The work of the historian - Distinguishing fact from
is the record of events in the order they occurred. Evidence is a fact,
or combination of facts, which provide grounds for belief that an historical
event or events actually happened. It is common that evidence is available
only on certain aspects of what happened and historians then take these
known facts and fill in the unknown elements with their own theories.
This is why different versions of history can and do arise.
make clear to the reader the distinction between the known and the unknown
elements of the information they present. Protocol for historical text
requires historians to clearly distinguish between the known (with sources
acknowledged and clearly referenced), and the unknown (i.e. their theory
or explanation of events). In this way readers of history can easily
distinguish between fact and theory, and can therefore reach their own
conclusions in relation to a matter. Confusion arises when an author
does not follow these conventions, and instead presents his or her own
personal interpretations and theories as fact. (Indeed such works blur
the line between historical truth and fiction.)
In historical fiction
and film, however, such protocol does not apply, and distinctions between
fact and theory are not required. Adherence to historical facts, and any
extent of alteration to details, is determined entirely by the author.
Entirely fictitious characters and events are often incorporated into
actual historical circumstances as a narrative aid. This is done
to enable fiction writers to fill in unknown details or time frames, or
in order to explain complex issues, (rather than an attempt to 'rewrite'
history). Inclusion of source lists, and references, are optional in historical
fiction and film, and typically are not included.
So how do
historians determine what information is 'evidence' and what is not?
Explanation of frequently
Historians, strictly speaking, do not consider something is evidence
unless it is 'factual'. Evidence is not considered reliable until
it has been sourced and verified (see 'facts' below). Marriage, death,
and birth records, if obtained from official sources are considered
reliable, (although occasionally can include minor errors). Some historical
'documents' although genuine, can be subject to interpretation. Such
things as police or government records (if verified by expert analysis)
are reliable, however with regard to content, some consideration of
the motives of the author and/or the author's source/s must be taken
into historians' analysis. After all, something may sound like an
official or objective record, but on closer inspection may ultimately
be revealed to be no more than hearsay or rumour, even if written
at or around the time of occurrence. Sometimes events are recorded
'officially' rather than factually, (e.g. with an eye to protecting
an individual's reputation). Also the source's language used must
be noted, and comparisons to modern linguistics measured in order
to establish exactly what the record is saying. Evidence can be used
for the basis for an interpretation or theory, however evidence
does not of itself prove the theory to be true.
evidence is indirect evidence that implies something occurred
but doesn't actually prove it. It is based on inference rather than
personal knowledge or observation, and is not direct evidence (e.g.
from a witness who saw or heard something). Circumstantial evidence
is information, or a chain of facts, that infers a possible conclusion;
it is not a provable truth. It is generally useful as a guide in historical
study unless the connection between the fact and the inference is
too weak to be of help. NB. The relevance of circumstantial evidence
depends largely on its credence, (e.g. 'weak' circumstantial evidence
is not persuasive).
Simply speaking, a fact is something known to have happened, a truth
or reality that is known by actual experience or observation; in other
words a 'provable truth'. A fact is a physical event, or existence,
that is actual and true, rather than a probability, chance, opinion,
or theory (see below). Historians rely on recorded facts from primary
sources, (e.g. documents such as birth, death and marriage certificates.)
Data is considered significant in historical analysis when it can be
proven or verified as fact. Something may possibly be true or have occurred,
but is not considered 'fact' by historians unless provable. Historical
facts can only be determined by following the universal rules of objectivity
in establishing what is known to be true (rather than opinion, belief
and written historical accounts of an event or person, such as newspaper
reports, eyewitness accounts, archival documents, and books. All of
these can, and often do, include hearsay, rumour, and opinion,
so just because something is in 'print' certainly does not automatically
make it 'truth', or even 'evidence'. Source/s must always be evaluated.
Concurring articles issued by different newspaper reporters on the
same day can certainly be viewed as being more reliable than, say,
one report being issued and then a confirming report issued the following
day, (or at a later time). The reason for this is obviously that one
reporter may have read, and been influenced by, the previous reporter's
article. Importantly, when evaluating a report or account for credibility
one should take into account and assess the writer/reporter's 'source',
particularly if the source is unnamed. A quote from an unnamed source
is hearsay or rumour and therefore not reliable as it cannot be verified.
One also needs to analyse if something stated in a newspaper or document
may merely be an expressed opinion of the quoted source (or even simply
of the reporter's) and is therefore not necessarily factual. (For
example: a report can include 'Mr Smith stated xyz', we may
rely on the reporter that Mr Smith did indeed make the statement,
however the writer cannot vouch for the truth of a stated opinion,
without alternate supportive evidence.) Each printed or written
account must be evaluated individually for reliability, and compared
to other evidence.
are documents or records of events that have been verified as being
both originally made by the witness or person/s involved, and,
around the time of the event/s being studied. Government records
such as birth, death and marriage certificates and registers are a
good example of reliable primary sources.
Some primary sources, such as original eyewitness statements for example,
need to be scrutinized objectively, as the 'victor', or individual/s
with power, will often write and change or influence, such accounts.
A good example, of the potentially tainted nature of such documents,
is that King Henry 7th, House of Tudor, systematically went about
rewriting history once he became King of England in 1485. He backdated
his own reign in official documents, thus 'legally' implicating
and punishing his enemies for treason. He gave instructions to have
official documents from the reign of his predecessors from the House
of York destroyed. Tudor 'historians' (such as Sir Thomas More,
who wasn't even born until 1487), thereafter were influenced to
write subsequent 'accounts' that were almost certainly biased, and,
without proof even openly implicating Richard 3rd in murder. As
a result, historians have access to very few surviving primary sources
and difficulty in determining what is fact and what is fiction during
that period of history.
This is not
uncommon in recorded history and thus even primary sources need to
be impartially analysed and questioned.
Note: A newspaper printed at the time being studied is not technically
a primary source, as it has potentially been edited to an unknown
extent (when made into copy before printing). However such secondary
sources can be significant in historical study, particularly
as they give a good indication of events, even if some details (for
example, the size of a reported 'crowd' at an event) are altered.
They can be useful to gain eyewitness accounts, (such as Ned's execution),
but a comparative study of all similar accounts is more useful than
simply one or another, as the personal opinion or interpretation of
the author is a factor. (An example of the differences that can be
reported is that different newspaper reporters gave different eyewitness
accounts of Ned's 'final' words.) The subjective nature of such sources
is often easily explained; newspapers, for example, are a financial
business and carry with them the rights of 'editorial discretion'.
Thus there can be any number of influences over what information is
given or excluded. Many newspaper reports during and after the Kelly
gangs outlawry, just as they do now, include moral commentary and
accusations, (both against the gang and, more cautiously, against
the police). That is to say, 'pro' and 'anti' Kelly influences can
easily be seen within the supposedly objective 'factual reporting'
is a story or comment that is repeated by someone other than the original
source, but where a source is claimed, (e.g. "Mr Smith told
"). Hearsay can be oral or written. Hearsay cannot
be treated as factual evidence in a court of law; neither can it be
treated as such in an historian's conclusions. It can, however, be
used in historical study as a guide once its reliability is established.
Importantly, the reliability of information gained from hearsay should
be evaluated based on its source/s. Hearsay from those proven
to know the quoted source, for example, is more likely to be reliable
than hearsay from a person once or twice removed, or who only claimed
to know the source but offers no proof. Hearsay that has no clear
or ascertainable source (even if it is widely acknowledged) should
be treated cautiously as it is actually rumour (see below).
The number of different people professing a 'story', even if they
all draw the same conclusions, does not directly infer credibility
on the information, (e.g. the world was once universally 'known' to
be flat - simply because most people believed it was). Thus each story
or piece of information, and its source, needs to be individually
evaluated for reliability, and supportive evidence should be sought
for verification in each case before any historical conclusions can
be made. No hearsay can be used as a fact (see 'fact' above), unless
verified or strongly supported by an alternate source (such as a document).
For more information on oral history and memory - click
is extremely unreliable, although it is often stated with conviction
and can be convincing, (e.g. "It is well known that
or "I heard its true that
"). Rumour tends to
be altered or embellished as it is passed from one person to the next.
Even something that begins with an element of truth can wind up so
diluted as to be unrecognizable. Alternately, rumour can be entirely
fictional. Historians main concern is that there is usually no
way of verifying a rumour, so it cannot be deemed reliable to any
extent. Source is a vital part of historical analysis as it establishes
credibility, yet when searching for the original source of
a rumour, one is not usual found. Thus a rumour is unlikely to be
able to be verified and so should not be used to reach a conclusion.
If it can be factually established that a rumour to such and such
an effect was circulating at that time, the historian will report
it and make clear that it was a rumour. Note, in that instance the
rumour is a fact, not the content of the rumour.
is not evidence, neither is opinion. Some theories are stated with
authority and with apparent evidence, (usually circumstantial), to
support them, however this alone does not prove the theory or opinion.
Theory can seem reliable, but no matter when, or by whom, or how a
theory is stated, a theory or opinion in historical study, unless
proven, is nothing more than a theory or opinion, and in historical
analysis should be treated accordingly. Theories and educated opinions
can possibly be accurate and correct, however they are not facts (see
'facts' above) unless proven.
and Conclusions: History can be subjective and is not an exact
science by any means. There is much historians simply do not know
about the past and so sometimes even the most detailed research won't
necessarily find 'conclusions' in concrete terms. This leads historians
to make their own interpretations, based on acceptable methodology.
Yet even when accepted protocols are followed, one historian can arrive
at an interpretation that is completely different from that of another
historian. (For example, the recent debate between Keith Windschuttle
and Robert Manne about aspects of aboriginal history.) In historical
study, like most disciplines, educated opinions and theories are important
but do not constitute truth or fact and so should not be given more
credit than warranted. Objectivity is the most essential ingredient
in historical assessment, and all evidence available should be included
and impartially analysed for credibility. Unlike science however,
where one starts with a hypothesis and works towards proving one's
conclusions, historical analysis is most successful when research
is begun without a hypothesis, and when all accounts and evidence
are taken into consideration, and an open mind sustained, whether
or not conclusions are reached. The best historical study (and biggest
challenge for the historian) is research without bias whether or not
a 'conclusion' is found or can be presented. Ideally, historians will
suggest several alternative interpretations and say which one is most
likely in their opinion. Personal opinions can be included but should
be clearly stated as such. Reviewing data through personal subjectivity,
on the other hand, can cloud the facts and lead to questionable conclusions.
In historical analysis, more often than not, the only conclusion/s
able to be established is one of 'probability'. Proof is required
for an accurate and factual conclusion to be drawn. One cannot make
a reliable 'conclusion' in any area, or aspect, of historical study
when contradictory evidence exists.
What is Legend?
Legend is a collection
of stories about any person who has achieved fame or notoriety, or a story
about a famous event. A legend can be a non-historical or unverifiable
story handed down by tradition from earlier times, that is popularly accepted
What is Myth?
A myth is a story,
thing, or person that is imaginary or fictitious. A collective belief
can be built up to suit the wishes of a group or society. The mythical
person, or story, is often super-human.
Tabulated and written by N. Cowie
The aim of this
website is to try to get as close as possible to the facts. Therefore
I am predominantly interested in what we can be proven - not what I believe.
How I acknowledges
is for the reasons outlined above that my work on this site examines the
history of the Kelly Story not in absolutes, but with qualifiers. When
something has not be substantiated or authenticated as 'fact', it will
be reported as "believed" or "alleged". I make distinctions
between what is known fact, what is likely, what is unlikely, and what
has been disproved. In each individual category or subject examined, I
will be attempting to sort through and separate facts from theory, regardless
of the source.
| Quick History | Time
Line | Gang Details
| Assorted Facts & Glossary
| History in Detail |
Armour | Outlaws
| Ned's Grave | Hanged
| Married | Studying History | Oral
History | Editorial & Opinion
| Books |
News and Events | Movies
| Kelly Documentaries |
Links | Contact us | Copyright
to Quick History>>
to History In Detail>>