After the Fact: The Art of Historical Detection, Volume I

I got this as an optional reading material for my history class, it's very interesting if you enjoy learning more about the person and not just the dates and facts. I was only assigned about 5 readings out of the book, but I've read the entire book, and I'm considering other volumes!

This book was a pleasure to read. The authors wrote about "historical detection" from the mindset of forensic scientists. The breadth and depth of historical events covered in a book of this size is impressive.I recommend this book (without reservation) to those interested in history.

This book we used as a second text for my history class. It's has great additional information that went along with our textbook. It's a good read.

I don't remember this one

I had to buy this for a pre-graduate level historiography class.Honestly, I have never read a worse book about the methods of history. While the authors do succeed in describing HOW to go about writing history and exploring the past, they completely fail to achieve it on their own.My main problems with the book are as follows:*Lack of documentation of sources. Each chapter is followed by a very brief list of books recommended for further reading, but there is no structure in the book lists. Also, when other sources are referenced or quoted within the text proper, there is absolutely no documentation of which source was used or who is being quoted. It seems as though the authors want readers to take their word for the information presented. I would suggest that the authors learn how to use Chicago Manual of Style like every respectable historian worth his/her salt has to.*Incredibly obvious pro-white/pro-European biases. The job of a good historian is to limit the influences of biases on the interpretation of the past. When Native Americans are mentioned, they are ALWAYS treated as inferior to whites, both in the primary sources (which go undocumented) and in the words of the authors. This is absolutely disgusting and it is NOT good history writing.*The authors fail to execute the methods they describe. The ending of each chapter reveals that most of what is discussed is nothing more than conjecture. Without proper documentation of sources within the chapters, it becomes obvious that the authors wrote the book as a way to "strut their stuff" more so than actually provide accurate accounts of the past.I would NOT recommend this book as a permanent staple in a historian's or historiographer's personal library. While the methods Davidson and Lytle discuss are important, their outlines of methods are the only good things that can be taken away from this book. The rest is, essentially, biases interspersed with undocumented garbage.

Both Volume I and Volume II are extremely useful in American History classes. These books generate thinking skills that are much needed by students and greatly appreciated by teachers..

this work is not only insightful it is also highly readable and very interesting for undergraduate students so I plan to use it in my own future courses

Yup. Definitely a book.