Causation is the bedrock of historical analysis. It's about identifying the intricate network of factors, both immediate and long-term, that contribute to an event. Historians don't just ask "what happened?" but "why did it happen?"

• Proximate Causes: These are the immediate triggers or events that directly lead to an outcome. Think of the spark that ignites a fire. For example, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand is often cited as a proximate cause of World War I.
• Underlying/Deeper Causes: These are the long-term, more fundamental conditions or trends that create the environment for an event to occur. They are the dry tinder that allows the spark to become a blaze. In the case of World War I, underlying causes included imperial rivalries, militarism, and a complex system of alliances.
• Multiple Causation: History is rarely the result of a single cause. Events are usually the product of multiple interacting factors. For example, the decline of the Roman Empire was not due to one factor, but a combination of economic problems, military overextension, political instability, and barbarian invasions.
• Intent vs. Unintended Consequences: Sometimes, actions have unforeseen outcomes. A leader might implement a policy with a clear intention, but the results could be far different from what was expected. Understanding this distinction is crucial for nuanced historical analysis.

Consequence examines the outcomes, results, and impacts of historical events. Just as a stone dropped into a pond creates ripples, historical events send out effects that spread far beyond their immediate occurrence.

• Short-term Consequences: These are the immediate and direct results that occur soon after an event. For example, a battle's short-term consequence might be the defeat of one army.
• Long-term Consequences: These are the enduring and far-reaching effects that unfold over years, decades, or even centuries. The long-term consequence of that same battle might be the collapse of an empire or the redrawing of political boundaries.
• Direct vs. Indirect Consequences: Direct consequences are immediately attributable to the event, while indirect consequences are secondary or tertiary effects that might not be immediately obvious. For example, a new invention (direct consequence) might lead to widespread unemployment in a specific industry (indirect consequence).
• Positive, Negative, and Neutral Consequences: Consequences are not always good or bad; they can have diverse impacts on different groups of people or aspects of society. The development of a new technology might bring great economic benefit to some while causing environmental harm to others.

Significance is about evaluating the importance and relevance of a historical event, person, or trend. It forces us to move beyond simply describing what happened and to ask "So what?"

• Profound Impact: Did the event fundamentally change the course of history for a large number of people or a significant region? The Black Death, for instance, had a profound impact on European demographics, economy, and social structures.
• Revelatory Power: Does the event reveal important truths about human nature, societal structures, or recurring patterns in history? The rise and fall of empires can reveal patterns of power, governance, and human ambition.
• Continuing Relevance: Does the event continue to influence the present day? The legacy of colonialism, for example, continues to shape political and economic relations between nations.
• Different Levels of Significance: An event might be significant locally, regionally, nationally, or globally. The construction of a new dam might be highly significant for a local community but have limited global impact.

History is not a monolithic narrative. Perspectives acknowledge that individuals and groups experience, interpret, and record events differently based on their unique backgrounds, beliefs, values, and positions in society.

• Individual Perspectives: How does a personal account reflect the lived experience of one person? A diary entry from a factory worker during the Industrial Revolution offers a unique personal perspective on industrial life.
• Group Perspectives: How do the shared experiences and interests of a particular group (e.g., a social class, an ethnic group, a gender group) shape their understanding of history? The perspective of enslaved people on the American Civil War would be vastly different from that of plantation owners.
• Cultural Perspectives: How do cultural values and norms influence historical narratives? Historical accounts from different civilizations might emphasize different aspects or interpret events through distinct moral frameworks.
• Acknowledging Bias: Understanding perspectives means acknowledging that every source has a viewpoint and potential biases. A historian's role is not to eliminate bias, but to identify and analyze it to gain a more complete understanding.

Evidence is the raw material that historians use to construct their understanding of the past. It's the tangible proof that supports historical claims. Without evidence, history is merely speculation or storytelling.

• Types of Evidence: Evidence comes in many forms: written documents (letters, laws, newspapers), visual materials (photographs, paintings, maps), oral accounts (interviews, folk tales), and material remains (buildings, tools, clothing, archaeological sites).
• Corroboration: Historians rarely rely on a single piece of evidence. They seek to corroborate (confirm or support) information from multiple sources to strengthen their claims and identify inconsistencies.
• Source Criticism: This involves carefully evaluating the origin, purpose, context, and reliability of each piece of evidence.
• Inference: Historians often make inferences – logical conclusions based on the evidence, even if the evidence doesn't explicitly state the conclusion. For example, a historian might infer the economic conditions of a society from the types of goods found at an archaeological dig.