My current research is a historiographical pursuit to determine if Experimental History exists as a subfield of history. If it does exist, the research will seek out its methodologies and practices. If it does not already exist as a sub-field of history, the research will be to define working parameters and define appropriate methodologies. This will include acknowledging the similarities and differences between Experimental History and Experimental Archaeology.
I discovered this week that the term Experimental History has often applied to a philosophy applied to the study of Natural History in the 17th and 18th centuries by Francis Bacon who dubbed the philosophy “Natural and Experimental History.”1 Bacon’s use of this term has nothing to do with the practice and study of doing history as we think of it today. Searching for academic journal articles on JSTOR,2 the vast majority of search results for “Experimental History” refer to or relate to Bacon’s “Natural and Experimental History.”
A couple of relevant results did come up, one is an article in the journal The History Teacher, “A Pedagogical Trebuchet: A Case Study in Experimental History and History Pedagogy”3 from 2012 that utilizes Experimental History in the classroom to answer questions that would otherwise be unanswerable other than through hypothetical assertions.
My interpretation of Experimental History as a sub-field can, on the research end, help in producing improved tools and materials for Experiential Learning. Anyone who has worked with elementary school kids will likely have plenty of anecdotal experience with the potential of experiential learning. I came to my interpretation of what Experimental history could be through Experimental Archaeology, and one of the reasons I became interested in Experimental Archaeology was my own experience in experiential learning. This is how I learn best, through doing, and following that up with teaching someone else. The process of learning through experimentation and then turning around and teaching what you have learned through papers and presentations is the cornerstone and heart of Amateur Radio. The process works.
The idea behind Experimental History, in my interpretation, is for the researcher to engage in experiential learning, using experimentation along with traditional research to answer questions about the subject, and to apply the physicality of the experimentation and research contextually and physically to generate the resulting products of their research, which should include materials for pedagogical use. I am inclined toward producing products that can be applied in the public history sphere but are not limited to that environment. While the physicality of Experimental History can provide context to traditional outputs, that physicality shouldn’t be lost in the translation, Experimental History, as I interpret it, wants to bring the physicality to all interpretive environments, in the presentation, in the museum, and in the classroom.
This historiographical look at Experimental History and its applications in research and pedagogy is the foundation of my current work and is in its initial stage to understand what the literature is, if any, and to enumerate and evaluate the available sources if such sources exist. As literature emerges I will post it to a designated area of the site.
- Anstey, Peter R. “Locke, Bacon and Natural History.” Early Science and Medicine 7, no. 1 (2002): 65–92. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4130409. ↩︎
- https://www.jstor.org/ ↩︎
- Brice, Lee L., and Steven Catania. “A Pedagogical Trebuchet: A Case Study in Experimental History and History Pedagogy.” The History Teacher 46, no. 1 (2012): 67–84. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43264074. ↩︎