Changes

==Broad discipline==

==Broad discipline==

Although the broad discipline of history has often been classified under either the [[humanities]] or the [[social sciences]],<ref>Scott Gordon and  James Gordon Irving, ''The History and Philosophy of Social Science''. Routledge 1991. Page 1. ISBN 0415056829 and can be seen as a bridge between them, incorporating methodologies from both fields of study, Ritter places history in the humanities, and asserts that it is not a science.Ritter, H. (1986). Dictionary of concepts in history. Reference sources for the social sciences and humanities, no. 3. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press. Page 416.</ref> In the 20th century the study of history was revolutionized by French [[historian]] [[Fernand Braudel]], by  considering the effects of such outside disciplines as [[economics]], [[anthropology]], and [[geography]] on global history. Traditionally, historians have attempted to answer historical questions through the study of written documents, although historical research is not limited merely to these sources. In general, the sources of historical knowledge can be separated into three categories: what is written, what is said, and what is physically preserved, and historians often consult all three. Michael C. Lemon (1995). The Discipline of History and the History of Thought. Routledge. Page 201. ISBN 0415123461. Historians frequently emphasize the importance of written records, which would limit history to times after the [[history of writing|development of writing]]. This emphasis has led to the term ''[[prehistory]]''. According [http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php archaeological.org], to refer to any period of human history preceding written records referring to a time before written sources are available. Since writing emerged at different times throughout the world, the distinction between prehistory and history is often dependent on the area being studied.

Although the broad discipline of history has often been classified under either the [[humanities]] or the [[social sciences]], Scott Gordon and  James Gordon Irving, ''The History and Philosophy of Social Science''. Routledge 1991. Page 1. ISBN 0415056829 and can be seen as a bridge between them, incorporating methodologies from both fields of study, Ritter places history in the humanities, and asserts that it is not a science.Ritter, H. (1986). Dictionary of concepts in history. Reference sources for the social sciences and humanities, no. 3. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press. Page 416.</ref> In the 20th century the study of history was revolutionized by French [[historian]] [[Fernand Braudel]], by  considering the effects of such outside disciplines as [[economics]], [[anthropology]], and [[geography]] on global history. Traditionally, historians have attempted to answer historical questions through the study of written documents, although historical research is not limited merely to these sources. In general, the sources of historical knowledge can be separated into three categories: what is written, what is said, and what is physically preserved, and historians often consult all three. Michael C. Lemon (1995). The Discipline of History and the History of Thought. Routledge. Page 201. ISBN 0415123461. Historians frequently emphasize the importance of written records, which would limit history to times after the [[history of writing|development of writing]]. This emphasis has led to the term ''[[prehistory]]''. According [http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php archaeological.org], to refer to any period of human history preceding written records referring to a time before written sources are available. Since writing emerged at different times throughout the world, the distinction between prehistory and history is often dependent on the area being studied.

There are a variety of ways in which the past can be divided, including chronologically, [[culture|culturally]], and topically. These three divisions are not mutually exclusive, and significant overlaps are often present, as in "The [[Argentine]] [[Labor Movement]] in an Age of Transition, 1930&ndash;1945." It is possible for historians to concern themselves with both the very specific and the very general, although the trend has been toward specialization.  The area called [[Big History]] resists this specialization, and searches for universal patterns or trends.  Traditionally, history has been studied with some practical or [[theory|theoretical]] aim, but now it is also studied simply out of intellectual curiosity.The Shape of the Past, Graham, Gordon, Oxford University

There are a variety of ways in which the past can be divided, including chronologically, [[culture|culturally]], and topically. These three divisions are not mutually exclusive, and significant overlaps are often present, as in "The [[Argentine]] [[Labor Movement]] in an Age of Transition, 1930&ndash;1945." It is possible for historians to concern themselves with both the very specific and the very general, although the trend has been toward specialization.  The area called [[Big History]] resists this specialization, and searches for universal patterns or trends.  Traditionally, history has been studied with some practical or [[theory|theoretical]] aim, but now it is also studied simply out of intellectual curiosity.The Shape of the Past, Graham, Gordon, Oxford University