Islamic History a Framework for Inquiry (Studies in Middle Eastern History, No. 9) by R. Stephen Humphreys; Minneapolis: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1988, 375 pp.

Abstract

Stephen Humphreys' Islamic History: a Framework for Inquiry represents
a new approach to the old problem of the historian and his sources. Following
the current trend among Western scholars ofislam and of history in general,
Humphreys 'lays much more emphasis on the methodology of dealing with
pre-modern historical sources than on establishing the "facts" to get at the
"truth." This is because of Humphreys' belief, widely shared by historians
today, that before we can learn any facts, we must understand our sources,
their uses and their inadequacies, and that before we can understand the sources,
we must arrive at a methodology that is universally acceptable, at least in
its broad outJine. With reference to mecljeval Islamic history, these needs
are all the more acute, because there has been little systematic thought given
to methodology, except in a few introductory pages in the work of certain
scholars, and because the sources themselves present so many problems.
Owing to these considerations, Humphreys' book focuses on methodology,
contains no narrative history and is intended for the student of history or
one of its allied fields rather than the layman. The book covers the period
of medieval Islamic history, which is defined as 600-1600 CE. The reason
for continuing to use this conventional and widely-accepted division is that
the source material fundamentally changes in quality for the period after
1500 because of the survival of Ottoman archival material subsequent to that
date (p. 9). This seems reasonable, for the lack of contemporary documents
for the medieval Islamic period imposes a greater reliance on non-literary
epigraphic and archaeological evidence, as well as traditional literary sources
which are usually not contemporary with the events described, leading in
tum to a different methodology than that of modem social science. On the
other hand, one must remember that the study of history should not mold
itself simply according to the dictates of what is and is not available in the
sources, for that could exaggerate the distortions to which our information
is already subject. AJso, we should not forget that artificial periodizations
may obscure the real continuity of the flow of history and impair our ability
to see its unifying features. Nevertheless, the atomization of history did not
begin with Humphreys, whose methodology rather tends to unify Islamic
history by seeing similar patterns in and drawing comparisons between widely
divergent times and places.
To demonstrate his methodology, Humphreys divides his work into two
parts. The first part consists of two chapters covering modem reference works
and the medieval sources of evidence generally, while the second part contains
ten chapters. each dealing with a broad problem of Islamic history and detailing
the sources relevant to that problem. Humphreys' strong bibliographical
emphasis makes his work most closely resemble Jean Sauvaget's Introduction
to the History of the Muslim East (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University
of California Press, 1965), as revised by Claude Cahen, a work which
Humphreys himself refers to as "the best overview we have of Islamic historical
studies" (p. 20) . Sauvaget, however, was selective, whereas Humphreys aims
to be comprehensive, and to a large extent succeeds. Because it is both broader
and more recent, Humphreys' work supersedes the earlier book. As a general
annotated bibliography, Humphreys' work is certainly a useful resource for
students of Islamic history ...