How do historians evaluate the accuracy and reliability of historical sources?

Historians evaluate the accuracy and reliability of sources through a rigorous process of critical analysis, often referred to as historical criticism. This methodology involves several key practices:

• Verification and Authenticity: Historians must determine if a document is genuine. This includes paleography—the study of ancient or medieval handwriting—and comparing scripts or styles to identify scribes or forgeries.1
• Contextual Interpretation: Beyond reading the text, historians must establish the document's genre, identify technical language, and account for shifts in word meaning over time. They must also analyze metaphorical language, irony, and what is left unsaid.1
• Correction for Bias and Memory: When using oral history, historians must account for the fallibility of human memory. Thorough preparation and prior knowledge allow the interviewer to verify testimony and identify inconsistencies.1
• Quantitative Analysis: For administrative records, historians must account for potential inaccuracies, such as tax evasion or negligent record-keeping. When using computers for quantitative studies, providing databases and coding conventions is essential for allowing other scholars to evaluate the work.1
• Juxtaposition: Reliability is often strengthened by comparing written documents with material artifacts, as neither typically tells a complete story on its own.1