AUTHENTICITY AND CREDIBILITY OF A HISTORICAL SOURCE

 Discuss the criteria by which authenticity and credibility of a historical source is established.

How are authenticity and credibility of a historical source established?

 

AUTHENTICITY

The collection and classification of sources is a laborious job as whatever data has been collected must be reliable. History deals with things and persons who are no longer in existence and the dead do not speak. It is therefore the duty of researchers to show them as they were in reality without altering their actual genuine original forms.

Meaning and features of authenticity of historical sources

Authenticity means truthfulness. The historical sources in any form, whether in written form or concrete relics must be true and original. Men cannot live beyond a certain age; they die but their actions and ideas survive. In most cases it lingers on in memory of the contemporaries who may record them in writing or commemorate them in art and architecture. These writings and monuments, either in good condition or bad, as a complete whole or fragments of the original come to light after a few generations. There is nobody of that period still alive to give an eye-witness account and so the problem whether what is recorded or formed in art or architecture is true and real or not. This has to be determined by several tests. The main features of authentic sources of history are:

The documents, records, manuscripts, inscriptions, etc., and the relics in concrete form must be true and original kept as treasured possessions.

The time, place and authorship of the documents must be mentioned in the text. In case of relics correct identification must be available. For e.g., coins of the Gupta period and Ashoka’s rock edicts.

The official documents if presented as source material must carry the stamp and the seal of government institutions or trade guilds.

A reference to the documents and structures which survive should be found in contemporary literature and records.

The evidence in the form of documents and articles should be a neutral character for furthering research. All parts of the document must be consistent and of uniform style.

Criticism of sources to detect deviations – When we use the term criticism of historical sources, it does not mean simply finding fault with the source material. It means examination, analysis, testing the validity and authenticity of the sources before accepting them as raw material for the construction of the past. This is external criticism.

In order to detect deviations from the norms we must fix our attention on the principles of validity. Some of the guiding principles are:

How did the source originate? The Researcher must know the history fo the source. For e.g., ‘Jedhe Shakavli’ – Chronology of events during Shivaji’s period. How did it originate? On what basis did Jedhe compile it? The answer to that would avoid irregularities.

Does the document tell the whole story? In many cases the dynastic histories suffer from suppression of unpleasant events and experiences. This is true of modern documents also.

Has the document shown the date, place and authorship of the same? This is an acid test especially while dealing with ancient and medieval periods of Indian History. Chronology is the biggest problem while dealing with manuscripts of medieval documents. In ancient records there is hardly a mention of the name of the place and author of the text. ‘Mahabharata’ is believed to have bee composed by ‘Vyasmuni’ but we do not get definite information about when and where he composed it. In the case of Mauryan and Gupta edicts and inscriptions we do not find the dates and names of the craftsmen but in the Chalukyan inscriptions and those of their feudatories.

Does the author of the document make a reference to the sources on which he basis his information? The answer if affirmative would of course enhance its value but if there is no mention of such source of information it is a deviation. Kautilya in his Arthashastra mentions the names and works of his predecessors.

How many editions and versions of the text are available? The answer to this question will provide some clues for determining additions and alternations. There are no different versions of the text as in the cases of many classical Sanskrit works, it is easy to determine authenticity and variations. Consistency of all parts of the narrative and uniformity of style helps to determine interpolation in the text.

Are translations of the documents available in English or the language of the researcher? The problem of sources which are in foreign languages have to be solved. We cannot depend on the English factory records of the East India Company alone. We should also study the French, Dutch and Portuguese records relating to the same period for a comparative picture.

Different ways of fabricating and cheating – The researcher must get a true, valid and fresh version of the document by the real author. This is difficult in the cases concerning ancient and medieval India. It is also not easy to have access to confidential state documents which contain the true picture of the diplomatic relations, military affairs, war-time activities, and other secrets of public interest. A couple of decades ago Congress Government in India had buried underground a capsule containing true history of India. The subsequent non-Congress government dug it out and found nothing special about it.

Governments of the world especially the government of socialist countries keep some documents as top secrets. We cannot say anything about secret transactions relating to finance, military affairs and treaties. There are however other kinds of documents, public and private, which are available in the archives and libraries.

While handling the available documents of important nature we should proceed very cautiously to ascertain that there are no fabrications or misrepresentation or cheating. Documents can be thus subjected to external criticism or evaluation.

There are many ways in which the original documents of financial or political importance can be changed or fabricated to mislead the rivals or contenders for gains and annihilate opposition and challenge to ones authority or interest.

Fabrications of records are done in many ways:

Forgery – This is a criminal act of changing title deeds and contracts, charters or such important agreements. The most famous case of forgery in Indian History is that of Robert Clive forging the signature of Admiral Watson. He not only forged Watson’s signature but gave a fake copy of the agreement to merchant Omnichand and cheated Siraj-ud-Daulah.

There are some cases of forging manuscripts to make it appear as if it belonged to remote past. The dates and the names contained in the document may be doctored to appropriate land grants. In the political chaos that prevailed during the early Middle Ages, such fabrications were made.

Plagiarism – There is a tendency among writers of history to steal thoughts and information from other writers. They copy the material but do not mention the source of their information. It is for this reason that researchers should mention the source of their information and should not pose as the original writer. Many historians of the Middle Ages borrowed information and at times wrote on the basis of what they heard. That was not plagiarism but a fanciful addition. Barani, Badauni or Firdausi might have added some episodes in the life of Mohammad Tughlaq to make it more vivid and spicy.

Interpolation – Interpolation means adding some spurious material to the original account. We come across this fault in almost all Puranic literature and even Rig Veda is not free from this fabrication. If it is a religious part which is added for more effect it may be overlooked but if it forms a part of an ideology it is objectionable. In the Skanda Puran (Shiva Puran) the addition of Sahyadri Khanda with a view to explaining the origin and multiplication of castes was not desirable.

Misrepresentation – This defect of giving a wrong account of the past is mischievous. James Mills ‘History of British India’ published in 1818 was acclaimed as a wonderful historical work in England but it was based on insufficient data. The author had not visited India and did not know any Indian language but had the audacity to condemn the Hindu race as devoid of manliness.

Suppression or omission of facts – Nations under single political party dictatorship did not allow only the bright side of their government and suppress information about the unpleasant aspects of their policies and activities. The documents or texts from such countries cannot be treated as telling the whole truth. The information may be inconvenient to the government or the society.

There are extreme cases and are an integral part of the policy of the government.

In open societies where democratic governments rule, there are no cases of suppression of important information, but omissions of such information. The documents may refer to such unwanted experiences in a cursory manner or gloss over the objectionable aspects of the issue.

The records of medieval period of Indian history are full of one-sided narratives. The scribes at the court exaggerate the exploits of their patrons and omit to refer to defeats in war and their failures and exploitation of the people. You can hardly know whether the King Harsh was defeated by Chalukya Pulkesin II unless you read the inscriptions of the Chalukya King. Even the records of feudatories and Kings of tiny states are made to appear as if they were world rulers and invincible. Khafi Khan a known opponent of Emperor Aurangzeb’s repressive measures might say a good word about Shivaji’s religious tolerance but would not utter a word of praise about Shivaji’s struggle for ‘Swarajya’. They would have been against the Imperial rule.

Quotations and translations – Historians give quotations from other authors who wrote on the same theme. Usually this is done to show support to the views of the writer concerned. The context in which the other writer has written those words or passages must be examined to know the true position. Secondly, the translated works should be such as are approved by the experts in the first language. In this respect, Elliot and Dawson had done a good service to Indian history. A wrong translation and a misleading quotation detract from the truth. Any comments based on such translations must be treated with caution.

Causes for doctoring documents:

The answer to the simple questions ‘who will gain?’ and ‘what and how will he gain?’ will give us a clue to detect the possible offender. The gains are various and range from personal benefit to national glory. Some of the causes are:

Financial gain – This is the most common cause for forgery of documents. The change of names in the will of a rich relative, the amounts due to creditors in business transaction or land grant gifts and donations from patrons etc.

Political gain – Title deeds and authority delegated to persons by the old regime or overthrown governments. When the East India Company appointed ‘Imam Commission’ only those who could produce title deeds could get continuation, others were eliminated. There is always scope of fabrication of documents.

Social gains – Biographies of saints and origins of caste as int eh case of ‘Sahyadri Khand’ of Skanda Puran give higher status in the society. The Rajput clans claimed ‘Kshatriya’ category in the Hindu Society by fabricating their genealogies. The Nand dynasty was condemned by Hindu, Jain and Buddhist writers and the Mauryan dynasty was elevated to a higher status.

Position and fame – Nationalist historians gain position and fame in presenting the national history as a story of unblemished heroes. They suppress unsavory facts and eulogize the exploits to block any dissent.

Truth is more powerful than a powerful autocrat. Records may be suppressed, and doctored documents may be produced in support of claims of multifarious kind. They are temporary gains. The methods to establish the validity and the true facts have been evolved by historians over many years of research and they have load down certain guidelines.

Methods of determining garbled documents: A student of history or a researcher in history is interested in authentic documents and relics of the past as evidence of the past age. He is chiefly interested in:

Authorship of the document

The date of the document

Place of the document

Corroboration of contemporary documents or books and other sources.

His question is ‘Is this document genuine?’ In order to ascertain the genuineness of that he has to adopt a method to determine the above mentioned four points as problems before him.

Problem of authorship – If the name of the author is mentioned in the beginning the problem is easy to tackle. The student researcher must see that his authorship is not contested by other writers of his times. Usually the diction and the style of the narrative helps to identify the author f the work under consideration when we talk about document it is not a piece of paper on which the author has expressed his thoughts or described a fact of his experience. It may be a full volume in manuscript or in print. We use it as an evidence to ascertain the happenings in the past. The authorship of the book or document when in doubt may be guessed by going through the works of the concerned author so that his language, style of presentation, his approach to problems can be judged.

In case the concerned author has a single book or treatise like Kautilya who is supposed to have written ‘Arthashastra’ or Vyasmuni the author of ‘Mahabharata’ or Valmiki the author of ‘Ramayana’ we have to depend on the evidence of the contemporary writers as we cannot compare other works of the same Kautilya, Vyasa, or Valmiki.

Problem of Chronology – In history, date – time of events is very important. Modern history is free from the defect of uncertainty of chronology of event whether it is French Revolution or World War II. The problem of fixing the date arises in the case of ancient and medieval period narratives. The narrative itself gives certain clues about the occurrences of the events. For e.g., Ashoka’s Kalinga War – We can easily guess the year of the war from Ashoka’s edict referring to that bloody war. Same is the case about the period of disturbed conditions after the fall of thee Mauryan and Gupta empires. Although the exact dates cannot be fixed the absence of contemporary records once the probable period is tentatively fixed the authorship of the document and also the place of the event can be determined easily.

Problem of the place of the event – The unpublished sources usually manuscripts referring to some important event, say the Koli and Ramoshi revolts in Maharashtra after the conquest of Maharashtra by the East India Company. The letter describing such events or notes relating got such anti-government documents may not deliberately mention the date and place of its origin. In such cases the events already known in connection with such rebellions provide a clue to ascertain the date and place if not the authorship.

Corroboration of contemporary documents – Authenticity of a document can be ascertained by consulting contemporary documents which have been accepted by scholars. The Peshwa records about the First Anglo Maratha War and the Treaty of Purandhar must be read with the factory records of the English Company. The account of the wars may be corroborated with French and the Portuguese records of those events.

It is also instructive to compare the accounts of the same event from opposite points of view. Lord Robert’s book ‘An eyewitness account fo the Indian Mutiny’ may be compared with Veer Savarkar’s ‘War of Independence’ (1857). The truth lies somewhere in between.

John C. B. Webster in his book ‘An Introduction to History’ has suggested that while dealing with manuscripts researchers should focus attention on the handwriting, pages numbered, and the ink used. The change in handwriting or in the ink may suggest change in authorship. As regards published works it is advisable to go to the root of the source or to study how the account of the events originated. The root of the source material leads to a better view of the document.

Remedial Measures

While handing the evidence the research students should move cautiously. One should always entertain a healthy doubt of all the accounts about sensitive and controversial events. This is the first remedial measure. The question to be asked is ‘what part of this document may be a garbled one?’ For e.g., When we select a topic like ‘Quit India Movement’ for study, the conflicting views have to be considerable and the account before us in the document has to be critically examined.

Secondly source material on the topic prior to the one before us should be consulted. Just as we should know the latest work on the subject the previous works should be gone through to find the addition etc. A student of history should adopt the approach to know the history of the documents.

Thirdly, we have to make an intelligent guess who would be benefited by distortion of facts or advocating a particular point of view based on the garbled facts. If the subject chosen is of a neutral nature say ‘The history of sea fortresses on the western coast of India’ even here one can find a lurking interest of some communities and politicians. All subjects in this way be loaded with some interest or the other. It is therefore necessary to get hold of ‘hard and irreducible facts’ as we know, the Positivist approach advocated by Ranke, Acton and others is only a dream.

Finally, it is better to have a commonsense approach to all documents, physical relics of the old times can be tested by carbon-14 method, the ink and other material used can be analyzed or preserved by chemical treatment, but the written records have to be evaluated by men who aspire to know the truth. Like the judge in the court of law we must allow the case to be pleaded by lawyers and cross examine the witnesses. The judgment must be clear and convincing.

External criticism to establish authenticity of sources is an important step int eh reconstruction of the past. When we study one or more events for research, we should know the exact features of authentic documents i.e., the mention of author, date and place of the event and the available sources, old and new on the subject. With these features in mind, we should think about the deviations and the causes for such doctoring of documents. We should follow the correct method to eliminate such anomalies and restore the true and original source of information.

CREDIBILITY

An authentic document cannot be an absolutely reliable one. The witness giving the evidence might commit error deliberately or by oversight or in a way not be easily intelligible. Thus, we need to known more about the credibility of the source.

Meaning of credibility of sources – Credibility is trustworthiness. It is a guarantee that something presented to us for inspection is true and real. You trust you eyes and so you believe what you see. When it is a historical source you may regard it as true at the first sight. But all historical documents simply because they are kept in archives, libraries or in temples and churches cannot be regarded as credible unless you go through the relevant records concerning your subject under study.

What is credible in poetry or art may not be credible in practical life and so as historical knowledge. Platonic love may be trusted as true and real by a poet or a philosopher but historian will ask if such a love is actually experience by anybody at a place and time that can be determined.

Credibility of historical sources springs out of the contents of the evidence in written form or relics of the past. The outward or external features of the documents may be subjected to some tests as described in the previous lesson. The historicity of a document has to be established by proper method and sound reason. The researcher has to weed out the unwanted part and accept the genuine and the trustworthy part of the document. It is a common experience that everything submitted may not be entirely believable or it may not be entirely believable, or it may not be entirely unworthy of belief. The researcher has to apply certain tests to get a complete view of the truth. Such critical examination ensures credibility of documents. There are two types of criticisms – positive and negative.

Positive criticism – emphasizes the correct understanding of the document or an evidence in material form. A piece of an ancient tool tested by carbon -14 method will provide the age of the artefact. However, to understand the full size, shape, color and the use of such a tool, it should be examined by experts. Similarly, the documents before the researchers have to be analyzed and tested by experienced and skilled men in the field.

First thing in positive criticism is to see that the document is being referred to as a complete document not torn, smudged, illegible or stained etc. This is especially so in the case of manuscripts and inscriptions. The full impact of the document can be understood when it is in good condition. It is difficult in the case of old ‘Sanads’ (charters) grants, gifts, and donation deeds, or even official correspondence in the archives. The first requirement is therefore to see that the document is in its original form.

The internal criticism for credibility is concerned with the full contents of the document. Every event whether a war, a treaty or a policy or public activity that is under review must be studied in entirety. The evidence contained in the document must be as far as possible sequential and complete. Suppose we are studying the formation of the states of Maharashtra and Gujarat we have to collect documents from the time the linguistic commission was appointed to the actual reconstruction of states. The official documents as well as the reports of the recommendations and responses of the people during the six years (1955-61) must be scrutinized. The terms of reference of all commission and the recommendations have to be studied comprehensively. The background of the states reorganization and the debates in the parliament and the Bombay Provincial Assembly must also form a part of the evidence.

The second point in positive criticism is the mastery over the language in which the documents are issued. The language of the original document must be known to the researcher. The translation of documents is another impediment in the path of the student. Even if the translation is available as a standard and approved on the researcher has to consult the original text at least for those parts which are very crucial to the understanding of the main theme. There are certain sentences which may be open to different interpretation. The documents should be understood correctly.

Negative criticism – The next stage of critical examination is to look at the evidence with a sort of learned doubt to avoid sources of error. G. B. Vico has pointed five sources of error:

Magnificent opinion concerning antiquity i.e., the prejudice in favor of exaggerating the wealth, power, grandeur, etc., of the period the historian is studying.

The conceit of nations – Every nation in dealing with its own past history has a prejudice in favor of painting it in the most favorable colors.

The conceit of the learned – Some historians show a tendency to expect the in the past about whom he is doing research were academic men like themselves. Thus, when we examine the eye-witness account of the past age should eb objective as far as possible.

The fallacy that when tow nations have a similar idea or institution, one must have learnt it from the other.

The prejudice of thinking that ancients were better informed than us.

With these suggestion in mind the researcher must study the contents of the documents before him.

 

Principles and methods of Internal criticism

The following are the four main principles and methods to test the credibility of the documents.

Ability to tell the truth about the source.

Willingness to tell the truth.

Corroboration of evidence by contemporaries.

Accuracy and reality of the source.

These principles are based on reason and experience.

Ability to tell the truth about the source – The ability of the source material or the author presenting the evidence depends upon the possibility of producing factual evidence of the event. The method to test such a possibility rests on the following factors:

Nearness of the eyewitness or the writer of the event both in terms of place and time. In every case eyewitness account is very valuable. We have to ensure that he was present at the time of the event. If he was not present the account need not be dismissed as unreliable. We have to tke it in the absence of true evidence.

Keen observation and sharp memory of the writer of the account. The evidence that the author offers will depend upon the power of his observation and strong memory. This can be made out from the details that he provides and the way he records his information. When two authors write about the same event the difference of observation can be made out.

Alertness and dexterity of attention – The scholar who goes through the document must be alert and ready to grasp the essential and the relevant. His mind must be fixed on the aim of the topic that he is studying, and it should not wander merely in search of information. He should perceive the relevant facts and focus attention on them and reject what is unnecessary for his objective. Students will come across a lot of unnecessary and irrelevant information. The authors delighted in quoting anecdotes and hearsays to add some color to their narrative.

Aptitude for conducting enquiry – The most important method of establishing credibility of documents is by asking questions of the right type. The answers to such intelligent questions must be found in the documents concerned. For e.g., Kautilya’s Arthashastra is a treatise on political economy of the Mauryan Empire. If you ask the question ‘Is Kautilya describing the actual political structure and economy of the Mauryan Emperor or merely theorizing?’ The answer is the mixture of theory and practice. Dr. R. P. Kangle’s study of Kautilya’s Arthashastra published by the university of Bombay in 1968 provides many interesting details.

We can also ask such questions to find out whether treaties like Arthashastra gives you a credible evidence about a certain period and important events. The material relics of proved antiquity may be similarly questioned to elicit required information relevant to the subject that is being handled by the researcher.

Rational approach – When studying any document, a book, a manuscript or an inscription, we must take a rational view of the evidence. In the case of a book, we ask the question about its authorship, date, place, and the bibliography. In the case of manuscripts, the handwriting, ink, page numbers, and the place of its origin and the name of the writer if so mentioned. In the case of an inscription of grants and donation deeds the inscription is done by a craftsman and the format is more or less conventionally fixed. However, in all these cases we may argue about the inclusion of certain portions and questions, the omission of usual detail necessary in such cases. Suppose in a land grant deed if the portion relating to the reason why the grant was made is not mentioned, the researcher has to say that the credibility of the grant is questionable. He has to carry out further investigation of the point till he gets satisfactory explanation.

Willingness to tell the truth – The discerning eye of the researcher many a times finds that an author of a book or a document providing evidence of an event try to conceal truth or diverts attention to some other aspect. For e.g., Queen Victoria’s Declaration of 1858 does not mention ‘self-government’ and Cabinet Mission Plan did not mention the date when they would quit. There are many reasons why authors do not come out with the complete truth. Even in our daily transactions truth in its entirety is hardly possible. It comes out in small parts at times to avoid possible unhappy consequences.

Prejudice – Prejudices are of many kinds. Personal likes and dislikes, political ideology, economic interest, religious prejudices and prejudices about castes, colors and creeds. There are many other factors that give rise to prejudices, the most famous prejudice in the world is that of the white mans supremacy and in India prejudice arising out of ethnic identity and religious differences.

An author who writes about the people he despises is not willing to find any virtue among them. The ancient Aryans were prejudiced against the original natives, and they called them ‘Dasyus’. They were not willing to give a factual account of the ‘Dasyus’. Similarly, Alexander the Great and his Greek soldiers were not willing to tell the truth about their encounters with the Indian defenders. Even the Greek intellectuals were not willing to praise the achievements of the Taxila university. All English historians hardly show willingness to admit that the administration of the British was patterned on the Mauryan Mughal model.

The prejudice of such kind produces many evil trends in historical thinking. The documents concerning unfavorable evidence are either suppressed or condemned. On the contrary a bias in favor of some person, ideology or policy may thrive on half-truths. There are many cases when the author of the biography of a popular hero writes in praise of the person and glosses over his defects and weaknesses. Truth is thus a casualty both in the case of prejudice against an event, oral, individual or a bias in favor.

There are pressures which force the author to hide the reality as it would harm the interest of some important group of persons. The interests may be political, social, military, or diplomatic. Communist writers writing about capitalist countries or the democrats from the free countries writing about communist can hardly be realistic. In short, the credibility of documents must be judged in view of the mental framework of the writer. Willingness of the author is to be judged on the basis of the contents of his works not on our supposed impression about him.

Corroboration of Evidence by contemporaries – As in the cases of civils and criminal offences a corroboration and conformation by an independent evidence is desirable. The claims of gains and successes during war period cannot be accepted as counter – claims are made by the opposite side. There is no source to know the exact position as it changes every time. The correct position of gains and loses can be made after the war when treaties would be signed. The British claim to the good governance of the Indian people was contested by Dadabhai Naoroi in his famous book ‘Poverty in India’ which became an embodiment of ‘Drain Theory’ and exposed the claims of the British Government.

Accuracy and reality of the source – contemporary and corroborating evidence cannot be taken as foolproof evidence. Both types might have originated or copied from the same source. Many medieval historians copied information from Ain-e-Akbari of Abdul Fazl their corroboration has no reality. To know the truth, we must look for sources contemporary to Abdul Fazl.

The scientific tests of material relics and the critical method of history can ensure the accuracy and certainty of the event. In the case of biography and memoirs emphasis on fact and not feelings of the individual are to be given credence while looking out for factual history of the time.

Commonsense approach – There are different approaches to arrive at the truth. A sceptic approach shows us what we should not believe. A scholastic or ‘pundit’ type of approach will flatter the ego in compiling more and more source material even repetitive and unnecessary. A positivistic approach keeps us busy with minute details. But the commonsense approach keeps us on the right track while determining credibility of evidence in material or literary forms.

The first question to be solved is ‘what type of source are we handling? If it is an article, structure, coins or material type of source, the tests are to be conducted on scientific lines and the writings about them should be compared.

The second question is who is writing about any selected subject? For e.g., ‘History of Europe’ – the American – G. A. Craig, the Englishman – David Thompson and the French – Alfred Cobban have more or less the same material but will emphasize different aspects. A comparative view leads to real facts.

Thirdly the possibility of the event or experience contained in the document is to be examined. If it is a miracle, we have nothing to do with it. In the case of communal riots, revolts, rebellions, revolutions, and wars it is not possible to get a trustworthy account. Thus, who writes? What does he write? When and from where does he write? – are relevant questions. We should proceed with caution.

Lastly, we should adopt a rational attitude towards the sources. Historians have to depend on the relics, surviving portions and to writings and artefacts. The event and the actors in the event are no more existing. We have to depend on logical process. When we come across an evidence in any form, we must try to discern the aim and the purpose of the activity rather than the activity itself.

The critical examination of the source either to establish authenticity or credibility are necessary for ensuring that true facts regarding the subject under study are made available. The external criticism enables us to ascertain the true facts and internal criticism the reliability of the facts. Both processes are interlinked.