This is an invitation to take a new look at a familiar term, history. Students of history do more than just study events and persons associated with the past. At times they wrestle with the question of what the past really is. You will wrestle with that question too, especially those of you who write A level term papers. One dictionary defines history as (1) "A narrative of events." (2) "a chronological record of events, as of the life or development of a people, country, or institution." (It also states that the derivation of the term "history" is from the Latin, historia, from an identical Greek word, meaning "inquiry."

Back to the basic question of meaning, here is a revised definition of history, not in opposition to what the dictionary says but in expansion of it. It has four parts.

(1) History is the preserved record of the past. It is not the past itself. Somehow, persons in the past have recorded their knowledge and understanding of past events. That recording most often was by means of the written word. Someone wrote on some kind of material: stone, clay, papyrus, paper, etc. (More about other kinds of historical records later.) Another key word, in the definition is preserved. Only if the record has survived do we know what it says. Records which have been destroyed (accidentally or otherwise) are irrelevant to history.

(2) History is not necessarily the Truth with a capital T. This does not necessarily mean, as some have asserted, that history is just myth that has been agreed upon. Much historical data (evidence) can be--and has been--validated. But some things that we think are true historical facts are not. This is because historical records were made by imperfect human beings. They are imperfect with respect to ethics, with the result that some historical records have conscious lies, exaggerations, omissions, etc. in them. They are imperfect with respect to perception and memory. We are often honest but inaccurate about how we perceive remember something.

Therefore, it is usually best to speak of historical material as evidence, not facts. We must evaluate historical sources with respect to their accuracy. How does one do this? By comparing one piece of evidence to that from other sources. If several sources agree as to a "fact," and those sources are independent of each other and otherwise seemingly reliable, one can probably safely consider them to be true. Most modern historical data fits this situation. As one goes farther back into the past, there is often less corroborating evidence and less assurance that historical evidence is absolutely accurate.

One must ask of a historical source, is it credible? Did the person behind the source (writer, speaker, etc.) know what he or she was talking about? Was the person in a position to know the truth? (Was the he or she there when it happened? Or, if not, did the person base the historical material on careful research?) Was the person unusually biased or prejudiced about the subject? This can have an effect on how one perceives the facts themselves and more especially, how one understands the meaning of the facts.

(3) History has a strong subjective aspect. It often includes the writer or speaker's interpretation (in other words, his or her understanding of the meaning) of those facts. Although some students of history object that they do not like interpretation (they want just the facts), almost all historical materials include interpretation. It just seems to go with the territory. One should appreciate this fact. If a scholar knows (or knew) much about a subject, a serious student will want to know what meaning that scholar has attached to the facts he or she has found. While a person is, of course, not bound to accept that interpretation, it is useful to know it as an aid to helping develop one's own view.

The important thing to keep in mind about interpretations is that they are, by their very nature, subjective. They are opinions, not facts. How should a person judge opinions? Somewhat as one judges alleged facts: Who is the person giving the interpretation? Is there reason to trust or distrust that person's judgment?

(4) History is a process, not just a product. It is, as the Greek word had it, inquiry. It is looking into the past, asking questions. It asks about a person, an event, or a movement: What? Where? When? How? Why? So what? Seen as inquiry, history is alive. The questions just mentioned are always new for the particular person asking them. Some will never be completely answered and will always be subject to different answers. For example, there are many possible answers to the question, "What is the most important effect of the Protestant Reformation on the subsequent history of the West?"

Beyond the issue of definition is the more basic one of utility? Why study history? An obvious answer, often given, is that people need to learn the lessons of history in order to avoid making mistakes. Another more positive version is that one should look into the past to help solve present problems, meet present challenges, or even to try to forecast future events. This is fine is not taken too far. We should try to learn from the past. If you, as a child, ever put your hand on a hot surface or in a flame of fire, you learned not to do that again. We can apply this on a somewhat larger scale sometimes in "learning lessons from the past." But the past is not always a dependable source for problem solving. This is because history is not a mathematical science. We cannot just go back to past events and apply the equivalent of a + b = c to a current situation. There are too many variables. Circumstances are never exactly the same. All people--individually and in groups--differ from one another. Also, the total physical, intellectual, technological, and cultural environment of one era and place in history is not exactly like that of another. We might do well to try to learn lessons from studying the lives, values, and behavior of, for example, the ancient Romans, but we need to realize that their lessons may or may not apply to our situation today.

Another use of history is to help individuals deal with the meaning of life by studying the ideas, beliefs, and attitudes of people who have experienced life before our time. All persons use their personal pasts to help them cope with life, to find meaning for it. The people you have known--family, friends, teachers, others--have influenced you (positively and negatively) to be the person you are, to have the beliefs you have, to have the values you hold, etc. A study of the past before our own time can extend that idea. We are, to an extent at least, what we are because of what various people in the past did, and what they have left in the historical record about their own ideas, values, beliefs, and feelings. We learn of these not only from what we most often think of as historical materials, but other writings, including novels, poetry, and various kinds of non-fiction (religious, philosophical, or political writing, for example), and even from music and art. People in the past who dealt with life in their own way can often help us as we seek answers to what life is supposed to mean. While we are not obligated, of course, to follow their examples or accept their attitudes or beliefs, being exposed to them may prove useful.

Another use of history is recreational. If you like history, it is probably because reading it or otherwise learning about it is--at least sometimes--fun. Many of us like to read history as "escapist literature," like reading mysteries or science fiction. We get into other people's lives in other eras because to do so is entertaining and is sometimes a nice break from the everyday reality of our own lives and the world of today.

What is the best reason to study history? Perhaps it is that it helps us make sense of the present. History is a form of extended memory. Think how important your personal memory is to you. If you suddenly lost all knowledge of everything that you had ever experienced or learned, how could you make any sense out of life? Knowledge of the past helps us understand our world and various components of it. The past helps us understand why our political, economic, religious and cultural institutions, customs, and beliefs are as they are.

Let us go back again to that term inquiry as the root meaning of history in the Greek language: When people inquire about the past they are doing historical research. That involves using historical sources. There are two kinds, primary sources and secondary sources.

Primary sources are first-hand historical materials produced by the people who were there when the history happened, either as participants or direct observers. There are four types of primary sources.

(1) Written: (the most common of all the types). Such sources are in two forms: manuscript and printed. Manuscript sources are sources as originally written down. Most of these are hand-written. Some today were originally produced in a typewriter or word processor. Printed sources are transcriptions from the original manuscript form into some published form, such as a book or journal. Examples of written primary sources include personal correspondence, diaries, autobiographies, memoirs, official government documents (battle reports, laws, treaties, etc.), and eyewitness reports in newspapers and other publications.

(2) Visual: This refers to pictorial presentations of historical information. Four examples: (a) artistic representations (drawings, paintings, statues, etc.) (b) Still photography. (c) Motion pictures. (d) Videotape. (e) CD-Rom.

(3) Aural (sound recordings): Examples: cylinder, disc, audiotape, film sound track, videotape sound track.

(4) Three-dimensional material objects (often called historical artifacts): These range from small objects like arrowheads, pottery, etc., to large historic structures (castles, battlefields, cathedrals, etc.).

Secondary sources are second-hand historical materials produced by persons who were not there when the events happened. We call such persons historians. They do research in historical sources, probably both primary and secondary, to produce a book, an article, or perhaps a lecture. A history course textbook is a good example of a secondary source. Most of what we refer to as "history books" are secondary sources.

What is the relative value of the two kinds of sources? Primary sources are the best, for they are the closest we can come to the reality of the past. Secondary sources, however, are useful to historians when they do not have access to all of the places where the relevant primary sources are located. Also, secondary sources provide useful interpretation about historical events and movements.

Though sometimes misused, history is an important tool to individuals and societies. It can also be a very interesting subject for study and/or relaxation. Handle it with care but make the most of it in your life.