Course Manual

Rethinking History 1
CH1102

Academic year 2017-2018

Term 2.2
International Bachelor History/Bachelor Geschiedenis
Bachelor Year 1

Lecturers
Tina van der Vlies MA (coordinator)
Hilde Harmsen MA
Dr. Sandra Manickam
Pieter Van den Heede MA
Contents

1. Practical information ................................................................................................................. 3

2. General introduction to the course ....................................................................................... 3

3. Learning objectives .................................................................................................................... 4

4. Organisation and approach: procedure and assessment ................................................. 5

5. Concise overview of sessions and assessments ................................................................. 6

6. Assessment and examination .................................................................................................. 7

7. Week-by-week description of class content and assignments ..................................... 8

8. Mandatory course reading ..................................................................................................... 27

9. Specimen examinations ........................................................................................................ 28

10. Rules related to attendance .................................................................................................. 28

11. Rules related to written work ............................................................................................... 30

12. Requirements and evaluation criteria for oral assignments ........................................... 31

13. Plagiarism ...................................................................................................................................32

14. Instructions for footnotes and bibliography ......................................................................32

15. Schedule oral presentations ............................................................................................... 343

2
1. Practical information

Course name Rethinking History 1

Course code CH1102
ECTS 7.5
Position in the curriculum Bachelor, term 2.2
Coordinator Tina van der Vlies (vandervlies@eshcc.eur.nl)
Lecturer(s) Hilde Harmsen (harmsen@eshcc.eur.nl)
Sandra Manickam (manickam@eshcc.eur.nl)
Pieter Van den Heede (vandenheede@eshcc.eur.nl)
Tina van der Vlies (vandervlies@eshcc.eur.nl)
Teaching methods used Lectures and tutorials
Assessment Written and oral assignments; written examination

2. General introduction to the course

What exactly is the difference between 'the past' and 'history'? To which extent does
history serve a practical purpose? Who actually determines what is recognised as
historical knowledge? How can we determine the truth or falseness of historical evidence
and historical facts? Which differences are there between the work of professional
historians and that of truth and reconciliation commissions? It is important to think about
these and other issues. In this course we will literally be ‘Rethinking History’.

We will reflect on historical knowledge’s relevance for society and examine the
fundamentals of history as a scholarly pursuit. You will be introduced to theoretical
concepts, which you will be using throughout the history bachelor programme to
understand historical events, processes and periodisations.

We will be referring to both primary sources and secondary academic literature to discuss
the significance of the concept of history in relation to the infrastructure of the history
profession, its Western background and bias, historical truth, facts and fiction, the events
of the past, audiences and identity and history and ethics.

Each week, we will study and discuss one of the following themes.

Week 1 WHAT IS HISTORY?

Week 2 THE HISTORY PROFESSION IN A GLOBALIZING WORLD
Week 3 CAN WE KNOW THE PAST?
Week 4 HISTORY FOR WHOM? PUBLICS AND IDENTITY

3
This course is the first step in the philosophical reflection on the discipline of history and
its historical backgrounds. It also forms the foundation for the course ‘Rethinking History
2’ in the second year of the History IBA.

3. Learning objectives

Substantive learning objectives:

• Students are introduced to the fundamentals of scientific historiography (including

a number of philosophical approaches and theoretical concepts), to the history of
modern historical scholarship and to historical consciousness.
• Students are able to recognise different interests and identify the ethical aspects of
academic and popular applications of history in historical and contemporary
examples, and make a critical assessment of these examples.

Objectives that relate to academic skills:

• Students are able to analyse scholarly text content (books, articles, chapters) on
the basis of the following elements: the text’s subject or subjects; the author’s
proposition or propositions; the author’s argument or arguments; theories; facts;
conclusions.
• They are able to reproduce, summarise, interpret and critically comment on the
substance of an historical subject.
• They are able to present a clear position that is substantiated with solid arguments
within written or oral debates on a historical topic.
• They are able to produce a written assignment on a historical subject based on
secondary literature, in which they refer to one or more concepts.
• They are able to deliver a short oral presentation (oral assignment) in correct Dutch
or English that presents clear arguments and makes effective use of a variety of
media.
• They are able to reflect on the principles of academic integrity, adhere to these
principles in their own scholarly products and recognise them in the scholarly
products of others (correct citation and bibliography, avoidance of plagiarism).

• For further information on the specific substantive and academic objectives

pursued in this course, please see the week-by-week descriptions.

4
4. Organisation and approach: procedure and assessment

The series includes 4 lectures. In these lectures, the lecturer discusses a variety of subjects
– sometimes with the aid of audio-visual presentations. A PowerPoint presentation of each
of these lectures will be shared via Blackboard. You are expected to study the required
literature in advance before attending the lecture. In addition, you need to take notes during
the lecture. These preparations will save you time when you study for the exam later on. If
you don’t understand something, feel free to ask the lecturer to explain it in more detail
during or after the lecture.

In addition, the series has 12 mandatory tutorial sessions, during which students go over
the information presented in the lectures and the literature on the basis of oral and
written assignments. The tutorial sessions last three hours.

You will receive a grade for two of the written assignments you work on. You can submit
your work for these assignments via Blackboard. In addition, you will be asked to hold a
presentation, for which you will also receive a grade.

Be sure to always take along the course manual, the handbook and the text content
associated with that session. We recommend that you print out these text sources. This
content is examined in more detail during the tutorial sessions – occasionally, you will be
asked to look up specific information in these sources during the session. This course
manual provides a separate description of each of the different assignments, ordered
according to session.

Work load

This course counts for 7.5 ECTS, which equals 210 hours of study.

4 lectures of 2 hours ............................... 8

12 meetings of 3 hours ......................... 36
preparation meetings ............................ 49
two written papers ................................. 18
one oral presentation .............................. 6
study of literature ................................... 90
written examination ..................................3

_____________________________________

Total 210 hours

Students are expected to devote a total of 40 hours per week to this course. This total
includes lectures and tutorial sessions and the course exams.

5
 5. Concise overview of sessions and assessments

Week 1: What is history?

Lect. 1: 08-01 T. van der Vlies: What is history? Donnelly & Norton Preface+Ch1;
Arnold Ch1
Tu 1: 08-01 Questioning history Donnelly & Norton Ch1; Arnold Ch1
Tu 2: 10-01 From myths to the writing of history Donnelly & Norton Ch2 (until p. 40);
Arnold Ch2; sources Herodotus and
Gregory of Tours
Tu 3: 12-01 The influence of progress on Donnelly & Norton Ch2 (from p. 40);
modern historiography Arnold Ch3
15-01-2018 DEADLINE Paper 1, 8.00 AM
Week 2: The history profession in a globalizing world
Lect. 2: 15-01 T. van der Vlies, The history Donnelly & Norton Ch3; Rüsen;
profession and its Eurocentric Diawara
origins
Tu 4: 15-01 Are there civilizations without Donnelly & Norton Ch3; Rüsen;
history? Diawara
Tu 5: 17-01 Questioning and analysing sources Donnelly & Norton Ch4; Tosh Ch5;
Source Zemon Davis
Tu 6: 19-01 Theorizing the archive Arnold Ch.4; Grever
Excursion: Rotterdam City
Archives
Week 3: Can we know the past?
Lect. 3: 22-01 T. van der Vlies, Can we know the Donnelly & Norton Ch5+Ch6
past? Facts and the truth
Tu 7: 22-01 Reflections on truth and reality Donnelly & Norton Ch5; Arnold Ch7
Tu 8: 24-01 Objectivity Donnelly & Norton Ch5+Ch6; Paul
(2011), Lowenthal
Tu 9: 26-01 Historical reasoning and explaining McCullagh; Jary
29-01-2018 DEADLINE Paper 2, 8.00 AM
Week 4: History for whom? Publics and identity
Lect. 4: 29-01 T. van der Vlies, History and identity Donnelly & Norton Ch7
Tu 10: 29-01 Strategic history Donnelly & Norton Ch7
Tu 11: 31-01 Popular history Donnelly & Norton Ch9; Carrier;
Connerton
Tu 12: 02-02 Disciplines and approaches Donnelly & Norton Ch8, Arnold Ch7
WRITTEN EXAMINATION
06 February 2018 (13.30-16.30)
Van der Goot M-Hall
Exam review: to be announced
Re-sit: 05-07-2018 (13:30 - 16:30)
M-hall

6
6. Assessment and examination

The assessment of the course comprises two written papers (P), one oral assignment (OA)
and one written examination. The written examination is based on: notes taken during
lectures and tutorials; the handbooks; secondary literature and the course guide
assignments that were reviewed and discussed.

Registration for the course in Osiris will automatically register you for all examinations
with the exception of the re-sit exam. For the re-sit you have to register yourself and this
is possible via Osiris 35 to 7 days prior to the re-sit examination date.

The various grades are weighted as follows to determine the final grade for the course:

1. Paper 1 10%
2. Paper 2 20%
3. Oral Assignment 20%
4. Written Examination 50%

Students will receive feedback after each written paper and oral presentation.

Deadlines, feedback and evaluation

Week 1 Start course Monday (lecture + tutorial) - Wednesday (Tu) - Friday (Tu)
Week 2 Paper 1 Monday 15-01 8:00 AM (submission via Blackboard: Turn-it-in)
Week 3 Feedback Paper 1 (Monday) and information about Paper 2 (Wednesday)
Week 4 Paper 2 Monday 29-01, 8:00 AM (submission via Blackboard: Turn-it-in)
Week 4 Feedback Paper (Friday)

Mandatory course reading

Course handbooks
• Donnelly, Mark and Claire Norton. Doing history. New York: Routledge, 2011. 230 p.
• Arnold, John, History. A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2000. 150 p.

Other mandatory secondary literature can be digitally accessed via the Erasmus University
Library. For full title descriptions, see the literature on page 29.

7
7. Week-by-week description of class content and assignments

WEEK 1

WHAT IS HISTORY?

Learning objectives in Week 1

1. Students are able to explain the difference between 'past' and 'history'.
2. They are able to explain the differences between mythology and the writing of history
(historiography) and provide historical examples to illustrate these differences.
3. They are able to explain the differences between cyclical and linear historical writing
and recognise these differences in an historical text.
4. They are able to explain which processes led to the emergence of modern historical
scholarship and put these processes in context.
5. They are able to formulate a substantiated position with regard to the subject of
‘progress’ in historical writing.

Main concepts dealt with in Week 1

• History: res gestae and historia rerum gestarum
• Legends and myths
• Historiography
• Cyclical and linear time
• Historical consciousness

===========================================================

Tutorial session 1: Questioning history

Monday, 8 January 2018

Course materials and instruction

• Donnelly & Norton Preface+Ch1;
• Arnold Ch1;
• Lecture 1+PP: What is history?

Read the materials and make a note of any matters that are not clear to you. Look up the
meaning of terms that you do not understand. Then complete the assignments below by
yourself. Where necessary, you can correct or supplement your work after the first lecture
in preparation for the tutorial. Take along your answers to the tutorial session.

8
Assignments
1. Explain in your own words what the difference is between ‘history’ and the ‘past’, based
on the literature and the lecture. At what points do historians sometimes disagree
about this distinction?

2. Donnelly & Norton make a distinction between five ‘aspirations’ in Chapter 1. What is
(are) your aspiration(s) when it comes to studying history?

3. One of the central subjects of the first lecture was the distinction between res gestae
and historia rerum gestarum. Please use these two concepts to explain which
distinction Donnelly & Norton make between two categories of historical questions.

Group debate during the tutorial session

The students will be divided in small sub-groups. Each sub-group will study two quotes.
Discuss in your sub-group which quote you agree with, and why.

CENTRAL QUESTION:
Does history serve a practical purpose in today’s society?

A. Does history offer us practical knowledge or cultural education?

A1 Edward Gibbon (1737-1794, English historian): “I have but one lamp by which my feet
are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know no way of judging of the future but
by the past.”

A2 Carl Becker (1873-1945, American historian): “The value of history is, indeed, not
scientific but moral: by liberalizing the mind, by deepening the sympathies (…) it prepares
us to live more humanely in the present and to meet rather than to foretell the future.”

B. To which extent should we be guided by tradition or by contemporary

developments?

B1 Jan Peter Balkenende (1956-, former Dutch prime minister; historian and lawyer;
endowed professor at Erasmus University Rotterdam): “If the preamble of the European
Constitution includes the notion of a humanist state, then you must also make mention
of Judeo-Christian roots. Everything in Europe is attributable to that tradition:
churches, religion, culture and, in many ways, also education.”

B2. Henry Ford (1863-1947, American automobile manufacturer): ‘History is more or less
bunk. It’s tradition. We don’t want tradition. We want to live in the present and the only
history that is worth a tinker’s damn is the history we make today.’

9
C. Does history make people, or do people make history?

C1 Martin Luther King (1929-1968, American civil rights leader): “We are not makers of
history. We are made by history.”

C2 Karl Marx (1818-1883, German writer and economic thinker, author of Das Kapital,
among other works): ‘People make their own history, but they do so under specific
historical circumstances.”

C3 Mary Ritter Beard (1876-1958, a woman historian who wrote about women's history
early in the 20th century): "The dogma of woman's complete historical subjection to men
must be rated as one of the most fantastic myths ever created by the human mind."

D. Can we learn from the past? What is the relevance of history?

D1 Carl Edward Sagan (1934-1996, American astronomer): “You have to know the past to
understand the present.”

D2 Aldous Huxley (1894-1963, English writer, author of Brave New World, among other
works): “That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most
important of all the lessons that history has to teach.”

D3 George Orwell (1903-1950, English novelist, essayist, journalist and critic): “The
most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding
of their history.”

==========================================================

10
Tutorial session 2: From myths to the writing of history
Wednesday 10 January 2018

Course materials and instruction

• Donnelly & Norton Ch2 (until p. 40);
• Arnold Ch1+2

Read the materials and make a note of any matters that are not clear to you. Look up the
meaning of terms that you do not understand. Then complete the assignments below by
yourself. Take along your answers to the tutorial session.

Assignments
1. Which different meanings can we assign to the concept of ‘historiography’ according
to Donnelly & Norton (Ch1+2)?

2. According to Donnelly & Norton, both classical Chinese and Greek historians drew
lessons from the past. Clarify what they mean by this statement.

3. Read the story about the long-forgotten murder of Guilhem Déjean (Arnold Ch1).
a. Find information about the Inquisition and Catharism in the Middle Ages.
b. Formulate three questions about the story of this murder in relation to the following
three contexts: political history, social history, and religious history. Go on to answer
these questions.

4. Arnold (Ch2) does not agree with the position that there is a clear boundary between
legends and Greek historiography. Which arguments does he present?

5. Explain how nationalism and the rise of the nation state in the nineteenth century
contributed to the emergence of History as a science, according to Donnelly & Norton.

For further details on Paper 1, please read the next page.

11
SUBMISSION Paper 1 via Blackboard
Deadline: Monday 15 January 2018, 8.00 AM

===========================================================

12
Tutorial session 3: The influence of progress on modern historiography
Friday 12 January 2018

Course materials and instruction

• Donnelly & Norton Ch2 (from p. 40), Arnold Ch3;
• Source fragments from Herodotus’s The Histories and Gregory of Tours’s History of
the Franks.

Read the materials and make a note of any matters that are not clear to you. Look up the
meaning of terms that you do not understand. Then complete the assignments below by
yourself. Take along your answers to the tutorial session.

Assignments
1. How does Arnold define antiquarianism, and how was antiquarianism an answer to the
Pyrrhonist rejection of historiography?

2. During the Enlightenment, historians started to doubt God’s role in history. According
to Arnold, which two alternative ways of thinking about causality emerged during this
period?

3. Apart from Rankean historiography, Norton and Donnelly discuss four other influential
historiographic approaches.
a. Note the four historiographic approaches.
b. Then clarify how each historiographic approach relates to the Rankean school.

Group debate during the tutorial session about the following proposition:

There is ‘progress’ in history.

During this session, we will discuss this proposition in a debate that follows the format of
the House of Commons (British Parliament). The tutorial will be divided into four sub-
groups of students:

• Students from group 1-2 prepare arguments in support of the proposition.

• Students from group 3-4 prepare arguments against the proposition.
• One of the students from group 1-2 will offer a 3-minute statement.
• One of the students from group 3-4 will offer a 3-minute statement.
• This will be followed by the actual debate.

Be sure to formulate concise and clear arguments and maintain a polite demeanour
throughout. Pay attention to rhetorical and stylistic aspects.

13
 WEEK 2

THE HISTORY PROFESSION IN A GLOBALIZING WORLD

Learning objectives in Week 2

1. Students are able to name and recognise the key characteristics of modern historical
scholarship.
2. They are able to put the professionalisation of history as a scholarly pursuit into
context and can explain its Western bias.
3. They can explain the differences between primary and secondary sources, and
between external and internal source criticism.
4. They are able to critically assess sources and source fragments.

Main concepts dealt with in Week 2

1. Modern scientific historiography
2. Empiricism
3. Ethnocentrism and Eurocentrism
4. Historical method
5. Primary and secondary sources
6. External and internal source criticism

=====================================================

Tutorial session 4: Are there civilizations without history?

Monday 15 January 2018

Course materials and instruction

• Donnelly & Norton Ch3;
• Rüsen and Diawara;
• Lecture 2+PP: The history profession and its Eurocentric origins.

Read the materials and make a note of any matters that are not clear to you. Look up the
meaning of terms that you do not understand. Then complete the assignments below by
yourself. Where necessary, you can correct or supplement your work after the second
lecture in preparation for the tutorial. Take along your answers to the tutorial session.

Assignments
1. The German historian Leopold von Ranke is generally considered as the first modern
scientific historian and the founder of the historical method.
a. Explain in your own words the meaning of ‘empiricism’.
b. Referring to the limitations of ‘empiricism’ Donnelly & Norton argue that the
historical narrative is more than an enumeration of facts. What do they mean?
c. According to Donnelly & Norton, on the one hand, academic historians put the
importance of the historical method into perspective, while on the other hand,
historians still adhere to this method. Explain this contradiction.

14
2. Consider the five characteristics of modern scientific historiography in Donnelly &
Norton. The characteristics are based on C. Behan McCullagh's work about the
philosophical foundations that enable historian to make truth claims.
a. In what way do these characteristics differ from those of the postmodern approach?

3. Rüsen and Diawara question the Western claims for dominance in the history
profession and historical thinking in general.
a. To what extent do you think is it necessary to acknowledge the Western
(Eurocentric) bias of the history profession? Provide arguments for your view and
refer also to Rüsen.
b. Diawara accuses historian Peter Burke of over-emphasizing the importance of
written sources. How is this ‘scriptocentrism’ related to a biased Western approach
of historical thinking and the history profession? Base your answer also on lecture-
2.

Group debate during the tutorial session about the ‘historical method’
Despite the uncertainty that remains regarding the veracity of historical facts and the
objectivity of the historical narrative, academic historians generally agree about the goals
and methods of historical writing. At the same time however, Donnelly & Norton
emphasise that these agreements about ‘bad’ and ‘good’ methods are merely temporary
and subject to change.

The students will be divided into sub-groups of three. Discuss the ‘historical method’ text
(p. 59) with the other members of your sub-group. In your view, which of the 13 listed
methodological standards are absolutely necessary for a scientific pursuit of history?

Make as a sub-group a top 5 of elements from the rules and standards you prefer. Try to
arrive at a consensus with the other members of your sub-group. Provide solid arguments
for your decision.

=====================================================

15
Tutorial session 5: Questioning and analysing sources
Wednesday 17 January 2018

Course materials and instruction

• Donnelly & Norton Ch4;
• Tosh Ch. 5;
• Source fragment Zemon Davis.

Assignments
1. Donnelly & Norton discuss the conventional distinction between primary and
secondary sources.
a. Start by summarising the difference between primary and secondary sources.
b. Explain what Donnelly & Norton (p. 72) mean by the following quote: “It is
important that we do not simply regard primary sources as containers of
authenticated facts, but that we consider what they can tell us about identities,
mentalities (ways of interpreting the world), and the various (often contested)
relationships that exist between individuals, on the one hand, and collectives,
cultures and societies, on the other.”

2. The quality of any historical study is determined to a large extent by the quality of
the consulted sources.
a. Tosh goes into two different approaches to historical research: source-oriented
and problem-oriented. Explain the respective advantages and disadvantages of
both approaches. Which approach appeals most to you, and why?
As we discussed earlier historians usually refer to written sources (manuscripts,
b.
printed materials). Which consequences does this preference of sources have
for their selected periods, themes and geographic areas?
c.
Historians study as many different sources as possible, after which they work to draw
conclusions from this information. Although this bears similarities with a judge’s
activities, according to Tosh, the metaphor of a court of law cannot be applied to the
historian’s work. Why not? Provide arguments.
d. Explain the difference between internal and external source criticism. Which forms
does Tosh distinguish within these categories?

3. Read the introduction to the book ‘The return of Martin Guerre’ written by the
American historian Natalie Zemon Davis. We will watch a clip from the film based on
her book during the tutorial session. After watching the film, you will work together
with a fellow student to formulate answers to the following questions:
a. Appraise Zemon Davis’s book with respect to the reliability and suitability of her
sources. Use the list of questions provided by Donnelly and Norton on p. 73-74.
b. Is ‘The return of Martin Guerre’ an example of scientific history or of an historical
novel? Provide arguments for your choice.
c. To which extent – and at which points – does the film cross the boundary between
fact and fiction?

16
4. The below section lists a number of institutes that keep archival records, audiovisual
documents and other data that can be consulted by historians and other scholars.
• Select an institution. Or, if you would like to select an institution which is NOT on the
list, consult your tutorial teacher about your choice.
• Search online for information about your selected institute: its founding date; by
whom it was founded; its mission; what kind of sources, documents and other
information it stores and collects.

Prepare a 3-minute presentation about ‘your’ institute, which you will be expected to hold for
your fellow students during the tutorial session.Institutes, Archives and Documentation Centres

1. UNESCO Multimedia Archives 15. Library of Congress (Washington DC)

2. Expatriate Archive Centre 16. Atria. Institute on gender equality and

women’s history (Amsterdam)

3. KITLV Royal Netherlands Institute of 17. International Institute for Social History (IISG)
Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies (Amsterdam)

4. Huygens ING 18. Tropenmuseum (Amsterdam)

5. National Liberation Museum 1944-1945 19. National Maritime Museum (UK)

6. The New York Public Library Digital 20. National Museum of Education (Nl)
Collections

7. The Ottoman Bank Archive and Research 21. Koninklijke Bibliotheek (KB) / National Library
Centre of the Netherlands

8. NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and 22. Military History Collections / Nederlands
Genocide Studies Instituut voor Militaire Historie

9. Foundation for the History of Technology 23. Internet Archive

10. The DEN Foundation (Digitaal Erfgoed 24. KNAW / Royal Netherlands Academy of
Nederland / Digital Heritage Netherlands) Sciences

11. The Steam Museum (Ireland) 25. Institute for Sound and vision (Hilversum)

12. Europeana 26. Dutch Resistance Museum

13. Eurindia 27. CBS / Statistics Netherlands

14. DANS Data Archiving and Networked 28. Tangier American Legation Institute for
Services Moroccan Studies

17
Tutorial session 6: Theorizing the archive
Location: Rotterdam City Archives, Friday 19 January 2018

Course materials and instruction

• Arnold Ch4;
• Grever, Controlling memories.

Assignments
1. Following the professionalisation of historical scholarship in the nineteenth century,
archival records enjoyed an almost undisputed authority. Historical novels,
biographies and autobiographies were considered unreliable in the eyes of academic
historians.
a. Explain which important role Robert Fruin played in the emergence of Dutch
scientific history according to Grever.
b. Describe the ideal concept of the professional historian as envisioned at the time.
c. What does Grever mean when she writes about “the historiographical legacy
which is afflicted by the myth of a gender-neutral and universal truth”?

2. In describing the adventures of Mr and Mrs Burdett, how does Arnold deal with lacunae
in the information available?

3. Analyse Arnold’s use of primary sources in Ch. 4. When does he quote from primary
sources, and to which end (in support of an argument, to spark the reader’s interest, to
illustrate his narrative, or perhaps for some other reason)? Please illustrate your answer
with some examples.

Introduction in English Tour in English Continuation tutorial

9:45 AM Arrival: coffee / tea
10:00 - 10:30 Group A, B
10:30 - 11:15 Group A Group B
Tour and break
11:15 – 12:00 Group B Group A
Break and tour
Groups leave
Note: The tour starts at 10.30 AM and 11.30 AM.

Introduction in Dutch Tour in Dutch Continuation tutorial

1:00 PM Arrival: coffee / tea
1:15 - 1:45 Group C, D Group E
1:45 - 2:30 Group E + Break Group C Group D
+ Break
2:30 - 3:15 Break + Group E
Group D Group C
Groups leave
Note: The tour starts at 1.15 PM, 1.45 PM and 2.45 PM.

Address: Rotterdam City Archives, Hofdijk 651, 3032 CG Rotterdam, tel +31 10 267 55 55
http://www.stadsarchief.rotterdam.nl/en

18
 WEEK 3

CAN WE KNOW THE PAST?

Learning objectives in Week 3

1. Students are able to explain the difference between ‘realism’ and ‘idealism’ and to
recognise the respective arguments for these epistemological approaches.
2. They are familiar with the correspondence theory of truth and the coherence theory of
truth, and are able to assess the historical veracity of specific claims on this basis.
3. They are able to explain the issue of ‘objectivity’ and adopt a critical position of their
own within a debate on this matter.
4. They can recognise and explain the differences between epistemological and
ontological questions.
5. They are able to justify specific historical explanations with the aid of the covering law
model.

Main concepts dealt with in Week 3

• Correspondence theory of truth; coherence theory of truth
• Epistemology and ontology
• Objectivity
• Realism and idealism

======================================================

Tutorial session 7: Reflections on truth and reality

Monday 22 January 2018

Materials and instruction

• Arnold Ch7;
• Donnelly & Norton Ch5;
• Lecture 3+PP: Can we know the past? Facts and truth.

Assignments
1. In his last chapter Arnold reflects on truth claims.
a. Explain what he means on p. 115 that truth depends on context and consensus.
b. In Arnold’s view, does relativism regarding the truth of historical accounts
automatically lead to ‘absolute relativism’? Why or why not?
c. At the end of chapter Arnold offers three other reasons why one would concern
oneself with history other than the desire to establish the precise truth about past
events. What is your opinion about these three reasons?

2. According to Donnelly & Norton there aren’t so much ‘right answers’ to research
questions as there are ‘right ways’ to answer them. What do the authors mean by this
statement?

3. Which distinction can we make between the correspondence theory of truth and the
coherence theory of truth?

19
Tutorial session 8: Objectivity
Wednesday 24 January 2018

Materials and instruction

• Donnelly & Norton Ch5+Ch6;
• Lowenthal, 'Facing up to the deplorable past'
• Paul

Assignments
1. Donnelly & Norton argue that supporting one’s historical narrative with ‘true’ sources is
only one of the historian’s tasks: convincing the reader of one’s perspective is as least
as important. What do the authors mean by the remark “(…) there are right ways to
answer historical questions rather than right answers as such.” (p. 86)?

2. Which distinction can we make between ontological and epistemological questions?

3. Which conclusions do Donnelly & Norton draw from the work of Thomas Kuhn?

4. Describe in your own words which criticisms postmodernists levy against historical
realism.

5. What are important differences between Fruin and Kurth as ‘fathers of history’? Why?

6. According to Paul, father names can proliferate and interfere (Paul, p. 260). Explain
this sentence.

7. According to Paul, historians themselves also create a memory culture. Explain this
idea.

For details on Paper 2, please read the next page.

20
Details Paper 2

Paper 2

Lowenthal asks himself "should we condemn Augustine and Acquinas for defending
slavery and religious persecution?" Recently, several statues and buildings are contested
and some people aim to destroy them. Does it make sense to destroy statues or to
rename buildings (which refer for example to slave owners or opponents of gender
equality)? What is your opinion about this current and sensitive issue? Write a paper in
correct Dutch or English with a length of approximately 850 words.

- Select a contested monument, street name, or building.

- Explain the discussions concerning your example.
- What is your opinion?

Explain and apply the following concepts in your paper:

- Objectivity
- Source criticism
- Historical consciousness

Refer to at least three texts that you have read for this course (this can be articles or
book chapters). Please feel free to use other sources as well.

Give your paper a catchy title. Start with a short introduction and end with a conclusion.

Good luck!

SUBMISSION Paper 2 via Blackboard

Deadline: Monday 29 January 2018, 8.00 AM

===========================================================

21
Tutorial session 9: Historical reasoning and explaining
Friday 26 January 2018

Materials and instruction

• McCullagh;
• Jary, ‘Covering-Law Model of Explanation’.

Assignments
1. McCullagh refers to a number of different approaches to historical explanation. He
broadly distinguishes between three different approaches: what are they?

2. According to Lyotard, why did the grand theories of progress form an unacceptable
hindrance to the historiographical process?

3. We can distinguish two types of conclusions: inductive and deductive.

a. What are the key differences between the two?
b. Name an example of a deductive model that has been applied in the writing of
history. Name two advantages and two disadvantages of such a model.

4. Which view does Braudel hold of explaining history?

5. Why can language and narrative forms also have a major impact on historical
explanations?

Deadline Paper 2: Monday 29 January 2018, 8.00 AM

22
 WEEK 4

HISTORY FOR WHOM? PUBLICS AND IDENTITY

Learning objectives in Week 4

1. The students are able to adopt a substantiated position on the social significance of
history as a pursuit and the role of historians.
2. They are able to explain the interrelation of history and identity and recognise which
influence this relationship has on historical scholarship.
3. They can identify the variety of interests and ethical aspects that are at play in historical
scholarship within historical and contemporary examples.

Main concepts dealt with in Week 4

• Identity
• Nationalism
• Memory
• Heritage
• Multiperspectivity

======================================================

Tutorial session 10: Strategic history

Monday 29 January 2018

Materials and instruction

• Donnelly & Norton Ch7;
• Lecture 4+PP: History and identity.

Assignments
1. Name three ways in which archives may be biased or subservient to the interests of
the nation state. How could one be able to circumvent the problem this poses to the
historian’s work?

2. In which way are the five ‘capital sins’ of historiography (see also the first lecture)
reflected in nationalistic historical accounts?

3. National histories have been subjected to considerable criticism in recent decades.

a. Which objections do global and local historians make against national histories?
b. Are national histories problematic by definition?

4. The Texas Board of Education was regularly in the news in 2010, due to its plans to
make changes to the contents of history schoolbooks in that state. These plans were
met with protest by professional historians, since a number of the Board’s changes
were incorrect from an historical standpoint. According to critics, the contents of
schoolchildren’s history education were overly influenced by political motives.

23
 a. Look online for additional information on the Texas Textbook War (see internet o
Textbook Controversy) and give an example of the changes proposed by the Texas
Board of Education. Why did this example lead to so much commotion?
b. Why do social groups’ identity politics so often centre on the interpretation of ‘the
nation’s collective memory’?

======================================================

24
Tutorial session 11: Popular history
Wednesday 31 January 2018

Materials and instruction

• Donnelly & Norton Ch9;
• Carrier, ‘The Functions of the Historian in Society’;
• Connerton, 'Seven types of forgetting'.

Assignments

1. What is ‘popular history’?

2. On page 155, Donnelly writes: ‘Ann Rigney argues that we should widen the scope of
academic history and understand historical practices in more inclusive, pluralist and
multidimensional ways thereby embracing different modes of presentation,
methodologies, disciplines, institutions and topics for study.’
a. What does Rigney mean by this argument? Explain the author’s perspective.
b. What is your opinion of Rigney’s perspective?

3. Which differences can you name between ‘history’ and ‘memory’? Are the boundaries
commonly that clear-cut?

4. Explain the interrelationship between historical scholarship and collective memory.

5. Which seven types of ‘forgetting’ does Connerton distinguish? Describe each of these
types in more detail.

6. In his article, Carrier sets himself the goal of describing the historian’s various tasks in
society.
a. According to Carrier, which functions do historians fulfil in society? Describe each
of these functions in more detail.
b. What are your views on this matter? Which function do you find the most interesting
and/or appealing, and why?
c. What does Carrier mean by the phrase ‘pseudo-history’ and why, in his view, does it
not benefit a society in any way whatsoever?

======================================================

25
Tutorial session 12: Disciplines and approaches
Friday 2 February 2018

Materials and instruction

• Donnelly & Norton Ch8;
• Arnold Ch6.

Assignments
1. In the twentieth century, developments in society ultimately led to a broader scope in
historical scholarship. The introduction of new research themes was accompanied by
critical reflection on the production of knowledge and the implicit rules followed
within history as a profession. The sub-fields of gender history and postcolonial history
are both major milestones in our thinking about history and the historical profession.

a. Explain the distinction between feminist and gender history.

b. Why are black, gender, postcolonial and queer history all dealt with within the same
chapter? Name at least two reasons.

c. In which period were these sub-fields introduced in historical scholarship (refer to

the order set out in Donnelly’s chapter) and why precisely at that point in time?

d. On page 151, Donnelly and Norton write: “All of these approaches to history are
explicitly political and ideologically motivated – that is, they express particular
perspectives and are written for specific functions.” Is it actually possible to
categorise these different approaches as historical scholarship? Why/why not?

2. Explain in what ways the study of ‘mentalities’ constituted a new approach to the
writing of history.

3. Other disciplines may be used in support of historical scholarship.

a. Explain how mentality historians have used insights from anthropology in their work.
b. Suggest your own example of an ‘auxiliary discipline’ that can be utilised in the
writing of history.

Feedback on Paper 2

Questions about the WRITTEN EXAMINATION.

26
8. Mandatory course reading

• Arnold, John. History. A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2000.
• Carrier, Richard C. “The Function of the Historian in Society.” The History Teacher 35
(2002): 519–526.

• Connerton, Paul. “Seven types of forgetting.” Memory Studies 59 (2008): 59–71.

• Davis, Natalie Z. The return of Martin Guerre. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1983.
• Diawara, Mamadou. "Historical programs. A Western perspective." In Western
Historical Thinking. An Intercultural Debate, edited by J. Rüsen, pp.148-151. New York /
Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2005.

• Donnelly, Mark, and Claire Norton. Doing history. New York: Routledge, 2011.
• Grever, Maria. “Controlling Memories. Gender and the Construction of Scientific
History.” In Annali dell’Instituto Storico Italo-Germanico in Trento Parte Il ‘Problemi
storiografici’, 385–400. Bologna: Il Mulino, 1997.
• De Selicourt, Aubrey, trans. Herodotus: The Histories. Harmondsworth: Penguin
Books, 1996.
• Jary, David. “Covering-Law Model of Explanation”. In The SAGE Dictionary of Social
Research Methods, edited by Victor Jupp, 48–49. London: Sage Publications, 2006.
• Lowenthal, David. “Facing up to the deplorable past.” Perspectives on History, May
2016.
• McCullagh, Christopher B. “Historical explanation, Theories of: Philosophical Aspects.”
In Vol. 11 of International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences, edited
by James D. Wright, 10–16. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2015.
• Paul, Herman. “Fathers of History: Metamorphoses of a Metaphor.” Storio della
Storiografia 59/60 (2011): 251–267.
• Paul, Herman. Key issues in historical theory. New York: Routledge, 2015.
• Reheat, Ernest, trans. Gregory of Tours: History of the Franks. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1916.
• Rüsen, Jorn. "Introduction: historical thinking as intercultural discourse". In Western
Historical Thinking. An Intercultural Debate, edited by Jorn Rüsen, 1–14. New York /
Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2005.
• Tosh, John. The Pursuit of History. Aims, Methods and New Directions in the Study of
Modern History. Harlow: Pearson, 2010.

27
9. Specimen examinations

1. Explain the following proposition: “History and the past are two different things.”

2. Read the text fragment below.

(……..)
• Explain the difference between the correspondence theory of truth and the
coherence theory of truth.
• Which of the two theories does the historian in this text refer to in order to
establish the truth of his or her assertion?

3. In which ways is modern historiography indebted to antiquarianism?

Note: in addition to testing your knowledge of the subjects treated in this course, we will
also be asking you to apply this knowledge to source fragments and secondary literature.

10. Rules related to attendance

Each of the scheduled lectures will prepare you for the associated tutorial sessions, during
which you will be required to execute a wide range of different assignments.

Attendance of the tutorial sessions is mandatory. These sessions adhere to the

following protocol:
o The lecturer keeps a record of which students are present or absent.
o If a student is unable to attend one of the tutorial sessions, the student is required to
notify the lecturer in advance, stating the reason of his or her absence.
o Students who are unable to attend a single tutorial session satisfy the minimum
attendance requirements for the course without having to do an extra assignment –
provided they attend each of the remaining sessions. However, the student is required
to catch up on any regular assignments that had to be handed in during the missed
session.
o Students who miss two sessions can still satisfy the attendance requirements for the
course by completing an extra assignment on top of the course’s regular assignments.
This extra assignment is always an assignment that is given to the student by the
lecturer on an individual basis. The student is required to send the completed
assignment to the lecturer via email within two weeks. This assignment is
subsequently given either a ‘pass’ or ‘no pass’ mark.
o Students who fail to attend a tutorial session on more than two occasions are always
required to arrange an appointment with the student advisor. In principle, students
who do not show up three times or more are barred from the course from then on.

28
 They will be required to resit the entire course the following year. In the case of BA-1
students, this means that the student in question no longer satisfies the minimum
ECTS score associated with the Binding Study Advice (60 credits). As a consequence,
the student will not be able to continue the degree programme after the first year,
unless the Examining Board agrees to exempt him or her from this rule under a
hardship clause.

Before each tutorial session, all students are required to: study the mandatory literature
selected for that session; complete the assignments for the upcoming tutorial. Absence
from a tutorial session is only accepted under highly extenuating circumstances: illness or a
calamity. If you are unable to attend a session, you are required to notify your lecturer
and/or your student advisor in a timely manner by email. After this, you are required to
submit the completed assignments associated with the missed session to your lecturer in
writing as soon as possible.

In accordance with the rules set out in the Teaching and Examination Regulations, students
are required to actively participate in all mandatory course meetings (seminars, tutorial
sessions and research workshops). In concrete terms, to satisfy this requirement students
need to be physically present throughout the entire length of the meeting and to bring
along the completed preparatory assignments set out in the course guide. If a student fails
to satisfy this requirement, the lecturer will record a 50% attendance score for him or her.
The lecturer will send an email to the student informing him or her of this subtracted score.

Evaluation of assignments and examination

This course guide lists the various assignments per week. In addition to the regular
assignments – which you complete on your own in preparation of each meeting and
which are then discussed in the tutorial session – and the assignments that need to be
posted on BB, during this course, you will also be asked to submit two papers for which
you will be graded.

• You are required to hand in these papers via Blackboard before the stated deadlines
(please refer to the week sections to determine the relevant deadline).
• The option of handing in your completed work via Blackboard is automatically
cancelled once the associated deadline expires. In other words, it is impossible to hand
in an overdue assignment via BB!
• If you are unable to meet a deadline due to circumstances, you are required to submit
your completed assignment to the lecturer – both via email and in the shape of a print
copy – no later than the Thursday that follows the missed deadline, before 11 a.m. In
such cases, your grade for the assignment will be rescaled with factor 0.6.
• Students who hand in their written work after this second deadline or fail to hand it in
altogether will be graded a 0 for the relevant assignment.

It is not possible to resit a paper or oral assignment.

29
11. Rules related to written work

1. Each time you submit a written paper, be sure to clearly record your name, student
number, date and the course title in the top right-hand corner of your work. Do not
include any other information besides the above!
2. Each argumentation should be preceded by a creative, yet adequate title.
3. Be sure to order your arguments into clear paragraphs; indicate these different
paragraphs with an indented line (use the ‘tab’ button). Each paragraph should
comprise a single step in your line of reasoning. In other words, do not include any
single-sentence paragraphs. Only use a section break (extra space between two
paragraphs) if you believe the reader needs to be alerted to an entirely new element
in your argumentation.
4. Be sure to carefully record your references to the mandatory literature and (where
applicable) other sources by means of notes. In this context, you are expected to
adhere to the Chicago Style citation guidelines:
www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html
5. Be sure to give the full title of your source when citing the consulted literature.
These titles can be found in the back of this study guide.
6. Be sparing in your quotations. It’s often better to paraphrase rather than use a direct
quotation: i.e. describe in your own words what an author writing in the secondary
literature or a primary source is saying, accompanied by a note, and include this
paraphrase at a logical point in your argumentation. In other words: be careful not
to create the impression of plagiarism. As a standard measure, all submissions are
checked for plagiarism via Turnitin.
7. Never use abbreviations of any kind (for example, viz., e.g. or i.a.) Be sure to always
write out such terms.
8. Be sure to write out century names, in other words: do not write 15th century, but
fifteenth century.
9. Do not title individual paragraphs!
10. Written papers with incorrect citation or that are written in substandard
Dutch/English will not be reviewed and will be given a non-pass grade.
11. The word count for your written paper may vary by a maximum margin of + or -
10%.

Assessment criteria

1. Basic conditions and technical aspects:

• Handed in on time – i.e. before the set deadline (!)

• Total word count falls within the established margins (maximum deviation of 10%)
• The paper is structured correctly: title, layout, division into paragraphs
• The quality of the Dutch/English used: spelling, grammar and stylistic elements
• Correct citation

30
2. Substantive criteria:

• Adequate incorporation of all required elements set out in the assignment

• Logical line of reasoning
• Extent to which the mandatory literature and sources have been incorporated in
the submitted work
• Clear distinction between the positions of the cited authors and the student’s own
perspective
• Creativity shown in the student’s argumentation
• Catchy title or opening paragraph is contending in a note, and assign this
contention a logical place in your argument.

12. Requirements and evaluation criteria for oral assignments

Oral assignments

The oral assignment is evaluated on the basis of three criteria:

1. Substance (correctness of the provided information, clarity and structure of the

presentation, etc.)
2. Presentation (effective use of voice, posture, etc.)
3. The student’s PowerPoint presentation

The lecturer will orally share his or her reasons for awarding the student a specific grade.

Practical checklist

• Start with an introduction (including an outline of the presentation), present your

argument and finish with a clear conclusion.
• Ensure that the text on the blackboard is precise and to the point (you can also use
PowerPoint).
• When working in pairs, ensure a balanced division of presentation tasks between
yourself and your fellow student.

Substantive aspects

• Present an overview of the text’s most important aspects and key concepts.
• Ensure that your presentation relates to one of the specific assignments for the
tutorial session in question.
• Strive to interact with your audience during your presentation.
• Try to wrap up your presentation in such a way that it can serve as a starting point
for a serious group discussion.

31
13. Plagiarism

Plagiarism is strictly prohibited. Any instances of plagiarism observed by the lecturer will
be met with sanctions by the Examining Board!

Plagiarism involves the inclusion, in part or in its entirety, of text content written by
another authors or authors in one’s own paper, written assignment, thesis or other
document written in the context of an academic evaluation without citing the appropriate
source (e.g. book, journal article, report, website). This is understood to also include the
quoting or paraphrasing of content without clearly indicating this is the case. In addition,
it is strictly prohibited to reuse portions of previously evaluated work of one’s own hand.
After all, the student may only receive ECTS credits for a specific completed assignment
once – otherwise, this would amount to fraud.

In a paper or final assignment, the student is required to present his or her thoughts in his
or her own words. We refer you to the Chicago Manual of Style for extensive information
on academic writing and proper annotation.

14. Instructions for footnotes and bibliography

Although various annotation styles are used in academia, we use the Chicago Style (17th
Edition). Chicago-Style is available in two formats: the author-date system for the social
sciences and the system with notes and bibliography for the humanities. We use the
system with notes and bibliography.

This annotation system uses footnotes, which enables you to insert a reference to a
source on the bottom of the page you are working on. Always insert a reference when
you are citing a source and when you discuss main ideas you derive from a specific
source. You can compile a bibliography at the end of the manuscript which lists all
references alphabetically by author.

The Chicago Style defines how the references are formatted. If you are referring to a
book, e.g. Edward Said’s book Orientalism, do it like this:

• The first reference is always a full reference, which includes author, (book)title (in
italics), the city where the book was published, the name of the publishing house, the
year in which the title was published, followed by the page(s) you refer to:
Edward W. Said, Orientalism (New York: Pantheon Books, 1978), 98-100.
• The second reference to the same book can be shortened to:
Said, Orientalism, 101.
Use “Ibid.” when consecutive footnotes refer to the same book.
• Format the title like this in the bibliography:
Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books, 1978.

32
A journal article is formatted differently. Note that it is not the title of the article, but the
title of the journal which is written in italics. Also note that the page numbers which the
article fully covers in the journal are only given in the bibliography:

• First reference:
Thomas W. Laqueur, “The Queen Caroline Affair: Politics as Art in the Reign of George
IV,” The Journal of Modern History 54 (1982): 420.
• Second reference:
Laqueur, “The Queen Caroline Affair,” 421-422.
• Bibliography:
Laqueur, Thomas W. “The Queen Caroline Affair: Politics as Art in the Reign of George
IV.” The Journal of Modern History 54 (1982): 417-466.

Please visit this page for a list of the proper ways to format the various kinds of sources
available in academia. See for extensive information Chapter 14 of the Chicago Manual of
Style Online (accessible on the EUR-network or at home via VPN).

Popular annotation software like Zotero (free) or Refworks (available on campus

computers) can automatically format inserted references in Chicago Style. Using
annotation software can save you lots of time. Especially when writing larger papers.

33
Schedule oral presentations

Tutorial 2 (10-01)
Donnelly Ch2 (until p.40) student 1+2: .............................................................................
Arnold Ch1+2 student 3+4:

Tutorial 3 (12-01)
Donnelly Ch2 (from p.40) student 5+6: .............................................................................
Arnold Ch3 student 7+8: .............................................................................

Tutorial 5 (17-01)
Donnelly Ch4 student 9+10: .............................................................................
Tosh Ch5 student 11+12: .............................................................................

Tutorial 8 (24-01)
Donnelly Ch5 student 13+14: .............................................................................
Paul (2011) student 15+16: .............................................................................

Tutorial 9 (26-01)
McCullagh student 17+18: .............................................................................

Tutorial 11 (31-01)
Donnelly Ch9 student 19+20: .............................................................................
Carrier student 21+22: .............................................................................

Tutorial 12 (02-02)
Donnelly Ch8 student 23+24: .............................................................................
Arnold Ch7 student 25+26: .............................................................................

34