History is Interpretation

History, as a discipline, is built one the foundation that it must be factual. If it is factual it can be verified and should be verified. Once the facts have been verified, they are arranged in a pattern that makes some sort of sense. This sense is aimed at being a collection of useful information, usually making a persuasive argument and presenting evidence that supports the claims made. When relating facts and claims, the writer must interpret facts. Even a primary document is an interpretation of facts. The writer, editor, or compiler of a primary document must first understand the facts (as they understand them at the time) and relate them as they know them to be true or verified. From letters or emails to bank statements, these are interpretations.

The Attack on Pearl Harbor is not told by
any one perspective but multiple points of
view; sailors, pilots, mechanics, civilians,
and until recently, the Japanese all have had
a point of view in this event that demand
we, today, must understand if we are to
understand the world in which we now live.

For example, a writer wishes to record an event that they thought was important that happened that day. It can be anything, but let it be assumed that it was of huge importance, the attack on Pearl Harbor for instance. They write a letter to a family member describing the events and their thoughts. They describe it as they saw it, as it happened based on where they were when things happened. At the time, there was no warning that this would happen. There was no indication that Japan was preparing to go to war with the US. While the sinking of the USS Arizona is of significant note, the eye witness writer may not have witnessed anything in relation to its sinking. They may have been at Hickam field as a mechanic compared to being a sailor on a repair tender. So they write based on what they knew and experienced, thus the facts, but could not know all the true details, such as a third wave of attacks by the Japanese that was cancelled. Those facts, while true, would not be known until much later and may not have been known by them. It would be the role of the secondary writers to investigate the whole picture.

 A secondary source is therefore an interpretation of an interpretation. A writer or editor or compiler of secondary documents, such as text books and articles, interprets the facts as related by the primary documents and the examination of several primary documents yields an interpretation of several points of view, sometimes conflicting points of view.

Using the above example of Pearl Harbor, the secondary writer could have gathered the letter written from Hawai'i and a first hand account of a Japanese submarine sailor and made a comparison of the two to create an interpretation of what the attack on Pearl Harbor was like from both sides using only two perspectives.

Leopold von Ranke. One of great minds in
the discipline of history, indicated we should
try to write history as it actually was, which
was an actual revolution in historical practice
at the time.

A historical interpreter examining primary and secondary documents as well as artifacts and other objects, in an attempt to make meaning out of the collection is having to balance and examine so many points of view. The job then becomes to reduce, simplify, condense, and distill the information until it becomes a solid nugget of an interpretive program, display, exhibit, or presentation that can also appeal to all kinds of visitors. These programs, displays, or presentations is what is typically what this blog is concerned with, yet there are times when further reflection upon the "why's and how's" of the origination of interpretation opens new understanding that all history is really interpretation. When considering that the perception of the writer and the ability of the writer to communicate is an interpretation of facts, it seems that history is interpretation and discussing anything from a historical perspective is again interpretation.

The challenge becomes trying to interpret in a manner that is true to what actually happened, "wie es eigenlich gewesen" as Saxon-German historian Leopold von Ranke originally stated. The problem with history is that perception is not necessarily the truth, or what actually happened. It does not always take into account a wider understanding but a subjective and limited one, like a single account of the Pearl Harbor attack does not have a wide understanding of the event. Since we cannot totally trust the perception, intention, and ability of the writer, either primary or secondary writers, to convey all their perceptions accurately, truthfully, and honestly, interpretation of what can be known is truly the only option as a matter of course. It is because of this that the conclusion is history must be interpretation.

Tilden Freeman understood that if information is
not made meaningful to a person, that they are
likely to forget or ignore that information and he
used that concept to create his Six Principles of
Interpretation 

But having useful information or interpretation is never going to sell; encyclopedias are outdated and have never sold well because they do not make great reading. They are used as references. The internet has taken their place as collections of facts and information. However, history is recorded as such because it has meaning, which is at least two of Tilden Freeman's principles of interpretation: "Any interpretation that does not somehow relate what is being displayed or described to something within the personality or experience of the visitor will be sterile" and "Information, as such, is not interpretation. Interpretation is revelation based on information. But they are entirely different things..." illustrate this point. If a historical narrative intrigues a reader with the premise, idea, concept, topic, or story, the reader will likely read the narrative to satisfy that intrigue. If it is written poorly, they may find something else to do, but if it does satisfy the intrigue, then the reader will find meaning in reading the narrative and be better for it. This next comment will need more exploration than can be allowed here, but the classic writing style of historians and ivory tower academics does not appeal to the general public; they write to impress other historians. Rather, journalists and professional writers often make better historical narratives because they have learned to write to sell and appeal to the public. One of those selling points is making the content meaningful to the reader, sometimes in the form of excellent narrative style, or presentation of the content in such as way that the reader gains meaning from reading. Therefore, history is interpretation.

The academic takes the raw factual information and make it meaningful to other academics while other writers take the same raw factual information and turn it into a best-selling book or landmark article. The raw facts do not speak for themselves. Objects and artifacts are the same way. Facts, objects, and artifacts must be arranged so that information is made meaningful or useful to the reader or the visitor. So whether one is an prestigious academic or a minimum wage interpreter, both are interpreting facts and making them meaningful to their respective audiences. It is because of this that the conclusion is again stated, that history is interpretation.