SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Tarihyazımı / 2026 / Sayı: 1

The formation of historical knowledge: A philosophical-analytical inquiry on source, memory, and narrative

Tarih bilgisinin oluşumu: Kaynak, hafıza ve anlatı bağlamında felsefi-analitik bir inceleme

Khaladdin İbrahimli(ÇAĞ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-0184-3849
Pages
107–134
Publication Date
2026-07-24
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It is a critical process justified by evidential scope, source independence, contextual coherence, explanatory power regarding counter-evidence, avoidance of anachronism, and engagement with alternative interpretations.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:History is not merely a chronological account of past events; it is a multilayered field of knowledge formed through the interaction of memory, sources, documents, archives, method, interpretation, and narrative.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Instead, it proposes an integrated model in which traces of the past become historical knowledge through source formation, preservation, criticism, inference, explanation, narrative representation, and social circulation.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It is a critical process justified by evidential scope, source independence, contextual coherence, explanatory power regarding counter-evidence, avoidance of anachronism, and engagement with alternative interpretations.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Tarihsel Bilgi · Tarih Felsefesi · Sözlü Gelenek

Abstract

History is not merely a chronological account of past events; it is a multilayered field of knowledge formed through the interaction of memory, sources, documents, archives, method, interpretation, and narrative. This article examines the formation of historical knowledge through oral tradition, written sources, archives, quantitative data, and collective memory, but it does not treat these elements as categories on the same conceptual level. Instead, it proposes an integrated model in which traces of the past become historical knowledge through source formation, preservation, criticism, inference, explanation, narrative representation, and social circulation. The article argues that historical knowledge is neither the self-evident voice of sources nor the free construction of historians. It is a critical process justified by evidential scope, source independence, contextual coherence, explanatory power regarding counter-evidence, avoidance of anachronism, and engagement with alternative interpretations.

Özet

Tarih, geçmişte yaşanmış olayların kronolojik aktarımından ibaret değildir; hafıza, kaynak, belge, arşiv, yöntem, yorum ve anlatı arasında kurulan çok katmanlı bir bilgi alanıdır. Bu makale, tarihsel bilginin oluşumunu sözlü gelenek, yazılı kaynak, arşiv, nicel veri ve kolektif hafıza tartışmaları üzerinden incelemekte; ancak bunları aynı düzlemde sıralamak yerine geçmişten kalan izlerin kaynak haline getirilmesi, korunması, eleştirilmesi, yorumlanması, açıklanması, anlatısal temsil kazanması ve toplumsal dolaşıma girmesi aşamalarından oluşan bütünlüklü bir model içinde değerlendirmektedir. Çalışmanın temel iddiası, tarihsel bilginin ne kaynağın kendiliğinden konuşmasının ne de tarihçinin serbest yorumunun ürünü olduğudur. Tarihsel bilgi; kanıt kapsamı, kaynak bağımsızlığı, bağlamsal tutarlılık, karşı kanıtları açıklama gücü, anakronizmden kaçınma ve alternatif yorumları değerlendirme gibi ölçütlerle gerekçelendirilen eleştirel bir kurma süreci olarak ele alınmalıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

İbrahimli, K. (2026). The formation of historical knowledge: A philosophical-analytical inquiry on source, memory, and narrative. Tarihyazımı, Sayı: 1, 107–134. https://doi.org/10.17497/tarihyazimi.1962219

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (30)

  1. Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism (Rev. ed.). London, England: Verso.
  2. Assmann, J. (1995). Collective memory and cultural identity (J. Czaplicka, Trans.). New German Critique, 65, 125-133. https://doi.org/10.2307/488538
  3. Barzun, J., & Graff, H. F. (2014). Modern araştırmacı (F. Dilber, Çev.). İstanbul: Kırmızı.
  4. Belgi, F. (2021). Tarih, bilgi ve tarihsel bilgi: Tarih epistemolojisi üzerine bir deneme. tarihyazımı, 3(1), 24-43. Bıçak, A. (2015). Tarih felsefesi. İstanbul: Dergâh.
  5. Bloch, M. (1953). The historian’s craft (P. Putnam, Trans.). New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
  6. Carr, E. H. (1961). What is history? London, England: Macmillan.
  7. Collingwood, R. G. (1946). The idea of history. Oxford, England: Oxford University.
  8. Derrida, J. (1995). Archive fever: A Freudian impression (E. Prenowitz, Trans.). Diacritics, 25(2), 9-63. https://doi.org/10.2307/465144
  9. Ercan, Y. (2010). Tarih araştırmalarında yöntem ve teknik. Ankara: Turhan.
  10. Finnegan, R. (2012). Oral literature in Africa. Cambridge, England: Open Book.
  11. Fogel, R. W. (1966). The new economic history. The Economic History Review, 19(3), 642-656.
  12. Goldin, C. (1995). Cliometrics and the Nobel. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2), 191-208.
  13. Halbwachs, M. (1992). On collective memory (L. A. Coser, Ed. & Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
  14. Hobsbawm, E. (1983). Introduction: Inventing traditions. In E. Hobsbawm & T. Ranger (Eds.), The invention of tradition (pp. 1-14). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University.
  15. Hobsbawm, E., & Ranger, T. (Eds.). (1983). The invention of tradition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University.
  16. Jenkins, K. (2003). Re-thinking history. London, England: Routledge.
  17. Kuznets, S. (1941). Statistics and economic history. The Journal of Economic History, 1(1), 26-41.
  18. McCullagh, C. B. (2004). The logic of history: Putting postmodernism in perspective. London, England: Routledge.
  19. Nora, P. (1989). Between memory and history: Les lieux de mémoire. Representations, 26, 7-24.
  20. Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London, England: Methuen. Özlem, D. (2012). Tarih felsefesi. İstanbul: Notos.
  21. Paul, H. (2015). Key issues in historical theory. London, England: Routledge.
  22. Portelli, A. (1991). The death of Luigi Trastulli and other stories: Form and meaning in oral history. Albany, NY: State University of New York.
  23. Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
  24. Ranke, L. von. (1973). The ideal of universal history. In F. Stern (Ed.), The varieties of history: From Voltaire to the present (pp. 54-62). New York, NY: Vintage.
  25. Reyhan, C. (2018). Tarih, tarihçilik ve tarihyazımı üzerine bazı gözlemler. Turkish History Education Journal, 7(2), 578-603.
  26. Thompson, P., & Bornat, J. (2017). The voice of the past: Oral history (4th ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University.
  27. Tosh, J. (2013). Tarihin peşinde: Modern tarih çalışmasında hedefler, yöntemler ve yeni doğrultular (Ö. Arıkan, Çev.). İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt.
  28. Trouillot, M.-R. (1995). Silencing the past: Power and the production of history. Boston, MA: Beacon.
  29. Vansina, J. (1985). Oral tradition as history. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
  30. White, H. (1973). Metahistory: The historical imagination in nineteenth-century Europe. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.