HISTORY Areas of Knowledge

What is an area of knowledge? The areas of knowledge, which are situated within the perimeter of the TOK diagram, are subject areas or disciplines into which knowledge is frequently classified. They may be seen as an application of ways of knowing, perhaps shaped by methodology, to particular subject matter.

Your thoughts… Can you classify each of your subject areas into an area of knowledge? If not, why not? Are any of the areas of knowledge more important/more highly valued than another? What similarities/differences do you perceive between the methodologies associated with each of the areas of knowledge?

Whoever wishes to foresee the future must consult the past; for human events ever resemble those of preceding times. This arises from the fact that they are produced by men who ever have been, and ever shall be, animated by the same passions, and thus they necessarily have the same results. Machiavelli This I regard as history's highest function, to let no worthy action be uncommemorated, and to hold out the reprobation of posterity as a terror to evil words and deeds. Tacitus History

What is history? Which of the following is the most persuasive description of history: an account of great individuals, an account of great historical forces, an account of a decline from the greatness of the past, an account of progress towards the future, or a cycle of recurring events? What other descriptions might be appropriate?

What do historians do? Gather evidence from a variety of sources (written texts, archaeological remains, artefacts, oral histories etc). Critically analyse sources to determine their reliability and worthiness. In particular, they are trying to identify bias (prejudice) within sources. The bias of an author affects the reliability of a source. Utilise appropriate evidence to formulate theories about people, events, concepts and ideas from the past.

Critical analysis of sources One of the most important things a historian does is critically analyse their sources. When analysing a source, historians ask themselves a number of questions in order to judge the reliability of that source. This skill is useful in other areas as well! What questions would you ask in order to assess the reliability of a source?

Common questions to assess reliability of sources Is this a primary source (written at the time of events) or secondary source (written after the event, usually by a historian)? Who is the author/creator of the source? When was the source written/created? How close is it to the date of the actions/events it describes? What sources of information has the author/creator used to construct this source? What sort of information is in the source? Was there a purpose in writing/creating it (eg propaganda)? Who was the audience? What is the tone of the source? Is it biased, reasonable, emotional, propagandist etc? Is this source supported by other sources? What can the source be used for? It might be good evidence for one issue, but unreliable for another.

Which source is the most reliable? Why? A history text book An encyclopaedia A photograph A video recording A diary entry Archaeological evidence A newspaper article A website A political cartoon

What impact does the historian have? What is the role of the historian? Does the historian record history, or create it? Can the historian be free of bias in the selection and interpretation of material? Is the power of persuasion a characteristic of a good historian?

Ten Minute History In the next 10 minutes, write your personal history. Remember, time is limited so you will need to consider what you should emphasise and what you should leave out.

Reflection What did you include in your personal history? What did you leave out? What impression would a person get from your personal history? Is this a full and accurate impression? Given your answers, can one talk meaningfully of a historical fact? How far can we speak with certainty about anything in the past?

Topics for discussion What is the significance of Carlyle’s view that “The history of the world is but the biography of great men”? What do you understand by George Orwell’s comment that “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past”? To what extent do you agree with it and its implications?