Hossein Jorjani
First publication: 2026 – 07 – 19
Historical inquiry is often presented as a branch of the humanities, whereas the natural sciences are regarded as fundamentally different modes of investigation. In practice, however, modern historical research increasingly proceeds through two complementary stages that draw upon both domains.
The first stage seeks to establish the physical evidence. Before historical questions can be answered, the objects under investigation must themselves be authenticated and characterized. This task increasingly relies upon methods developed within the natural sciences. Radiocarbon dating, dendrochronology, DNA analysis, chemical characterization of inks and pigments, isotopic analysis, multispectral imaging, and material science all contribute to determining the age, provenance, composition, and authenticity of historical artifacts.
Only after this empirical foundation has been established does the second stage begin. Here the investigator asks questions concerning authorship, meaning, historical context, intellectual influence, cultural significance, and the relationships between events, persons, and ideas. These questions require historical, archaeological, linguistic, philological, and cultural reasoning rather than additional physical measurements.
The two stages are complementary rather than competing. The natural sciences establish the physical properties of the surviving evidence; the humanities interpret the historical significance of that evidence. Neither stage is sufficient by itself. Physical analysis cannot determine the meaning of a text, while historical interpretation cannot establish the age or authenticity of an artifact independently of empirical investigation.
Although the distinction is particularly evident in manuscript studies and archaeology, it extends more broadly across historical research. Modern historiography increasingly depends upon the integration of scientific techniques with traditional historical scholarship. The boundary between the sciences and the humanities therefore lies not in mutually exclusive subject matter but in the different questions asked of the same evidence.
This distinction also illustrates a broader methodological principle. Scientific investigation and historical interpretation need not be regarded as competing forms of knowledge. They frequently constitute successive stages of a single inquiry, in which empirical analysis establishes the evidential foundation upon which historical understanding is subsequently constructed.
Hossein Jorjani 