This is an interesting methodological synthesis; I think that sort of what I tried to do with my book - though probably not quite as rigorous as I would professional historians to do it.
I would add though under Foundations earlier descriptive work by academic or amateur historians, which helped me build the basic scaffolding for the bigger question i tried to tackle.
A lot of it can be read back from practice, much like you did. But that was sort of the inspiration for our article in MOH - provide a description of that practice that is usable outside the discipline. It’s actually quite funny that some very different historians agree on the importance of imagination as part of historical practice. Although there have been some strong disagreements about how much of it is permissible, of course!
This is an interesting methodological synthesis; I think that sort of what I tried to do with my book - though probably not quite as rigorous as I would professional historians to do it.
I would add though under Foundations earlier descriptive work by academic or amateur historians, which helped me build the basic scaffolding for the bigger question i tried to tackle.
A lot of it can be read back from practice, much like you did. But that was sort of the inspiration for our article in MOH - provide a description of that practice that is usable outside the discipline. It’s actually quite funny that some very different historians agree on the importance of imagination as part of historical practice. Although there have been some strong disagreements about how much of it is permissible, of course!