. It is the study of the history and methodology of the discipline of history. Furay and Salevouris cited in (Kipgen, 2019) supporting the above define historiography as “the study of the way history has been and is written — the history of historical writing...”.
Buttressing the definition of historiography, Erim (2004) in his analysis of the two related concepts - history and historiography, argues that historiography itself is a discipline dealing with the methods of writing history and the techniques of the historical research and documentation. This makes it clear for the understanding of history as an organized and critical study of the past happenings as had produced sufficient effects on subsequent course of events or other human beings in the course of events. Similarly, Afigbo cited in Mohammed (2013) views historiography “as the science of writing history”. More so, Dike and Ajayi gave a more elaborate view of historiography as the discovery and critical assessments of historical sources, next is the reconstruction and description of the past on the basis of facts available and to a large extent involved to allocate, conscientize, the society, or even assist in influencing aspects of contemporary public opinion, action or policy and the reflection on trends and the patterns of historical writing (Mohammed, 2013). Given above attempts at defining historiography, it is pertinent to add that historiography is very holistic and critical in nature. Therefore, for abalanced treatment and analysis of the subject matter of historiography, a serious minded historian would readily encompass all the components contained in the definitions in order to produce a worthy historical study.
Historiography is a difficult and complex study. It is an important component of most college or university-level history courses, where students are expected to know about the past and how it has been interpreted over time. Many senior secondary and high school courses include some basic historiography, usually through the study of different historians and competing historical interpretations (alphahistory.com., 2019).
The earliest definitions of history were given by the Greeks and the Romans, and various scholars ancient and modern, such as Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Aristotle, Henry Johnson, Thomas Carlyle, Lord Acton and Marquis de Condorcet have speculated on the nature of history (Mandavilli, 2016).
Historiography mediates between facts and interpretation of the facts. Thus, to understand historiography, one must first accept that history is never set in stone. Our understanding of the past is not immune to criticism, challenge or revision. One must also understand the critical difference between historical facts (things shown conclusively by evidence and accepted as true) and history (the human study and interpretation of these things). When left on their own, however, these facts can be ‘dry’, isolated or devoid of meaning. Therefore, the role of the historian is to make sense of these facts through research and analysis. To do this, they examine and interpret evidence, form conclusions, develop theories and articulate their findings in writing (alphahistory.com., 2019).
Historians do not write and interpret these facts in a vacuum; hence they strive to answer many questions, including:
§ How and why particular actions, events or ideas came to be(causes).
§ The outcomes of particular actions, events or ideas (effects or consequences).
§ The contributions made by different people, groups and ideas (actions).
§ The relative importance or impact of different people, groups or ideas (significance).
§ Things that altered and things that stayed the same over a period of time (changeandcontinuity).
Unlike the physical sciences, history often churns out different answers to the same question. Historians frequently study the same sets of facts but end up reaching different explanations or conclusions (alphahistory.com., 2019). To this end, Gottschalk (1969, p. 48) affirms that “theimaginative reconstruction of the past from the data derived by that process is called historiography (the writing of history)”.
Importance of Historiography to the Study of History
Historiography is obviously very important to the study of history in the following ways:
First, written records make it possible for history to be studied, and interpretations of historical documentation by historians provide the opinion of an expert in the field on a given topic.
Second, history is arguably the hardest subject to define precisely because many other disciplines influence and contribute to it, therefore, historians dedicate their careers to collect historical evidence through primary and secondary resources. Thus, it is important that these views are studied to increase our knowledge of human nature and to help us answer important questions about human life (Concordia University, 2008).
Third, given the fact that piecing together parts of history for the purpose of study is not easy even as evidence is often biased, incomplete or inaccurate. This makes it difficult for researchers and historians to come to factual conclusions based on information from intermediarysources. Thus, with the aid of historiography, there is also much room for interpretation in the study of history, Historians endeavour to present coherent and specific records to preventmisunderstanding, misleading, bias and incomplete facts (Concordia University, 2008).
Fourth, historians often disagree over why events happen and the ways in which historyhappens, according to various schools of thought. These ventilations lead to a better understanding of the world’s current affairs and how to respond to them.
Fifth, Historiography aids historians to be critical in their work to avoid errors whiledeciphering historical facts. Through this means, historians strive to discover new facts in their research (Concordia University, 2008).
Sixth, it is beneficial to anyone studying history to also study historiography and the works of several historical experts. An overwhelming amount of information is available on any given historical topic; therefore, it is imperative that the most reliable and informative sources are used to develop an understanding of the broad subject of history.
Seventh, the study of historiography will lead to a greater understanding of humanity, and the mistakes and misjudgments of mankind. Without history and historiography, we would be blindly venturing into the future without considering past mistakes or successes, having not studied how and why events occur. Mistakes in history can be very valuable. If we can learn from past mistakes it is less likely that we will make the same ones over again. This can only be done through the preservation and review of historical records written by historians devoted to providing the public with reliable and factual information (Riana, 2019).
Still on the importance of historiography, brainly.com (2019) in a nutshell aptly stated that it enables historians to:
§ understand how the study of history has changed over time;
§ apply their knowledge of history when making charts and graphs;
§ create historical narratives that are more interesting to readers; and
§ make sure none of their historical claims and arguments are biased
In similar vein though with a different lens, Cheprasov (2016) outlined the importance of historiography for a wide number of reasons. These include:
§ It helps us understand why historical events have been interpreted so differently over time. In other words, historiography helps us examine not only history itself, but also the broader, overlying characteristics that shape the recording of history itself.
§ Historiography lets us study history with a critical eye. It helps us understand what biases may have shaped the historical record. It ensures we do not blindly trust what we read from historians. Simultaneously, it ensures we do not fall victim to the same mistakes some previous historians may have made.
§ By extension, historiography lets us dig for, and get to, the factual history behind the historical myth, so to speak. It gives us a way to re-interpret the biases of a historian's perspective in a more equitable manner. So long as we remain unbiased in the process, of course.
§ Historiography also helps generalists and specialists alike. Think of socioeconomic history, for example. To a generalist, it's important to get an overall sense of how historians viewed the various social classes and why. Perhaps some historians thought the poor were poor because of their own doing. Why? Were those historians part of the privileged class, and did they have a clear bias? For specialists, the study of history is important for its details. How were socioeconomic factors such as income, census reports, and related numbers recorded and by whom? Do they give an accurate representation of one social group's poverty or not? Are the numbers, quite literally, fudged, or can they be trusted to reflect accurately the disparity between classes?
§ Ultimately, historiography gives us an appreciation of how factors that shape and alter the recording of history shape and alter our interpretation of it as a result.
To university students of history, historiography can serve three main purposes. Johnson (2005, p.528) explained that there are several advantages for using historiography in graduate education:
First, it serves as a continuum connecting past, present, and future that links all aspects of the discipline.
Second, historiography trains the student to think historically over broad spans of time; a tool that can then be applied in their other courses and in their own research.
Third, it challenges students to link themes, trends, methodological approaches over the breadth of time to see cause and effect within the spectrum of historical writing. We sum this segment with Fallace (2009, p. 206; Flowers and Hunt, 2019) position that historical knowledge includes not just an understanding of facts, but of how the facts were constructed; he suggested that “historiographical knowledge will allow teachers to provide a more accurate view of the epistemological value of history, and that teachers will pass this knowledge to their students”
Stages in the Evolution of Historiography
History is coloured by the current ideas of a country or age. The Greek emphasized the rational interpretation of history, the Romans gave a political twist to it, the church historians made God live in history, the Germans made it more philosophical, the Marxists more materialistic, the French more socialistic and the British more imperialistic. The Arab view, the Chinese view and the Indian view of history are all different. The historiography of the Enlightenment era, Romanticist era, Positivist era and scientific era are all different. The nature of history varies according to the prevailing philosophy of the time, and even from historian to historian. A historian’s outlook on society will have an impact on his writing (Kipgen, 2019). Though historiography and philosophy of history seem to be interlinked with each other, they noticeably differ in meaning and motif vis-à-vis writing and purpose of history (Kumar and Karunakaran, 2014).
Ancient Historiography/Antiquity
This was the kind of historiography that existed before Herodotus, the acclaimed father of history wrote Histories. History then (based on understanding of the pre-historical documents) was considered an account of the events that were meticulously designed and exclusively delivered either by the gods or by their representative agents such as kings on the earth (they were identified with the incarnation of a god). In other words, those events recorded in ancient documents were not considered as human actions, but were deeds of the god directly or indirectly. This kind of history was not considered history proper, but a quasi-history by historiographers like R G Collingwood. Collingwood (1946) strongly argues that such history appears to be mere assertions of the knowledge that the writer of history possesses, but not the answer of the questions, nor the result of any researches. He referred to such quasi-history as both theocratic and form of myth which are not concerned with human actions at all. The human element was said to be completely purged away while the characters of the story were simply gods.
Such history was also accused of being uncertain due to the temporal nature of myth; undated and as such unacceptable for history proper. There is a contention that a mythical consciousness of the past is inescapably embedded in theogony and embodies a frame of narratives which incorporate gods and semi-gods as their characters. Genealogical records and commemorative archives of Egypt and Babylon are some more examples for further illustrations (Kumar and Karunakaran, 2104; Lemon, 2003). It is evidently clear that a mythical consciousness of the past is potentially incapable of producing a history that can be acceptable as a scientific history.
Greek Historiography
In the fifth century BC the Greek historiography witnessed many historians who successfully jettisoned the divine, mythical and epic components from their writing and simultaneously made inroad into a new world of historical writing. Apparently, the history writing of this period underwent radical changes since the focus of the historian’s attention shifted from the divine, semi-divine and supernatural to the humanity to a great extent. As a result, the methodology of writing was deliberately fashioned after systematic and scientific inquiry based on researches and thus, history was presented in the form of narrative of human actions (Kumar and Karunakaran, 2104).
Herodotus (484- 425 BC) is considered by many to be the father of historiography and also pioneered investigative techniques in the field of historiography. It is believed he largely drew his inspiration from another early Greek historian by the name of Hecataeus of Miletus who lived between 550 BC and 476 BC. Herodotus is chiefly remembered for his fast-paced style of writing, ability to engage readers, and his first-hand accounts of events (Mandavilli, 2016; Obiegbu, 1998). Herodotus was succeeded by other historians such as Thucydides, Xenophon, Demosthenes, Plato, and Aristotle. Poets like Homer and Hesiod also wrote many poems with historical content. Athenian historian Thucydides also contributed greatly to historiography. Although he was not as famous as Herodotus, he was known for his meticulousness of approach, his deep and very critical analysis of events, his accuracy and his ability to construct and derive general principles from an analysis of historical data. Posidonius and Polybius were other eminent Greek historians (Mandavilli, 2016).
Greek Historiography is also well-known for its rational and meticulous approach to issues. The historical period of Ancient Greece is unique in world history as this is the first period associated with a well-developed historiography noted for its comprehensiveness of analysis and depth of thought, while earlier ancient history or proto-history is only attested much more indirectly, and to the extent it existed, is considered to be of lower quality and caliber and did not encompass scientific methods to any degree. The Greeks, on the whole, set very high standards of scholarship in the nascent field of historiography, incubating several core and critical principles in the field, and eventually handing over the baton to the Romans (Bentley, 1997; Breisach, 1997).
Roman Historiography
Roman historiography greatly owes its origins to Greek historiography, which critically influenced its development from very early times. This is why some scholars refer to it as Greeco-Roman historiography. Polybius who is credited to continue the tradition of the Greek historiography was himself a Greek born Roman historian (Kumar and Karunakaran, 2104). However, given the high standard of excellence set by the Greeks, Roman historians were therefore considered to be less innovative and more imitative, as they borrowed heavily from Greek sources and only modified them to suit their own needs. This was largely and chiefly because of the Greek influence on Rome during the Roman subjugation of Greece. Although the Romans had triumphed politically, they were heavily influenced by Greek culture and traditions. Roman historiographical forms began to change direction from those of Greek by focusing more on Roman concerns. The most well-known preceptor of Roman historiography was Quintus Fabius Pictor, also popularly known as the “Founder of Historiography”. Unlike the Greeks, Roman historiography did not start out with an oral historical tradition. The Roman style of history was based on the way the Annals of the Pontifex Maximus, or the Annales Maximi, were recorded. Before the second Punic war, there was no historiography in Rome, but after, it was needed to commemorate this important occasion (Mandavilli, 2016). Though Quintus Fabius Pictor mostly wrote in Greek, using Olympiad dating and a Hellenistic style, he differed from those of the Greeks in that his style of historiography tilted towards defending the Roman state and its actions, and making heavy use of propaganda, which eventually became a hallmark of Roman historiography. Cato the Censor was the greatest of the early Roman historians, who rose from a very humble background to become one of the greatest Historians of all times. Livy, Cornelius Tacitus and Antipater were other great historians of Rome. With the arrival of Cato, the Censor who lived between 234 and 149 BC, the character of Roman history began to change somewhat. Roman historiography borrowed heavily from the Greeks, but was less analytical in approach and often lacked in rigour and depth (Mandavilli, 2016).
Finley writes, Polybius wrote the history of the city of Rome which was at that time politically strong, adult and was brimming with zeal of conquest. Thus it was quite obvious that for Polybius history was an engagement with politics of the time (Finley,1959). In Collingwood’s (1946) conception, Polybius’ motive of writing history was not to provide a scientifically true or demonstrative historical analysis, engaged in it as a school and training ground for political life. In this way, he apparently differs from Herodotus who thought history as science and from Thucydides who did not raise the question of the value of history.
Christian Historiography
During the period the Roman Empire consolidated its power in Europe, Asia and Africa in the fourth century AD, Christianity became the dominant religion. Consequently, it gave a new impetus to the growth and development of Christian historiography which was influenced by Christian theology and the development of the Biblical canon. It is remarkable to notice that the Christian historians preferred the written sources such as the Bible for their history writing whereas the Classical historians relied mainly on the oral sources. Theirs was based on the idea of world history as the result of divine intervention in the affairs of men and women. It resulted in the creation of a unified chronology that reconciled all history around the birth of Christ.
It propagated a universal history. These writings were in the defence of their religionagainst pagan world or against rival Christian groups (heretical groups), though they alsoincluded politically unimportant persons. History was in the form of religious apologetics. Interestingly, the Christian historiography may be credited mainly for shaping history in periodized form through the inclusion of comprehensive chronologies (Kumar and Karunakaran, 2104).
Eusebius, for example, narrated the church history in Ecclesiastical History in the fourth century AD by giving a chronological account of the development of Christianity from the first century to the fourth century. It follows that his full length historical narrative was written from the Christian point of view. Hence it can be argued that the Christian historiography embodies the core ideology of the existence and supremacy of God with such phrases as - there is a God, and God is in control of history, and history has a moral purpose (Eusebius, 1860). In all, Church historiography left an indelible mark on other fields of historiography as well. Noted church historiographers were St. Augustine and Salvian, and bishops and other religious leaders also played a critical role in the development of church historiography.
Medieval Historiography
From the fifth century to the eleventh century, the monks served as annalists and chroniclers and produced a corpus of historical writings fused with ecclesiastical elements in it. Among the best known medieval historians were Gregory – Bishop of Tours (538-594) and Venerable Bede (672-735). Bede, for example, wrote The Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation(1870) that consists of an extraordinary combination of chronology and hagiography. In other words, the history was not often written in objective and rational manner, because those chronicles detail the intervention of God in human events and lives of holy men and women. It can be noticed that annals were the main product of medieval historiography and the annalist merely set down the most important events of the current year. But from the twelfth century to fourteenth century, Europe witnessed an intensified progress in culture and learning. As a result, many encyclopedic compilations were brought out. The historiography of this period can be viewed as the continuation of Greek learning and culture. There was a revival of the concept of critical theory and attention was paid to rational analysis, cause and effect. History was mainly written by statesmen, high officials, and prelates. There was a great historical corpus produced by the medieval chroniclers which was not fully exploited till recently (Kumar and Karunakaran, 2104).
Spiegel (1975, p.315) asserts, ‘Medieval historiography offers an excellent subject for investigating the function of the past in medieval political life, for surely few complex societies have so clearly regulated their life in accordance with their vision of the past.’ In spite of the fact that the period did not provide any significant method of writing history, the medieval historiography contributed through the annals and chronicles in producing extensive historical records of the Medieval age and those writings in turn, continued to partially influence the Renaissance historiography that succeeded it.
The Renaissance Historiography
The emergent Renaissance era also known as the Humanist period in Europe could be regarded as a revolution against medieval historiography as man instead of Church became the main focus of attention. Thus, the Humanist extolled princes in place of glorification of martyrs that was typical of medieval era. The period was a revivalist attempt to reinvent classical literature. Writers of this period adopted a rational and secular approach to matters which were formerly placed in the domain of the divine.
As expressed by Collingwood (1946, p. 57), ‘… a return was made to a humanistic view of history based on the ancients.’ Thus, historical writing changed for good in its approaches, methods and techniques. In other words, it was the man who was again in the centre of historical thought, not the predominance of God and its omnipotent machinery for that matter.
Obiegbu (1997) posited that during this time, historical studies were greatly influenced by exploration and the invention of printing. A well known Humanist writer of the time was Leonardo Bruni (13-1444) who wrote the Twelve Books of Florentine History. He proceeded to analyze events and rejected the role of miracles. It can be asserted that it was a clear departure from the fanciful and ill-founded medieval historiography, although the role of divinity was not absolutely eliminated.
The Enlightenment Historiography
The historiography of the Enlightenment was inclined to transfer the objective and impartial methods of natural science to the analysis and improvement of human social structures.
It was inspired by natural science and based on formulating the general rules governing thedevelopment of human societies. In other words, it was a rationalistic historiography wherereason dominated the historical thoughts of the major components of historiography such as GiambattistaVico, Montesquieu, Gibbon etc.
The strong points of Enlightenment historiography are embodied in its ‘… capacity to study particular societies as coherent units and to formulate the theory that the various aspects of each society’s life were closely interrelated’ (The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 20, 15 ed. 559-574). Apparently, there was a strong insistence on the relation of man to his environment in historical writings and in turn, they influenced the political and religious institutions of that period. It is quite evident that the historical thoughts of the Enlightenment era elicited the modern scientific spirit that was responsible for the historical methodologies that tried to establish the universal laws of analysis and explanation of the entire body of human history. However, based on writing of historians like Montesquieu and Gibbon, which he deemed not satisfactory in inventing the theory of historical causation, Collingwood (1946, p.80) dismissed the Enlightenment as apocalyptic to an extreme degree. It is equally important to note that though the Enlightenment is commonly considered a monolithic project of the discovery of the modern scientific knowledge, the historiography of this period was primarily shaped to explain the human action in the light of the laws derived from the principles of natural science. Furthermore, it was during the Enlightenment era that the theological base of historical writing which had persisted even through the Renaissance was finally laid to rest. Giambattista Vico (1668-1744) for example is credited with the formulation of a ‘new science’ in the philosophy of history that challenged the then prevalent belief that only mathematics and science were the producers of certain knowledge.
The Romantic Historiography
It is widely agreed that the nineteenth century’s rejection of an allegedly ahistoricalEnlightenment has often been taken as a founding moment of modern historical understanding.
The Enlightenment historiography deliberately eschewed to investigate certain things that were‘unenlightened’ or barbaric. However, the Romantic school of historiography marked a departurefrom the historiography of the previous age, because it rejected the conception of uniform andunchanging human nature. In ‘Romantic Historiography as a Political Force in France’ for instance, Jacques Barzun tries to bring out essence of the Romantic historiography. He writes:
The Romantic interest in the diversity of customs and manners, in localcolor, in the middle ages, in new and remote scenes, is an essential part ofthe historical spirit. It marks the breaking down of the abstract Reason ofthe previous age, and the return to concrete and living detail. To see life as conflict and contradiction, as a process of growth and evolution, is to see life historically, and it is thus that the Romanticists saw it (Barzun, 1941, p.318).
It is on this premise that it can be asserted that the Romantic historiography challenged the existing abstract human reason of the Enlightenment in favour of the human will in order to
widen the scope of historical thought. In fact, it started treating ‘the entire history of man as asingle process of development from a beginning in savagery to an end in a perfectly rational andcivilized society’ (Collingwood, 1946, p. 88) It was directed to the discovery of the mute past that was, according to the Enlightenment historians, mere ages of unintelligible barbarism and dark superstitions.
Nineteenth Century Historiography
During the late 19th Century, the field of history truly reflected the dominant themes of its time. Elements of the Enlightenment era served to influence both research procedures as well as methodologies for many university disciplines without exception of history. Whereas preceding historians relied heavily upon personal memoirs and oral traditions for the basis of their work, however, the 19th Century embodied a dramatic shift in the historical field that promoted both a scientific and empirically-based set of rules and laws to govern research. These new methods and rules established, primarily, by the German historian, Leopold von Ranke equated the field of history to a scientific discipline in which scholars made use of empirical observation to arrive at truthful and accurate interpretations of the past. Known as empiricists, they stoutly believed that the past was “both observable and verifiable,” and that a scientific analysis allowed for objective-based research to be conducted that was free of both bias and partiality. Thus, through “rigorous examination” of sources, “impartial research and an inductive method of reasoning,” the empiricist school of thought promulgated the idea that “truth rests upon its correspondence to the facts,” thus, limiting the power of opinion over historical renditions of the past (Slawson, 2019). In this sense, the contributions of Ranke and the empiricist school of thought served to shift the field of history in both an important and dramatic way.
While historians of the late 19th Century focused their energy toward the discovery of absolute truths, not all aspects of historical research during this era were positive. More often than not, historians of the nineteenth-century viewed the world in an elite-driven, Eurocentric, and male-focused manner that relegated the contributions of ordinary individuals and minority groups to the periphery of historical inquiry. Consequently, historical research of this time often portrayed white males and political elites as the primary conduits of historical change. This belief reflected a teleological approach to world affairs since historians from this era believed that history followed a linear progression towards a greater good; more specifically, scholars posited that history continually advanced towards a common end point for all. As a result of constructing interpretations that reflected this ideology, ordinary members of society (as well as minority groups) were largely ignored by historians since their contributions to society were seen as marginal, at best. In their eyes, the true forces behind historical progression were kings, statesmen, and military leaders. As a result of this belief, historians of the late nineteenth-century often limited their choice of sources to archival research that dealt primarily with government records and documents, while disregarding the personal effects of lesser-known individuals. As a result, a complete and truthful rendition of the past remained an unattainable reality for many decades (Slawson, 2019).
The leading historians of the nineteenth century that piloted the paradigm shift in the course of historiography include distinguished historiographers like Ranke, Hegel, Marx, Croce, Michelet, Tocqueville, Burckhardt, Nietzsche, etc. Historiography of this century was bound to be considerably influenced by the methodologies of science, since it was a science-dominating era. Thus, Leopold von Ranke rose to introduce a new kind of historiography referred to as scientific historiography. This feat spurred scholars like Felix Gilbert, J.D. Braw to assert that ‘Modern historical scholarship begins with Leopold von Ranke, and ever since his time historians have appealed to his name and writings to justify their approach to the study of the past’ (Gilbert, 1987, p.393; Braw, 2007, p.46). Thus Ranke can be held as the originator of scientific history.
Before Ranke, history had been mainly assigned two major functions in general - to judgethe past and to instruct men for the profit of future years. But Ranke’s aspiration was not to achieve the former but to check the distortion of the aims of history such as moral or political. ‘Ranke implies that, whenever a historian uses the past to present his views about how people ought to behave and act, the picture of the past becomes distorted and false: the historian ought not to go beyond the limits of his task - to show how things were in fact’ (Gilbert, 1987, p.394). For Ranke, ‘the study of the past has a much greater aim than the teaching of morals or instruction in the conduct of politics (Gilbert, 1987, p.397).
However, Ranke’s brand of scientific historiography has been accused of being potentially capable of denying any strong matrix of multiple interpretations by restricting it to mere facts and their causal connections in an indirect manner and as such was not realizable in complete sense which served a pivotal role in giving way to a different historiography.
For G.W.F. Hegel, one of the leading historiographers of the German school of historical thought, he proposed a new brand of history by distinguishing three different modes of historical writing: original history, reflective history and philosophical history in a chain of progression. Thus, through his dialectic progression of history, implies that history is the progression in which each successive movement emerges as a solution to the contradictions inherent in the preceding movement. This can be demonstrated in the endless circle of thesis, antithesis and synthesis (that serves new thesis afterwards) in which he believes that history does not repeat itself; “its movements travel not in circles but in spirals, and apparent repetitions are always differentiated by having acquired something new.’ For him, all history is the history of thought and the forcethat is mainspring of the historical process is reason in a logical sequence (Hegel, 1975).
On the whole, the Hegel’s theory of dialectic progression of history paved way to Karl’s Marx’s ‘historical materialism’ that is based on the economic conception of history.
Hegel’s belief that history is rational permeated the nineteenth century and later continued in concrete sense by his successors like Baur, Marx and Ranke. Unlike idealist Hegel, Marx was particularly specialized in the history of economic activity and provided a newdimension to historiography that was embodied in the concept of historical materialism (thoughMarx never used this term for that matter). According to Rader (1979, p. xiii), ‘… Marx employed three models in the interpretation of history: dialectical development, base and superstructure, and organic unity.’ For Marx, dialectical development suggests that development advances through the strife of the opposites that are interdependent and yet conflict each other. The model of base and superstructure is perhaps most famous since it is directly applied in understanding the nature of history. According to this model, the base always supports the superstructure. In other words, ‘the base, in Marx’s model, is the mode of production, and the superstructure is the political state with its law, and the culture with its science, philosophy, art, religion, morality, and customs. Because a superstructure rests on its foundations and not vice versa, the implication is that the base determines the superstructure (Rader, 1979, P.xix). Thus it may be said that by providing a concrete structure of economics, Marx has not only extensively influenced historiography for his period, but continues to attract contemporary historians and historiographers. In summary, the 19th century revolutions in historical scholarship provided the basis for the modern study of history.
Historiography in the Twentieth Century
Whereas historical interpretations of the late 19th Century offered a narrow-minded view of the past that focused primarily on political elites and warfare as the defining elements of society, the 20th Century ushered in a new approach that sought to replace this traditional form of inquiry with methodologies that included the lower echelons of society. The result of this new focus was the creation of a “history from below” – as coined originally by Edward Thompson – in which lesser-known individuals were brought to the forefront of history and were given a proper place alongside elites as important historical figures (Sharpe, 1991, p.25). Such trends include, among other things, a general improvement in the methods of historical research through the use of computers in historical explanations, and a shift of research emphasis from the hitherto political domain to such other areas of human development as economic, social and cultural institutions (Obiegbu, 1997).
In the early and mid-twentieth century, revisionist historians such as Charles Beard and E.H. Carr sought to challenge old views by proposing a new approach to the study of history. These historians countered earlier methodologies by arguing that absolute truths were “unattainable, and… [that] all statements about history are connected or relative to the position of those who make them” (Slawson, 2019). By issuing this direct challenge, revisionist historians unknowingly set the stage for a dramatic shift towards “explicitly political and ideologically motivated” histories, as scholars began to overwhelmingly turn towards Marxism, gender, and race as a new basis for inquiry (Donnelly and Norton, 2011, p.151). This shift, coupled with an expanded interest in the social sciences, resulted in radical new perspectives and approaches that focused predominantly on the creation of a "bottom-up history," in which lesser-known individuals and groups were given priority over the traditional elite-driven narratives of the past.
One of these shifts in the historical field involved post-colonial scholars and their reimagining of imperialism in the 19th Century. Whereas Eurocentric depictions of the past focused heavily upon the positive contributions of Western societies to the world at large, the shift towards a “history from below” quickly dismantled these beliefs as historians gave a newfound “voice” to colonized groups that suffered under imperial oppression (Sharpe, 1991, p.25). By focusing on the exploitative nature of the West in regard to indigenous peoples of the world, this new wave of scholars succeeded in demonstrating the negative aspects of imperial power; an aspect largely unheard of in decades prior. Marxist scholars, in a similar manner, also shifted their focus to forgotten individuals as they began to highlight the oppression of elites over working-class laborers of the world and aptly demonstrated the exploitative power of the bourgeoisie over the poor.
Interestingly enough, a bottom-up analysis was not strictly limited to Marxist and post-colonial scholars. Similar methods were also employed by women and gender historians who sought to break away from the traditional focus on white males with a broader analysis that accounted for the contributions and influence of women. This shift in focus demonstrated that not only were women active outside the domain of the private sphere, but that their roles had left deep and profound marks on history that were largely overlooked by scholars in years prior. With the advent of the Civil Rights and Feminist movements of the 1960s and 1970s, advances in the history of gender as well as the importance of minority groups (such as blacks, Latinos, and immigrants) came to dominate historical scholarship. Thus, the inclusion of a “history from below” proved to be a decisive turning point for historians in that it allowed for a more complete and thorough reconstruction of history that had not existed in decades’ prior (Sharpe, 1991, p.25). This shift is still relevant and important for modern historians today as scholars continue to expand their research into groups once marginalized by the historical profession.
African Historiography
Modern Western-style historical writing per se appears first in nineteenth-century colonial times. Initially, Western historical writing was largely the domain of the colonizers, especially missionaries, who were concerned with how to integrate African school children into a Christian and European past. Since the late 19th century, the study of African history has undergone radical
changes. From about 1885 to the end of the Second World War, most of Africa was under the yoke of colonialism; and hence colonial historiography held sway. According to this imperial historiography, Africa had no history and therefore the Africans were a people without history. They propagated the image of Africa as a 'dark continent'. Any historical process or movement in the continent was explained as the work of outsiders, whether these be the mythical Hamites or the Caucasoids. Consequently, African history was for the most part seen as the history of Europeans in Africa - a part of the historical progress and development of Western Europe and an appendix of the national history of the metropolis. It was argued at the time that Africa had no history because history begins with writing and thus with the arrival of the Europeans. Their presence in Africa was therefore justified, among other things, by their ability to place Africa in the 'path of history'. Colonialism was celebrated as a 'civilizing mission' carried out by European traders, missionaries and administrators (Oliver, n.d)
There were some notable indigenous exceptions, such as Samuel Johnson (1846–1901), the Yoruba son of a Sierra Leone freedman who returned to his parents’ home in Nigeria as a missionary. Johnson, strongly affected by classical historians such as Xenophon, authored a History of the Yorubas from the Earliest Timesto the Beginning of the British Protectorate (published posthumously in (1921). This was based largely on Yorubaland oral historical narratives (ìtàn) and eyewitness accounts, in addition to colonial documents; Johnson’s purpose, as he announced at the start of his book, was to ensure “that the history of our fatherland might not be lost in oblivion, especially as our old sires are fast dying out.” Carl Christian Reindorf (1834–1917), another African cleric, used both oral and written evidence for his 1895 History of the Gold Coast and Asante, and the Buganda (part of Uganda). Politician Sir Apolo Kagwa (c. 1869–1927) provided an orally based history of The Kings of Buganda (1901). In the West Central African territory of the Bamum (modern Cameroon), its local sultan, Njoya (c. 1880–1933), created his own ideographic script, modeled on European writing, and then commissioned the writing of a 548-page manuscript on the history and customs of his people (Wolf, 2019).
All of these works were ethnically based, that is devoted to recovering and telling the past ofa particular tribe. Unsurprisingly, given the clerical careers of most authors except Kagwa, theywere also Christian-influenced, and most were heavily reliant on European sources, as was thesomewhat later work of the Xhosa missionary John H. Soga, The Southeastern Bantu (1930). Inthe areas colonized by Germans, such as Tanganyika (part of modern Tanzania), Swahili historical works in Roman script, as well as verse chronicles in adjami appeared in the early twentieth century, beginning with Abdallah bin Hemedi ‘lAjjemy’s (c. 1835–1912) Habari za Wakilindi (Chronicles of the Kilindi, completed in 1906); this was an extensive record of the Kilindi dynasty that ruled the area in the nineteenth century, derived from oral traditions of the Shambala, a non–Swahili-speaking tribe. A reminder that the traffic between spoken tradition and written history can run in both directions is provided by Kenya’s Chronicle of the Kings of Pate. The original manuscript of this work, which covers the town’s history from the thirteenth to the late nineteenth century, was destroyed in 1890, but knowledge of its contents was so vivid that several writers were able to produce new written versions in the decades thereafter (Wolf, 2019).
In South Africa, an indigenous black African oral tradition included Xhosa oral narratives, a subset of which, amibali (sing. ibali), dealt specifically with historical events and genealogicaldetails. These were marginalized in the late nineteenth century by the “Settler School” of whitehistorians and by white imperially focused historians (principally British though including theoccasional Afrikaner like Henry Cloete. Both of these groups advanced a negative view of thesubordinated black culture. The earliest examples of colonial historical writing, in English, Dutch, or Afrikaans, appeared in the first third of the nineteenth century, but the Settler School really only consolidated with the work of the Canadian-born George McCall Theal (1837–1919), who ironically, had compiled one of the earliest collections of Xhosa narratives. Although criticized for defects of scholarship such as a refusal to cite his sources and a reluctance to do more than recount events without analysis like many of his contemporaries, he was not a professional historian. Theal proved hugely influential on subsequent historiography. The racist theme of European supremacy in his eleven-volume History of South Africa would be accentuated in the distinctive Afrikaner nationalist tradition after 1910, albeit with the center of gravity provided by events such as the Great Trek (the 1830s migration northward of Afrikaners in search of freedom from British Cape colony rule) rather than British imperial expansion.
The almost total neglect or disparagement of the black population continued into the apartheidera. Liberal historians such as W. M. Macmillan and C. W. de Kiewiet, beginning in the 1920s,began to integrate black and white experience, and to attend to social and economic history; theyevinced concern for the treatment of indigenous blacks while maintaining the assumption of European civilized superiority. The writing of missionary-trained black historians, such as Soga, of the first half of the century, was notably inclined to a favorable view of the British (Wolf, 2019).
In the 1970s, however, more radical scholars, many of them Marxists, advanced a more serious attack on past historiography, likening colonialism and its apartheid aftermath to the class system. The works of British Marxist historians such as Eric Hobsbawm and E. P. Thompson and of the American Eugene Genovese seemed transplantable to Africa. Social theories such as André Gunder-Frank’s “underdevelopment” thesis (originally developed with Latin America in mind) were similarly adapted by Africanists. European-American historiography on Africa began in the nineteenth century; the celebrated American historian and civil rights activist W. E. B. DuBois (1868–1963) had provided inspiration for an early generation of black American scholars. Most early efforts were devoted to countering racist assumptions about the inferiority of Africans. These in turn were often derived from the so-called “Hamitic hypothesis” (the Bible-derived view that Africans were descended from Ham, son of Noah, or alternatively that only the “civilized” cultures of Egypt and North Africa sprung from European peoples such as the Phoenicians).
It was not until after World War II, however, that the subject began to make its way, slowly, on to mainstream history curricula. Beginning in the late 1940s with the retreat of the European colonial powers and the establishment of independent nations in ensuing decades, a deeper interest in exploring their own past quickly emerged among African populations, stimulated by reaction to decades of education in an alien imperial historiography. With this came an urgent need to recast the historical record and to recover evidence of many lost pre-colonial civilizations. At the same time, European intellectuals’ (especially British, Belgian, and French) own discomfort with the Eurocentrism of previous scholarship provided for the intensive academic study of African history, an innovation that had spread to North America by the 1960s.
As a result, foundational research was done at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London by scholars such as Roland Oliver (cofounder in 1960 of the Journal of African History), by the American economic historian Philip Curtin, and by the Belgian Jan Vansina (an authority on oral tradition) (Vansina, 1985).
On the part of the Francophone scholars, they have been as influential as Anglophones, in particular the Parisian social historian, Catherine Coquery-Vidrovitch (b.1935). But African historiography has not been the sole creation of interested Europeans. African universities have, despite the instabilities of politics and civil war in many areas, trained their own scholars and sent many others overseas for doctoral training (South Africa has been rather exceptional in having a number of powerful research-intensive universities) (Woolf, 2019).
The pioneering Nigerian historian Kenneth Onwuka Dike (1917–1983) studied at Durham, Aberdeen, and London, and SOAS alone has produced several African-born scholars, including the Ghanaian Albert Adu Boahen (b. 1932). Boahen in turn participated in the important early summary work of postcolonial historical writing, the UNESCO General History of Africa, directed by a “scientific committee” two-thirds of whom were Africans and written by over three hundred authors including the Kenyans Ali Mazrui (b. 1933) and Bethwell Allan Ogot (b. 1933), Joseph Ki-Zerbo (b. 1922) of Burkina Faso (formerly Upper Volta), and the Nigerian J. F. A. Ajayi (b. 1929). Francophone African historians had until recently an especially close relationship with French universities, notes Matthias Middell, though African history generally is less prominent within France than in the English-speaking world (Woolf, 2019).
African historiography has also proved a fertile field for the application of various interdisciplinary approaches, including archaeology and linguistics. In particular, it has welcomed the application of social science theories such as “modernization,” “dependency,” and the above-mentioned “underdevelopment.” It has also provided a forum for Marxist concepts such as “modes of production” and “capital”; the work of Walter Rodney (a black radical historian assassinated in Guyana in 1980) has been especially significant in this regard. At the same time, the early focus on political history and the establishment of chronology has been displaced to a considerable degree by an interest in social, economic, and cultural issues, reflecting historiographic trends elsewhere in the world. In recent decades, “Africa” has proved too unwieldy an umbrella term, and the field has segmented into thematic subfields such as slavery and gender; postmodernism has also begun to make itself felt as the colonial and early postcolonial periods are revisited by a fresh generation (Woolf, 2019). African history has remained firmly established as an area of robust research.
Conclusion
The work ‘Historiography Through the Ages’ is an attempt to put together major historiographical strides from the ancient to the twenty-first century. Granted that there are other sub-historiography such as the subaltern historiography, national historiographies which were not given detailed treatment in this study, the writer’s main objective is to trail from recorded history, the origin of historiography till the present times in order to narrate issues of where historiography began, how and why as well as the context of the subject matter at different epochs of its existence. The study also made attempt to conceptualize historiography, its importance and the different turns it has taken over the centuries. It was also presented in this study that what came to be known as African historiography was an attempt by Africans to rewrite their own history contrary to the Western prejudices on African history. Hence, one of the greatest contributions of African historiography to the study of history is the effective use and popularization of oral method of enquiry in historical research. This method of historical writing has come to stay in spite of the initial contestations by Western scholars. The different kinds of historiographical approaches when put together make historiography robust and a minefield of historical writing. It is not an understatement that historiography is the heartbeat of historical scholarship without which history becomes a mere story telling. It is pertinent to conclude here by calling for a thorough, clinical and forensic teaching and learning of historiography in our institutions of higher learning if the study of history must continue to worth its onions. There is indeed urgent need for history teachers to be retrained and observe sustained scholarship by way of seminars, workshops, conferences and symposia through the TETFUND window on the current trend in the subfield of historiography, if scholarship in history must continue to acquire its due relevance as well as continue to retain its pride of place.
References
alphahistory.com (2019). What is Historiography, Available at https://alphahistory.com/what-is-historiography/(Accessed 20/20/19).
Barzun, J. (1941). Romantic Historiography as a Political Force in France. Journal of the
History of Ideas, 2 (3), pp. 318-29.
Bentley, M. (1997). Companion to Historiography: Routledge
brainly.com (2019). Importance of Historiography to Historical Study, Available at https://brainly.com/question/1549322 (Accessed 15/10/2019).
Braw, J. D. (2007). Vision as Revision: Ranke and the Beginning of Modern Historiography. History and Theory, 46 (4), pp. 45-60.
Breisach, E. (1997). Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern, Third Edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cheprasov, A. (2016). History 301: Historiography & Historical Methods/History Courses, Available at https://study.com/ academy/lesson/historiography-definition-importance-examples.html (Accessed 29/09/19).
Collingwood, R. G. (1946). The Idea of History, Rev. ed. 2000, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Concordia University (2008). Historiography, 15 Jun 2008, Available http://www.cuw.edu/Academics/programs/history/historiography.html (Accessed 19/09/2019).
Donnelly, M. and Norton, C. (2011). Doing History. New York: Routledge.
Erim, E.O. (2004). African Historiography: Trends, Paraxis and Democracy in Nigeria 25th Inaugural Lecture, Nigeria, University Press, pp. 10-15
Eusebius Pamphilus (1860). Bishop of Cesarea in Palestine, Ecclesiastical History, Trans. From the Original, with Introduction by C. F. Cruse and An Historical View of the Council of Nice by I. Boyle, Twelfth Edition, Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co.
Fallace, T. (2009). Historiography and Teacher Education: Reflections on an Experimental Course. The History Teacher, 42(2), pp.205-222.
Finely, M. I., ed. (1959). The Greek Historians: The Essence of Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Polybius. London: Penguin Book Ltd.
Flowers, J. and Hunt, B. (2019). Historiography in Graduate Technology Teacher Education in The Journal of Technology Studies, pp. 2-11. Available at https://scholar.lib.vt.edu › ejournals › JOTS › pdf › flowers (Accessed 22/10/19).
Gilbert, F. (1987). Historiography: What Ranke Meant, The American Scholar, 56 (3), pp. 393-97.
Gottshalk, L. (1969). Understanding history: A primer of historical method. (2nd ed.). New York: Knopf.
Hegel, G.W.F. (1975). Lectures to the Philosophy of World History. Trans. H. B. Nisbet. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Johnson, C. (2005). Herodotus who and annals what? Historiography and the history student. Rethinking History, 9(4), pp.521-528.
Kipgen, P. (2019). Historiography: Definitions, Nature and Scope of History, Available athttps://www.academia.edu › Historiography_Definitions_Nature_and_Scope_of-History (Accessed 21/10/19).
Kumar, B. and Karunakaran, D.T. (2104). A History of Historiography: A Review and Critique of Modes of Writing History from Antiquity to Contemporary, Research Scholar, An International Refereed e-Journal of Literary Explorations, 2 (I), pp.203-218.
Lemon, M. C. (2003). Philosophy of History: A Guide for Students. London: Routledge
Mohammed, K. (2013). The Role of History, Historiography and Historian in Nation Building, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, 2 (7). PP.50-57
Obiegbu, J.N. (1997). Historiography in the Training of Historians, in Ejituwu, N.C. (Ed.) The Multi-disciplinary Approach to African History: Essays in Honour of Ebiegberi Joe Alagoa, Port Harcourt, University of Port Harcourt Press.
Oliver, R. (n.d) Introdllction to The Cambridge History of Africa, Vol. VI: 1870-1905., Cambridge.
Rader, M. (1979). Introduction. Marx’s Interpretation of History. New York: Cambridge UP.
Sharpe, J. (1991). History from Below, in Peter Burke (ed.) New Perspectives on Historical Writing, University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, https://owlcation.com/humanities/Changes-in-Historiographical-Methodology
Slawson, L. (2019). Changes in Historiographical Methodology, Available at https://owlcation.com/humanities/Changes-in-Historiographical-Methodology (Accessed 25/10/19)
Spiegel, G. M. (1975). Political Utility in Mediaeval Historiography: A Sketch. History and Theory, 14 (3), pp.314-25.
Sujay Rao Mandavilli, S.R. (2016). Enunciating the Core principles of Twenty-first Century Historiography: Some additional extrapolations and inferences from our studies and observations on Historiography, ELK Asia Pacific Journal of Social Science 2 (4).
The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (2010). The Study of History. 15th ed. Vol. 20. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Vansina, J (1985). Oral Tradition as History. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Woolf, D. (2019). Historiography, New Dictionary of History of Ideas, Available at https://www.academia.edu/38372716/ Historiography_NDHI.pdf (Accessed 15/10/19).
WWW.britannica.com (2019). Historiography, Available at https://www.britannica.com/topic/historiography (Accessed 15/10/19).
Zahoor, M. A. and Bilal, F. (2013). Marxist Historiography: An Analytical Exposition of Major Themes and Premises, Pakistan Journal of History and Culture, Vol. XXXIV/2