Unwitting testimony is the unintentional evidence provided by historical sources. It may reflect the attitudes and preconceptions of an author, or the culture to which he or she belongs. The recognition and interpretation of unwitting testimony by historians acknowledges that primary sources may contain flaws as well as several layers of evidence, and that there are messages that are not explicit.[1]

Origin

The phrase "unwitting testimony" was coined by the British historian Arthur Marwick of the Open University.[2][1] Marwick acknowledged, however, that he had adopted and developed the concept from some earlier remarks made by the American historian of science, Henry Guerlac.[3][4][5] Marwick defined it as a feature of historical evidence to be distinguished from "witting testimony", which is the message of the primary source consciously intended to be conveyed by the author.[6] Witting and unwitting testimonies can be applied both to the primary source itself or the historian who is constructing a secondary source.[7]

Unwitting testimony has been employed by historians to establish the beliefs and customs of past societies particularly in their interpretation of words and phrases, which tend to change meaning over time.[8] It does not refer to the testimony itself but the intention of the writer, author or creator of the historical source.[9][1] The unwitting nature of the testimony include culture-bound views of the observer on events, which some scholars say can lead to a failure in understanding historical texts if ignored.[10] Aside from the author's intent, reader utility is also considered an important factor in unwitting testimony.[7] The concept was also applied to film by Karsten Fledelius, referring to the incidental aspects of reality that slipped into the camera that were unwittingly recorded.[11]

References

  1. 1 2 3 Clapson, Mark (2009). The Routledge Companion to Britain in the Twentieth Century. Oxon: Routledge. p. 231. ISBN 978-0203875285.
  2. ↑ Marwick, Arthur (2001) [1970]. The New Nature of History: knowledge, evidence, language. Basingstoke: Palgrave. pp. 172–79. ISBN 0-333-96447-0.
  3. ↑ Guerlac, Henry (1963). "Some historical assumptions of the history of science". In Crombie, A. C. (ed.). Scientific change: historical studies in the intellectual, social and technical conditions for scientific discovery and technical invention, from antiquity to the present. New York: Basic Books. p. 799.
  4. ↑ Marwick 2001, p. 172.
  5. ↑ Scalambrino, Frank (2018). Philosophical Principles of the History and Systems of Psychology: Essential Distinctions. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 11. ISBN 978-3-319-74732-3.
  6. ↑ Giersdorf, Jens Richard; Wong, Yutian (2018). The Routledge Dance Studies Reader. Routledge. ISBN 9781351613842.
  7. 1 2 Scalambrino, Frank (2018). Philosophical Principles of the History and Systems of Psychology: Essential Distinctions. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 11, 13. ISBN 9783319747323.
  8. ↑ Publishing, Speedy (2015). History Fundamentals 1 (Speedy Study Guides). Speedy Publishing LLC. p. 10. ISBN 9781681856742.
  9. ↑ Thompson, Willie (2004). Postmodernism and History. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 38. ISBN 978-0-333-96339-5.
  10. ↑ Adshead-Lansdale, Janet; Layson, June (2006). Dance History: An Introduction. Oxon: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-87685-3.
  11. ↑ Chapman, James (2013-10-30). Film and History. New York: Macmillan International Higher Education. p. 77. ISBN 9780230363861.


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.