Answer: In the past, historians faced many difficulties in using manuscripts. Due to the lack of a printing press during those periods, historians had to scribe the manuscripts by hand, and copying the manuscripts with new changes was not an easy job. Small differences and mistakes grew over the centuries of copying, until manuscripts of the same text became substantially different from one another. As a result, we rarely find an author’s original manuscript today.
10. How do historians divide the past into periods? Do they face any problems in doing so?
Indian history was divided into three different periods by British historians in the middle of the nineteenth century. The three periods were divided into “British”, “Muslim”, and “Hindu”. British Historians believed that there were no significant developments in terms of culture, society, and economy apart from the change in the religion of the rulers.
Such a division by the British historians has problems. Such a division ignores the diversity of the Indian subcontinent. The eleventh and eighth centuries were completely different from the sixteenth or eighteenth centuries.
Historians do not see time just as a calendar or clock showing years, days, or hours. The study of history becomes easier by dividing them into different periods or segments with similar characteristics. It reflects the similarities and changes in economic organisation, social changes, beliefs, and ideas.
Historical records exist in different languages, which keep changing considerably over time. For example, modern Persian is different from Medieval Persian. The differences are not just in vocabulary and grammar but also the meanings, which keep changing over time.
When Historians read texts, maps, and documents of the past, they have to be careful about the contexts and different historical backgrounds in which they were produced, as the cartography was different in two different periods.
11. Compare either Map 1 or Map 2 with the present-day map of the subcontinent, listing as many similarities and differences as you can find.
Map 2 was made by a French cartographer. Map 1 was made by the Arab geographer Al-Idrisi. Map 1 was made in 1154 C.E., whereas Map 2 was made in the 1720s. The first modern maps of India were produced by Survey of India.
In Map 1, places are marked in Arabic, whereas in present-day maps, the places in the subcontinent are marked in English. In Map 1, South India is located where North India is located on the present-day map.
In Map 2, the coastal areas are well-detailed, whereas in Map 1, the coastal areas are not marked in detail like in Map 1. Some of the well-known names are spelt differently in Map 1. Map 2 was used by merchants and European sailors on their voyages.