Let me explain what I mean a little more clearly, using an example. There are a lot of questions about sexual violence or coercion in the past posted here, and many use the term "rape." However, our understanding of what constitutes "rape" has changed over time; some of these acts of sexual violence or coercion may not have been considered rape during the time period being discussed. Another example could be the word "murder"; some killings that were legal in the past are not legal now.
How, as historians, do you decide which terms to use? On one hand, I can imagine that you do not want to minimize the seriousness of sexual violence or killing by avoiding "charged" words. But on the other, using these words might impose a modern interpretation on the events - is that considered bad even when it comes to terminology?
I am pretty comfortable saying that we don't need to avoid interpreting sexual violence as "rape," but do historians agree?
Does it depend on the situation, and if so, how do you decide what to do?
not a historian, but an archeologist.
We tend to avoid judgement-charged words, not just because we should strive to be objective, but also because we usually CANNOT guess the exact judgement-worthy qualities of each case. When we find 1000 years old skeleton with an axe-wound to the head, it is usually impossible to say with cetainity, if it was a premeditated murder, or a house-dispute gone bad, or a duel, or an accident.
Similarily, paleogeneaology or archeogenetics can determine who had sex with whom, but whether or not it was a rape, genuine lovemaking within a relationship, or say, a one-night stand, is impossible to say. For example, we can determine the likelyhood that a Mongol invader had a genetically successful intercourse with your european great^n grandmother, but whether this was a rape, or not is all guesswork.