Abstract
In examining the impact on historical writing (and other forms of production such as broadcasting) of postmodern ideas and the intellectual sensibility associated with them, the most appropriate starting point may well be to inquire into the character of historical evidence — the raw material for any form of historical (more strictly, historiographical) production.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
See e.g. Arthur Marwick, The New Nature of History: Knowledge, Evidence, Language (London, 2001), pp. 152–93
Jeremy Black and Donald M. MacRaild, Studying History, 2nd edn (Basingstoke, 2000).
For accounts of the ‘historiographical revolution’ see Marwick, The New Nature; Michael Bentley (ed.), Companion to Historiography (London, 1997);
Richard J. Evans, In Defence of History (London, 1997)
Christopher Parker, The English Historical Tradition since 1850 (edinburgh, 1990);
Peter Novick, That Noble Dream: The ‘Objectivity Question’ and the American Historical Profession (Cambridge, 1988).
For example, Elizabeth Ermarth, Sequel to History (Princeton, NJ, 1992).
For the Annales the best introduction currently in English (though out of print) remains the earliest, Triain Stoianovitch, French Historical Method: The ‘Annales’ Paradigm (Ithaca, NY, 1976).
See also
Peter Burke, The French Historical Revolution: the Annales School, 1929—89 (Stanford, CA, 1990).
Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie’s Montaillou (English translation, Harmondsworth, 1980) is a celebrated example of such an approach.
James Davidson, ‘Dover, Foucault and Greek Homosexuality: Penetration and the Truth of Sex’, Past and Present, no. 170 (February 2001), pp. 3–51.
Anthony Beevor, The Fall of Berlin (London, 2002).
Ian Kershaw, Hitler, 1889–1936: Hubris (London, 1998)
Ian Kershaw, Hitler, 1936–1945: Nemesis (London, 2000).
Elizabeth Ermarth, ‘Sequel to History’, in Keith Jenkins (ed.), The Postmodern History Reader (London, 1997), p. 6.
Keith Jenkins, ‘A Postmodern Reply to Perez Zagorin’, History and Theory, vol. 39, no. 2 (May 2000), pp. 81–200.
F. R. Ankersmit, ‘Historiography and Postmodernism’, History and Theory, vol. XXVIII, no. 2 (1989), p. 144.
Norman Hampson, Saint-Just (Oxford, 1991), p. ii.
Peter Beilharz, ‘Trotsky as Historian’, History Workshop, no. 20 (Autumn 1985), pp. 6–55.
Simon Schama, Dead Certainties (Unwarranted Speculations) (London, 1991).
Copyright information
© 2004 Willie Thompson
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Thompson, W. (2004). The Status of Historical Evidence. In: Postmodernism and History. Theory and History. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-62945-5_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-62945-5_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-96339-5
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-62945-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)