Several scholars observed that narratives about the human past are evaluated comparatively. Few attempts have been made, however, to explore how such evaluations are actually done. Here I look at a lengthy “contest” among several historiographic narratives, all constructed to make sense of another one—the biblical story of the conquest of Canaan. I conclude that the preference of such narratives can be construed as a rational choice. In particular, an easily comprehensible and emotionally evocative narrative will give way to a complex and mundane one, when the latter provides a more coherent account of the consensually accepted body of evidence. This points to a fundamental difference between historiographic narratives and fiction, contrary to some influential opinions in the philosophy of historiography. Such historiographic narratives have similarities with hypotheses and narrative explanations in natural science.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Like Dray (1971), Tucker (2004), and Kuukkanen (2015) I think that the narrative form is a widespread and prominent, but not universal or defining, element of historiography. Some parts of Marx's Das Kapital, for example, can be understood as a non-narrativist historiography. Other forms of "synchronous historical writing" are mentioned in Little (2017).
Otherwise, the temporally-ordered series would be a mere chronicle. (Morton White 1965).
Other conceptualizations of "narrative" exist. For example, Beatty (2017) takes a minimalist view: a narrative just "relates what happened, one event at a time" and Morgan (2017) speaks of narratives that need not be temporally ordered. The formulation above is broad enough to accord with the common uses of the term, but not too broad to make everything a narrative. Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for insisting that I clear this point up.
I follow the convention in Tucker (2009) whereby history denotes past events and circumstances and historiography is the published outcome of historians' work, except when citing sources that confound between the two.
Joseph Pitt (2001) who is arguably the strongest critic of the use of case studies for inquiry of philosophical issues, also allows some merit to ones that "are extended historical studies that contend with the life span of a scientific problematic," which is what I tried to do here.
An epistemic community is a (rather loosely bounded) network of professionals with recognized expertise and competence in a particular domain. The concept is akin to Kuhn's (1970) "community of practitioners". In the case discussed here, the relevant epistemic community consisted of archaeologist, historians of the ancient Levant, and biblical scholars.
Subsequent excavations in the 1980s showed Lachish's destruction to have occurred even later, but by then the Conquest narrative had generally been discarded.
Actually, some archaeological arguments were raised against it. For example, some of the hill settlements were adjacent to Canaanite cities and in all likelihood lived in close symbiosis with them, something that did not fit the state-of-affaires conjectured in the Revolt narrative. But the narrative could sustain a few contradictory pieces of evidence by bracketing them as isolated exceptions.
Originally by Mendenhall (1962), in support of the Revolt narrative.
Faust's suggestion is not motivated by a desire to defend the Immigration narrative.
I am not committing myself here to a coherentist concept of epistemic justification. Coherentists and foundationalists usually agree that an incoherent set of beliefs is untenable, and BonJour's incremental framework suits my analysis of narratives dynamics.
Kuukkanen defines "colligatory concept" and "colligation" as "the synthesising expressions in historiography". The central schemes that underlie the generalized narratives discussed here—"Conquest", "Peaceful Immigration", "People's Revolt" and "Autochthonic Emergence"—are, I think, as good colligatory concepts as other often-mentioned ones like "the Renaissance" or "the Cold War" etc., and Kuukkanen's analysis should, therefore, apply to them too.
Compare this to Mink (1978, p. 143) insistence that "narrative histories should be aggregative, insofar as they are histories, but cannot be, insofar as they are narratives. Narrative history borrows from fictional narrative the convention by which a story generates its own imaginative space, within which it neither depends on nor can displace other stories." (More on this discrepancy below and in the next section).
Regarding the likelihood of retrieving traces of past events and the prevalence of underdetermination in historical sciences see Turner (2007) and Forber and Griffith (2011) on the pessimistic side, Cleland (2002, 2011), Jeffares (2010) and Currie (2108) on the optimistic side and Tucker (2011) for an intermediate, context-sensitive approach. See also Tucker (2004, Ch. 6) for a systematic discussion of the limits of historiographic knowledge and the distinction between determined, underdetermined and indeterminate parts of historiography.
As well as disbelief! See Griffioen (2016) on various explanations for the origins of Western secularization.
Generalized historiographic narratives can be different without being conflicting and incompatible, for example when they illuminate different aspects of complex historical circumstances. I thank an anonymous reviewer for noting this point.
As for individual texts of historiography, see below.
Albright, W. F. (1934). The Kyle memorial excavation in Bethel. Bulletin of the American schools of Oriental research, 56, 1–15.
Albright, W. F. (1939). The Israelite conquest of Canaan in the light of archaeology. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 74, 11–23.
Albright, W. F. (1940). From the Stone Age to Christianity, Monotheism and the Historical Process. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press.
Albright, W. F. (1956). Albrecht Alt. Journal of Biblical Literature, 75(3), 169–175.
Albright, W. F. (1968). Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths. London: The University of London Press.
Alt, A. (1925). Die Landnahme Der Israeliten in Palästina: Territorialgeschichtliche Studien. Druckerei der Werkgemeinschaft.
Alt, A. (1929) . Der Gott der Väter. In Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel (Vol. 1, pp. 1–78). München: C.H.Beck.
Alt, A. (1936) . Josua. In: Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel (Vol. 1, pp. 176–192). München: C.H.Beck.
Ankersmit, F. R. (1983). Narrative logic: A semantic analysis of the historian’s language (Vol. 7). The Hague: Nijhoff.
Ankersmit, F. R. (1989). Historiography and postmodernism. History and Theory, 28(2), 137–153.
Ankersmit, F. R. (2012). Meaning, truth, and reference in historical representation. Louvain: Leuven University Press.
Ashton, T. S. (1968). The industrial revolution: 1760–1830. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barca, S. (2011). Energy, property, and the industrial revolution narrative. Ecological Economics, 70(7), 1309–1315.
Beatty, J. (2017). Narrative possibility and narrative explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 62, 31–41.
Berry, S. (2014). Explaining roman history: A case study. In M. I. Kaiser, O. I. Scholz, D. Plenge, & A. Hüttemann (Eds.), Explanation in the special sciences (pp. 220–237). Dordrecht: Springer.
BonJour, L. (1985). The structure of empirical knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burian, R. M. (2001). The dilemma of case studies resolved: The virtues of using case studies in the history and philosophy of science. Perspectives on Science, 9(4), 383–404.
Carroll, N. (1990). Interpretation, history and narrative. The Monist, 73(2), 134–166.
Carroll, N. (2001). On the narrative connection. In S. Benjamin & W. van Peer (Eds.), New perspectives on narrative perspective (pp. 21–41). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Chang, H. (2004). Inventing temperature: Measurement and scientific progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chang, H. (2011). Beyond case-studies: History as philosophy. In S. Mauskopf & T. Schmaltz (Eds.), Integrating history and philosophy of science (pp. 109–124). Dordrecht: Springer.
Chapman, R., & Wylie, A. (2016). Evidential reasoning in archaeology. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Cleland, C. E. (2002). Methodological and epistemic differences between historical science and experimental science. Philosophy of Science, 69(3), 447–451.
Cleland, C. E. (2011). Prediction and explanation in historical natural science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 62(3), 551–582.
Currie, A. (2014). Narratives, mechanisms and progress in historical science. Synthese, 191(6), 1163–1183.
Currie, A. (2015a). Philosophy of Science and the Curse of the Case Study. In C. Daly (Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Philosophical Methods (pp. 553–572). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Currie, A. (2015b). Marsupial lions and methodological omnivory: Function, success and reconstruction in paleobiology. Biology and Philosophy, 30(2), 187–209.
Currie, A. (2018). Rock, bone, and ruin: An optimist’s guide to the historical sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Currie, A., & Sterelny, K. (2017). In defence of story-telling. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 62, 14–21.
Dever, W. G. (1998). Israelite origin and the ‘Nomadic Ideal’: Can archaeology separate fact from fiction? In S. Gitin, A. Mazar, & E. Stern (Eds.), Mediterranean peoples in transition: Thirteenth to early tenth centuries BCE (T. Dothan Festschrift) (pp. 220–237). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Dever, W. G. (2003). Who Were the Early Israelites, and Where Did They Come From?. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
Dever, W. G. (2011). Recent archaeological discoveries and biblical research. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press.
Dray, W. (1954). Explanatory narrative in history. The Philosophical Quarterly, 4(14), 15–27.
Dray, W. H. (1971). On the nature and role of narrative in historiography. History and theory, 10(2), 153–171.
Faust, A. (2006). Israel’s Ethnogenesis: Settlement, Interaction, Expansion and Resistance. London and Oakville: Equinox Publishing.
Finkelstein, I. (1988a). The archaeology of the Israelite settlement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Finkelstein, I. (1988b). The Rise of Early Israel: Archaeology and Long-Term History. In S. Ahituv & E. D. Oren (Eds.), The Origin of Early Israel-Current Debate: Biblical, Historical and Archaeological Perspectives (pp. 7–39). Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press.
Finkelstein, I. (1995). The Great Transformation: The ‘Conquest’ of the Highlands Frontiers and the Rise of the Territorial States. In T. E. Levy (Ed.), The archaeology of society in the Holy Land (pp. 349–365). New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Finkelstein, I., & Na’aman, N. (Eds.). (1994). From nomadism to monarchy: Archaeological and historical aspects of early Israel. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi.
Forber, P., & Griffith, E. (2011). Historical reconstruction: Gaining epistemic access to the deep past. Philosophy and Theory in Biology, 3, 1–19.
Fritz, V. (1987). Conquest or Settlement? The Early Iron Age in Palestine. The Biblical Archaeologist, 50(2), 84–100.
Glennan, S. (2010). Ephemeral mechanisms and historical explanation. Erkenntnis, 72(2), 251–266.
Glennan, S. (2014). Aspects of human historiographic explanation: A view from the philosophy of science. In M. I. Kaiser, O. I. Scholz, D. Plenge, & A. Hüttemann (Eds.), Explanation in the special sciences (pp. 273–291). Dordrecht: Springer.
Golding, W. (1955). The inheritors. San Diego: Harcourt Inc.
Gottwald, N. K. (1979). Tribes of Yahweh: A sociology of the religion of liberated Israel, 1250–1050 BCE. New York: Orbis Books.
Gottwald, N. K. (1984). The Israelite settlement as a social revolutionary movement. In Biblical archaeology today: Proceedings of the international congress on biblical archaeology (pp. 34–36). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Griffioen, S. (2016). Modernity and the problem of its Christian past: The Geistgeschichten of Blumberg, Berger, and Gauschet. History and Theory, 55, 185–209.
Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation. New York: Free Press.
Hull, D. L. (1975). Central subjects and historical narratives. History and theory, 14(3), 253–274.
Jeffares, B. (2010). Guessing the future of the past. Biology and Philosophy, 25(1), 125–142.
Jenkins, K. (2008). Rethinking History. London: Routledge.
Kenyon, K. M. (1954). Excavation in Jericho. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 84(1/2), 103–110.
Kinzel, K. (2016). Pluralism in historiography: A case study of case studies. In T. Sauer & R. Scholl (Eds.), The philosophy of historical case studies (pp. 123–149). Berlin: Springer.
Kosso, P. (2001). Knowing the past: Philosophical issues of history and archaeology. New York: Humanity Books.
Kosso, P. (2009). Philosophy of historiography. In A. Tucker (Ed.), A Companion to the Philosophy of History and Historiography (pp 7-25). New York: Wiley.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuukkanen, J.-M. (2012). The missing narrativist turn in the historiography of science. History and Theory, 51(3), 340–363.
Kuukkanen, J.-M. (2015). Postnarrativist philosophy of historiography. Berlin: Springer.
Kuukkanen, J.-M. (Forthcoming). Is narrativism empirically plausible? What we can learn from the case study approach for the philosophy of historiography. To be published in ITINERA.
Lipton, P. (2001). Is explanation a guide to inference? A reply to Wesley C. Salmon. In G. Hon & S. R. Rakover (Eds.), Explanation: Theoretical approaches and applications (pp. 7–25). Dordrecht: Springer.
Little, D. (2017). Philosophy of history. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/history.
Marquet-Krause, J. (1949). Les Fouilles de ‘Ay (Et-Tell), 1933–1935. Paris: Geuther.
Mazar, A. (1990). Archaeology of the land of the Bible. New York: Doubleday.
McAllister, J. W. (2017). Using history as evidence in philosophy of science: A methodological critique. Journal of the Philosophy of History, 12(2), 239–258.
Mendenhall, G. E. (1962). The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine. The Biblical Archaeologist, 25(3), 66–87.
Mendenhall, G. E. (1974). The Tenth Generation: The Origins of the Biblical Tradition. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Mink, L. O. (1978). Narrative form as a cognitive instrument. In R. H. Canary & H. Kozicki (Eds.), The writing of history: Literary form and historical understanding (pp. 129–149). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Moorey, P. R. S. (1991). A century of biblical archaeology. Westminster: John Knox Press.
Morgan, M. S. (2017). Narrative ordering and explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 62, 86–97.
Noth, M. (1938). Grundsätzliches zur geschichtlichen Deutung archäologischer Befunde auf dem Boden Palästinas. Palästina Jahrbuch des deutschen evangelischen Instituts für Altertumwissenschaft des Heiligen Landes in Jerusalem., 37, 129–149.
Noth, M. (1958). Geschichte Israels. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Pietsch, W. (2016). Two modes of reasoning with case studies. In T. Sauer & R. Scholl (Eds.), The philosophy of historical case studies (pp. 49–67). Berlin: Springer.
Pitt, J. C. (2001). The dilemma of case studies: Toward a Heraclitian philosophy of science. Perspectives on Science, 9(4), 373–382.
Quine, W. V. O., & Ullian, J. S. (1978). The web of beliefs. New York: Random House.
Rosales, A. (2017). Theories that narrate the world: Ronald A. Fisher’s mass selection and Sewall Wright’s shifting balance. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 62, 22–30.
Roth, P. A. (1989). How narratives explain. Social Research, 56(2), 449–478.
Roth, P. A. (2017). Essentially narrative explanations. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 62, 42–50.
Sauer, T., & Scholl, R. (Eds.) (2016). The philosophy of historical case studies. In Boston studies in the philosophy and history of science (Vol. 319). Berlin: Springer.
Schickore, J. (2011). More thoughts on HPS: Another 20 years later. Perspectives on Science, 19(4), 453–481.
Scholl, R., & Räz, T. (2016). Towards a methodology for integrated history and philosophy of science. In T. Sauer & R. Scholl (Eds.), The philosophy of historical case studies (pp. 69–91). Berlin: Springer.
Silberman, N. A. (1993). A prophet from amongst you: The life of Yigael Yadin: Soldier, scholar, and mythmaker of modern Israel. Boston: Addison-Wesley Longman.
Tucker, A. (2004). Our knowledge of the past: A philosophy of historiography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tucker, A. (Ed.). (2009). A companion to the philosophy of history and historiography (Blackwell Companions to Philosophy). New York: Wiley.
Tucker, A. (2011). Historical science, over-and underdetermined: A study of Darwin’s inference of origins. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 62(4), 805–829.
Tufnell, O. (1958). Lachish IV (the Bronze Age). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Turner, D. D. (2007). Making prehistory: Historical science and the scientific realism debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Velleman, J. (2003). Narrative explanation. The philosophical review, 112(1), 1–5.
Wallach, E. (2018). Bayesian representation of a prolonged archaeological debate. Synthese, 195(1), 401–431.
White, M. (1965). Foundation of historical knowledge. New York: Harper and Row.
White, H. (1973). Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-century Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
White, H. (1980). The value of narrativity in the representation of reality. Critical Inquiry, 7(1), 5–27.
White, H. (1984). The question of narrative in contemporary historical theory. History and Theory, 23(1), 1–33.
White, H. (2009). The content of the form: Narrative discourse and historical representation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Wise, M. N. (2011). Science as (historical) narrative. Erkenntnis, 75(3), 349–376.
Wright, G. E. (1946). The literary and historical problem of Joshua 10 and Judges 1. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 5(2), 105–114.
Yadin, Y. (1965). Military and archaeological aspects of the conquest of canaan in the book of Joshua. The Jewish Education Committee of New York in cooperation with the World Jewish Bible Society.
Yadin, Y. (1982). Is the Biblical Account of the Israelite Conquest of Canaan Historically Reliable? Biblical Archaeology Review, 8(2), 16–23.
Yadin, Y. (1984). Biblical archaeology today: The archaeological aspect. In Biblical archaeology today; proceedings of the international congress on biblical archaeology, Jerusalem (pp. 69–91). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Yadin, Y., Aharoni, Y., Dunayevski, E., Dotan, T., Amiran, R., & Perrot, J. (1960). Hazor II: An Account of the Second Season of Excavations, 1956. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Yeivin, S. (1937). The exodus and the conquest (current status of the problems). In N. H. Torczyner (Ed.), Klausner Festschrift (pp. 67–86). Tel-Aviv: Amanut. (Hebrew).
I am grateful to Yemima Ben-Menahem, Arnon Levi and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Wallach, E. Historiographic narratives and empirical evidence: a case study. Synthese 198, 801–821 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-02065-w
- Historiographic narratives
- Narrative explanations
- Case study