How to study the history of something?

>>1990477
There are 2 sorts history - real and official. There a lot of data about official history, but it is still under states pressure - full of propaganda, post-war corrections, more and more lying towards past, up to artistic legends about "Middle Ages" and pre-Greek civilizations. If you will working on official history, you will receive detailed order with clear goals ("Hitler was bad"-"Our country wasnt agressor"-"This city is fucking ancient").
Real history is much harder and has some specific methods. Publication can be crime.

>>1991375
>Real history is much harder and has some specific methods. Publication can be crime
What is this even about?

>>1990477

To be honest, it sounds like anthropological works will be more useful to you. Anthropology looks at what is universally (or otherwise) human and will help you to find a common thread in a large body of disparate primary source material.

The 'historical' method will require you to look at primary evidence, filter it through the prism of secondary scholarship - which hopefully you have weighed based on your own readings of primary source material - and come to your own conclusions with regard to the specific set of parameters you have given yourself for your enquiry.

Probably the most important thing to do when coming up with the question/questions you want to answer is to not then cherry pick from primary source material to fit your hypothesis. Rather, the character of the primary source material should alter and redefine your initial question.

A good place to start might be with either E.H. Carr's What is History of G. R. Elton's Practice of History. Both are old, both authors have, to use Carr's phrase, 'bees in their bonnets' - but both are classics for a reason.

>>1990477
Take everything in context. If it exists, there could be some other reason for it, some cultural practice or value.

Or, there could be no reason at all and it's completely random, just a fad that culture or civilization picked up.

In regards to your subject I would recommend seeing how divination developed. If there was some pressure on the society that drove them to come up with predicting the future, if the idea spread by trade and contact, or if it was completely random, etc.

At least that's what I'd do.

>>1991429
You can be arrested in Israel or Germany for newspaper article with denial of holocaust. "Revisionism" is curse word for state historians. This is official history and its not full science.
Real history can be created only with absence of censorship and free discussions.

>>1991454
Thanks for the input. I think you're right about anthropology being more close to where I'm going. Do you have book recommendations for anthropology?

>Probably the most important thing to do when coming up with the question/questions you want to answer is to not then cherry pick from primary source material to fit your hypothesis. Rather, the character of the primary source material should alter and redefine your initial question.
I can totally sense why this can be a problem from my own experience. You've put it in good words something that is the reason why I'm coming for help. That is, how to not let oneself be taken for a previously thought hypothesis.

>>1991466
Thanks

>>1991726
I'm totally with you that censorship and free discussions are necessary for doing history as a "science". But what has denying the Holocaust or to give another example denying the existence of Charlemagne to do with sience?
If you're reasoning is construtivism and the negation of any historical facts, you get this round today because I'm to tired to argue against it.

>>1991924
You havent fully understand. I can list a lot of facts about holocaust: numbers of killed British or French spies of Jews, documents, lists of Jews-bureaucrats, Jews-officers in Germany, etc. But state historians would say: "You are racist, go to prison". This case is not a big problem. I just shown you common disadvantage.
True history means presumption of falseness for all facts. Historian must prove every event, with strict and deep control of all related sources. Its very hard as I said, so Im not sure you need whole methodology. But it will be dominant in future, because True is priceless.

>>1992132
I don't know why but I don't like your usage of the terms true/real in the context of history.
I see where are going, if truely understand it I'm not sure.
You're not taking anything as a granted fact to start with, but want to prove the existence of every event strictly on sources, which you have evaluted on their authenticity/trustfullness etc..

Back to the Holocaust:
Your problem is that having a law that forbits denying the Holocaust asumes that the Holocaust happend and by that takes away the burden of proof you want to have for historiography(in the sense of sientific work of an historian), did I understand you?

> I can list a lot of facts about holocaust: numbers of killed British or French spies of Jews, documents, lists of Jews-bureaucrats, Jews-officers in Germany, etc. But state historians would say: "You are racist, go to prison".

this is the part where I have problems understanding you.
You say that you (personally/one in general?) could name a lot of facts about the holocaust (list of killed jews etc.) One could do that: take the primary sources (list's,documents,buildings...) we have and write about that:
let's take kz x, search survivors (bothsides), read documents, visit buildings, read sientific literature....
and after that you're gonna wright in kz x happend this, y people where there, z people died etc. and you would propably also show the blank spaces in the sources like we don't know if the guards got this as an order or did by free will etc.(don't know just some random examples)
All that wouldn't be a problem in Germany (can't speak for Israel), no historian in germany would call you a racist, nor are you in danger of prison, for working about the Holocaust.
The only thing illegal in Germany about denying the holocaust+other genocidal crimes done by the nazi (gypsies...) is to say (simplified):
didn't happen;
wasn't that bad;
it was god that it happend.
btw not op but >1991924 this guy

>>1992399
Holocaust was just a example of common censorship.
Worser thing is lie about old times (16 century and earlier). Most of these events based on very weak and shady sources. Typical case.
"William XYZ was French king during 897-911".
Why?
"Because it is data of French school book"
Source of school book?
"Article of historian Abcd E. Ancient France. 1978".
Source of this article?
"Chronicle of Kingdom. 915".
Was it always known?
"Looks like it was forgotten, but historians took it from Library of Paris and published in 1847".
Was it known before? Any publications before 1847?
".... Im not sure."
How was it stored during 915-1847? How has this book got to library?
"I dont know."
What was the condition of book in 1847?
"Well. This book was very bad. But our wonderfull historians recovered it, including lost pages."

>>1992692
>Holocaust was just a example of common censorship.
in my opinion very light and maybe even usefull cernsorship.
ok but to what to you is your conclusing of that? If you write sientific about the question Why do we asume Willy X was king of france durin 897-191/Was Willy X king of france durin 897-191? you state that our tradition says us so because of named sources, but problems occure here because of a bad conserved copy.
So for a further going question (how did william interact wis his vasalls till 900) we need to know if he he was king in 897. So do you work on the data of 897 or not?
I wouldn't call it lying, it's just bad citation, because if you name your sources everbody could follow the whole tradition of thesises you work with.
And for puplic historiography it must be possible to get a full timetable, without saying that that are asumptions, and being acused of lying, because what the normie who's not working with history sientificly need to know about history.
I know very well how critical our knowledge about the past is. A very nice example that happend to expierence this summer was about the duchy of Alemanni. For the 5th century the historiography asumes a unified duchy with maybe a fortified capital from nowerday France to Ratisbona. That is based on the occerance of a duke of the same name appeared in two vitas of sancts one playing in todays france one in todays bavaria, and because someone had to wait in front of the duke house a fortified city is asumed.

>>1992943
Main hint - reversal order of research. For both places and events.
For example, Italy. Nice order: Italy of 21 century, Italy of 20 century and so on. Decades are better (Italy of 2010s, Italy of 2000s, Italy of 1990s). Years are ideal but it is hardcore for huge organisations or computer programs. Do not skip period to avoid traps . If you havent data about Italy of 12 century, better to stop and consider that all "known" earlier events are unreliable - can have wrong timestamps or even be legends. ("Mongols had million army in 13 century" - What was the demography of Mongolia during 14-19 centuries? - "I dont know" - Gtfo).
Same order about concrete event. Example: 9/11. Proofs? There is an article in newspaper XXX #165. How was XXX #165 detected? In local library, today. How was this newspaper appeared and stored there? Library log says XXX #165 was delivered in 2001-09-13 from printing plant PPP and was staying before current request. 15 years is realistic term for modern library's conditions. What was before delivery? Technical info of XXX #165 says it was printed and published in 2001-09-12. 1 day between related event and publication - nice. External link to the publication? Article in newspaper YYY #783, 2001-09-15, or TV show of 123 Channel in 2002-01-23.
You can continue to check YYY or 123 Channel. Or other direct proof. 100% reliability is impossible, but more checked levels - less chances of false. Its very important to track whole chain of transmission of information between current publicity and creating. Every gap is very bad sign. ("Mongols had conquered most of Eurasia in 13 century" - Proof? - "Golden Legend" - "How was this information transferred from 13 century to present?"-"Book was detected and published in 19 century" - What about 13-19 centuries? - "I dont know" - FU).