The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past

John Lewis Gaddis has written a superb book on "how historians map the past" and why we should care. Drawing on impressive erudition, he clearly and deeply shows how history relates to the human sciences and the natural sciences, yet his writing is very easy to follow and enjoyable, and not at all pretentious. At less than 200 pages, this is a short book, but there's insight on every page, so the attentive reader will learn a lot. To give a better sense of the contents, let me try to summarize some of the main ideas: ______________ The first and most obvious challenge faced by the historian is that the past (the "landscape of history"), though real, isn't directly accessible to us, so we try to reconstruct a representation (a map) of it based on the traces it leaves for us. This requires inductive and deductive selection and interpretation of evidence, balancing details and generalizations, with the process iterated until an acceptable narrative has been produced, as judged relative to a chosen perspective and purposes. In this sense, there's no such thing as a "correct" historical narrative, but there are certainly less or more useful narratives, and pluralistically developing multiple narratives coming from different angles can enhance our overall understanding. A further challenge for the historian is that the human and natural worlds consist of systems which aren't merely simplex or complex, but rather an interactive combination of both, with processes which are both linear and nonlinear, continuous and discontinuous, path-independent and path-dependant, predictable and unpredictable (with sensitive dependence on initial conditions). Moreover, unlike inert objects, people have consciousness, which can make their actions especially unpredictable. The result is that variables are generally interdependent, without the possibility of usefully separating out independent variables, and forecasting beyond some basic patterns and tendencies is usually impossible. This again highlights the need for narrative. Considering these features, the historian's work is much like the historical sciences of astronomy, geology, and evolutionary biology (see especially Maps of Time: An Introduction to Big History (California World History Library) by David Christian), as well as the practice of clinical medicine, but it's notably unlike the social sciences, because of their aim for ahistorical universal generalizations. With respect to why we should bother with history, the past always weighs heavily on the present and future, thereby shaping our culture and even our physical landscape, so studying history should have at least some benefit in helping us make better decisions. And more generally, the study of history helps to keep us well-rounded and balanced, with a better sense of our place in the scheme of things. ______________ If you have an interest in history or the craft of history, I very highly recommend this wonderful book. In fact, I rank

This book is an entertaining and easily readable book about how historians map that unusual and mysterious landscape known as the past. Examining the relationships between history and the 'hard' sciences and how their methods have become joined over the course of the 20th and early 21st centuries, and filled with well-thought and humorous barbs against both reductionism and relativism, this book gives historians the grounds to feel supremely proud and awesomely humble about their field and their approach. This book should be either required or recommended reading for any class in historiography as a brief but vital apologetic for the historical craft. Clio, that famous muse of history, would be proud to be defended so ably and so cleverly, and so should the proud student of history.

Gaddis is a well-published Cold War historian. His PhD (1968) is from the University of Texas. He now teaches at Yale. I have seen him on C-Span a couple of times; he has a flat, slightly nasal, Southwestern accent, is highly intelligent beneath his self-deprecating and slightly awkward manner. This book is based on a series of lectures he gave on historical method while he was George Eastman Visiting Professor at Balliol College, Oxford, 2000-2001, before 9/11. Although I have given this book a 5-star rating, there are a few negatives. He tries too hard to make a good impression on his Oxonian audience, with cornball humor and lame analogies. He obviously feels that he has to prove that he is a civilized, cultured person and not an ignorant Texas yahoo. He is too nice to the post-modern feminist deconstructionists who have tried to destroy Western culture and rewrite history. No doubt he is in an awkward position, surrounded as he is by such people at Yale. It's hard to blame him for trying to defuse their basic hostility toward everything he represents - caucasian, male, Texan, but he could have made his points without citing such trendy vacuities as "Shakespeare in Love", "Being John Malkovich", and Tom Stoppard. That said, this is a serious book about a serious subject, the structure of historical thought and method. He gives most of the credit for the modern understanding of the subject to Marc Bloch and E.H. Carr, whose work he cites throughout. R.G. Collingwood The Idea of History: With Lectures 1926-1928, who actually preceded both Bloch and Carr with many of the same insights, also appears frequently, but almost as an afterthought. Gaddis believes that while it is not possible to apply the experimental scientific method to history ("history" is past, done, over with, finished, by definition), it is quite possible to use the descriptive scientific method of collecting evidence and using reason to explain it, much like a physician, paleontologist, geologist, or field naturalist does, and by doing so arrive at a fair representation of the past. The more objective and thorough the historian, the more accurate the representation. He also shows that a PERFECT reproduction of the past is impossible, and probably not even desirable. For the details of his argument, read the book, and ignore the lame analogies. My opinion of Gaddis is heightened by his graceful admission that he failed completely to anticipate the peaceful and almost bloodless collapse of the USSR. Highly recommended for those with a serious interest in history.

I had the privilege of attending Prof. Gaddis' lectures in Oxford, and enjoyed every minute of it. His writing accurately reflects the lectures; the only thing missing is the Q & A at the end.This is not a methodological how-to for historians, it is a philosophical look at the tradecraft, mostly done by comparing it to other disciplines, especially the hard sciences and social sciences. Historians will no doubt enjoy reviewing (maybe reitering) what they've been doing all along; students will undoubtedly learn much from this study.Many of the critical comments during the Q & A reflected current fads in historiography, such as subaltern studies, triumphalism, etc. Some of this made it into the book, in Prof. Gaddis' emphasis on solid academic analysis. It is impossible to achieve a totally detached point of view, but the historian should strive toward that goal through the rigors of an honest review of the facts, and the subsequent interpretation. Causation is a difficult point here, in that the latest fads attempt to ascribe causation to whatever their favorite subaltern. Prof. Gaddis notes that causation is perhaps the best we can hope for, turning the clock backwards, searching for the point of no return in events leading to the subject in question. His use of metaphors lends much humor to the book, I especially empathized with the one about the spilled truckload of Marmite on the highway between Oxford and London.All in all, a delightful book to read, I hope it quickly replaces the really tedious textbooks normally assigned to the study of historiography; it will add greatly to classes on methodology.Thanks you, Prof. Gaddis, for this witty, eminently readable gem of a book.

On the whole, I avoid scientific subjects whenever I can. I am decidely of a poetic and literary turn of mind and science makes my head ache.However, Mr. Gaddis has such an elegant mind and writes so clearly that even a tyro in the fields of "hard science" and historiography can enjoy this slim book. Although Gaddis uses scientific terms he very carefully explains what each means rather than assume that his reader is familiar with such jargon. I was easily able to understand, absorb and apply his arguments.Thus, this book made me feel that I am much smarter than I probably am. This is decidedly better than reading an author who acts superior and makes me fear that I am a dunderhead. But this does not imply that Mr. G. talks down to his reader. He respects his audience and treats them as intelligent adults.If you have any desire to understand how historians work and where their discipline intersects with the other sciences this is a book you should not miss.