Dear all,
this somewhat relates to my previous post here.
I am wondering what happens if several historians write about the same topic/event/phenomenon. As far as I can see, that happens all the time in history. Just think about how many books have been written about World War 1.
I am wondering how such historians are supposed to acknowledge the work of others, especially when what they cover and the arguments they make might at times be similar to the previous work of others. I understand that one is supposed to acknowledge the work of others having worked on the topic in the introduction. But, as seems to be normal practice, if one then proceeds to use primary sources to discuss that particular historical event then, one seems to be almost bound to make similar points as other historians that have written about this event before, even if one's overall interpretation is new and original.
In those cases, are historians meant to acknowledge such parallels with the work of others throughout the book/article with footnotes (On this see also... etc) or is the mention in the introduction considered sufficient? I am mainly wondering because I do not seem to find such footnotes in the work of historians that write on events etc that have been covered before [and it would also seem very impractical to me]. In fact, in popular books, often there isn't even a literature review to begin with. Maybe then it is just implied that while there might be parallels to the work of others, the interpretation of the author is new and original?
No work of history exists in a vacuum, and needs to acknowledge the ways in which it relies on the work of others. But for academic writing at least, it's expected that the thesis at least will be original - that is, you are making an argument that previous work hasn't, and are not just restating what we already know. While you may draw on the same primary source base as previous scholarship in order to do so, the way you use those sources will be different, leading to different conclusions. In turn, your work needs to be as clear as possible about how the thesis is original, by contextualising your approach in relation to earlier work. Definitely don't just ignore it, but equally there's no need to recount every point of similarity - focus on why what you're doing is different.
There are three broad ways this tends to happen with regards to primary material. One is through discovery - locating new sources that shines new light on the question, changing what we know about the subject. Depending on the topic, this can be hard. The second is methodological - changing how you use and think about sources in order to learn different things from the same source base, even reinterpreting and challenging previous usage. Lastly, it can be a question of depth - previous work has dealt with a subject only in passing, and you are building our knowledge of the subject further by researching and analysing these sources in more detail. In this case, it's incumbent on you to explain why more depth is useful.
wondering because I do not seem to find such footnotes in the work of historians that write on events etc that have been covered before
The general rule is that you don't need to quote or add footnotes referencing sources or secondary literature if its considered general knowledge which has long since been established through academic concensus. That's what general knowledge is, it's the result of an academic status-quo achieved through academic consensus. This goes for all academic disciplines. We are not uncovering some universal truth, we are arguing with our peers in an attempt to reach an agreement on what should be considered factual or correct. When a certain piece of information has been a part of this academic consensus for a long time, it generally starts seeping into our education and into general knowledge.
So you don't need footnotes to prove that the Battle of Agincourt took place in 1415, unless ofcourse if this is what your thesis aims to disprove. In that case you would need to quote sources to prove that it didn't because you would be going against the academic consensus and against general knowledge. It's events or dates such as these which are currently considered to be factual and general knowledge. They shouldn't be quoted. So what do you quote or use footnotes for? Well, that's honestly a bit up to you when you are writing a thesis based upon original research. That doesn't mean that there aren't any general unwritten rules, but there's a bit of wiggle room.
There should be a certain element of historiography to most theses. When you set the scene during your introduction, it's common practice to quickly summarize and reference to most notable works which have been produced regarding the topic you are about to discuss. There's no waterproof ruleset to follow here. You either have some idea of which works to reference based upon your education, or you will simply have to do some research to see which information and arguments seem to be widely acknowledged. Still, every historian will reason their way into their own unique list of works to reference. So, you have to rely on your own critical thinking skills to amass a solid body of works to reference. Reading through the bibliography of important works within your field of study is a great way to retrace the historiography of said field of study.
Regarding footnotes, you should also use them when you reference critical information to your arguments, stemming from theses based upon original research. You might also quickly reference works which have been absolutely crucial within your field of study, eventhough you might consider their contents to be general knowledge. The list of works in your footnotes doesn't have to be synonymous with your bibliography though. Your bibliography should be all of the works you have consulted and have used within your research to supplement your analysis of sources. You would generally also add works that weren't crucial enough for your argumentation that you had to actually reference or quote them. Now, quoting is a more emphatic way of using footnotes. When you quote, you are usually trying to stress that specific piece of text. Most historians will quote when they found that specific bit of text to contain a very apt and convincing argument and they want to argue in favour of it, or if they found it to be a good example of something they want to argue against.
In fact, in popular books, often there isn't even a literature review to begin with. Maybe then it is just implied that while there might be parallels to the work of others, the interpretation of the author is new and original?
That's because they don't adhere to the same methodology and process of peer reviews. You shouldn't be quoting books aimed at the general public when writing a historical thesis because those rarely use original research or proper methodology. That's not to say that this is true for all of them, but there's generally more peer review with academically published works - which tends to lend them a certain air of authority and this in turn makes your arguments more convincing. Most history books aimed at the general audience rehash information from works aimed at an academic audience. That doesn't mean that these popular books serve no meaning. They very often simplify historical processes for the general public and the fact that they don't have to go as in-depth also means that at times they can provide a broader perspective. However, many authors of popular books also use the abscence or historical methodology and peer review to make some highly hypothetical points that can't easily be substantiated through historical research.
So keep that in mind. You should remain sceptical when there is no reference to either source material or secondary literature. This doesn't imply that these are original ground-breaking insights, but more likely that they can't easily be substantiated.
No, you do not have to cite everyone who has written about an event/phenomenon/etc for each little incident within the event.
If you still keep overthinking things (which you are; that's fine, we've all done it): pick up a book or article your professor/advisor has written; use it as a guide.