In this series "What is History?" we looked at some of the philosophical and practical problems historians face in the writing of history. Speculative theories include religious and secular approaches: in the former, history is seen as a process with a divine purpose or master plan; the latter involves a "scientific" method of analysis. The current trend is toward a more critical approach, in which the historian focuses on specific, presumably unrepeatable, events. However, professional historians sometimes seem to raise more questions than they answer. Is the "scientific method" really applicable to human behavior, which at times seems quite unpredictable? How objective can or should a historian be? How selective in the choice of subject matter? What is a historical "fact?" How much of the story line in historical writing is due to the subjective interpretation or imaginative reconstruction of the writer?
To illustrate the variety of historical writing, we looked briefly at some of the ways in which the ancient peoples of Mexico recorded their history before the arrival of the Europeans. The Maya, the Aztecs, and the Mixtecs based their historical records on the concept of cyclic time. The Maya in particular developed a kind of "prophetic history" in which future events were actually determined by past events.The Aztecs used a predominantly pictorial system to record calendrical calculations, ritual events, and tribute lists. The Mixtecs produced accurately dated historical-genealogical records containing detailed information about prominent individuals. All shared a common Pre-Hispanic calendrical system, on which they based their calculations.
Primary motive for writing history is to preserve the memory of the past. Even before the advent of writing in the western tradition. Even before the advent of writing in the western tradition, Homer in the Iliad sang "winged words," which assured that the deeds of Achilles and the heroes of the Trojan War would never be forgotten. Sometimes history is written, or rewritten, in order to make one side look better or worse than the other. The victor may wish to erase the history of the vanquished to justify or glorify his own position, as did the Aztec counselor Tlacaellel when he burned all books that did not mention the Aztecs. Of course, the rewriting of history may also represent an attempt to correct historical errors or misinterpretations in the light of new evidence.
We inherited our concept of history from the Greeks, but there are many variations. In India greater stress was laid on religious and philosophical speculation than on the strict chronology of historical events. In ancient Ireland, chroniclers reconstructed a semi-imaginary history incorporating native oral tradition and Biblical themes. In ancient Mexico the method of recording historical events developed quite independently of the so-called "Old World."
The form in which history is recorded reflects the individual cultural and linguistic values and biases of the historian. Even the language we speak influences to some extent the way we think and express ourselves. The linguistic structure of English is quite different form that of Maya or Nahuatl, and so the mode of thought differs considerably.
Historians are fallible human beings who can hardly avoid taking a particular point of view in writing history. In their versions of the Conquest of Mexico, the Spaniards justified aggressive military actions against the Indian "barbarians" and "heathens" by "right of conquest" and "divine will." Indeed, even today some still regard Cortes and the Conquistadores as conquering heroes who won an entire continent away from the undeserving Indians. However, whether an armed conflict is "battle" or a "massacre" depends upon your point of view. The Spaniards regarded the carnage and bloodshed of the Conquest as "victories" in their furious quest for land and gold. In their historical writings the victims present a much different view of the unprovoked Spanish invasion.
In Yucatan the Spanish and Maya historical accounts of the Conquest and the early colonial period differ so greatly that the reader may wonder if the writers are talking about the same thing. The Maya Book of Tizimin, a history of the Itza of Yukatan, deals mainly with Indian lords and priests, native cosmology, and other purely Maya concerns. Spaniards, when they are mentioned at all, appear as somewhat shadowy, insignificant figures. Spanish records, on the other hand, focus on the succession of officials, laws, discoveries, conquests, and other matters connected with their occupation and rule over New Spain.
In view of the philosophical and practical problems involved in the writing of history we cannot simply dismiss "native" historical records as "nonscientific" and therefore suspect. The Aztec migration from Aztlan to the founding of Mexico-Tenochtitlan has been described as a semi-historical, semi-legendary account of a historical event. For the Aztecas, however, it was true history and the guiding light of their destiny as a powerful empire before the Conquest.
In history a guide to future action based on lessons learned in the past; a harmless academic discipline; an aesthetic experience; mere amusement? Recent world events strongly suggest that we still have not learned enough from the past to enable us to live peacefully on earth. What is history? If I were forced to give an answer, I probably say history is what you make of it. For me, history provides an opportunity to sit back and contemplate the follies and achievements of the past from a more or less safe vantage point. How about you?
