No abstract

No abstract

Most historical works are based on traditional archival sources, chronicles, state reports, community narratives, folk literature, and vernacular sources, among other things, therefore there is a need to hunt for new evidence beyond Ranke's customary approach of writing history. Environmental historians, on the other hand, do not use similar sources and consider hills, rivers, woods, air, fields, and diseases, among other things, as more basic sources for analyzing historical events. When we talk about environmental history, we're talking about the human-nature relationship, which isn't just about nature.Where the past's ecological effects can't be overlooked. Nature must be placed in the context of the past, particularly the history related with humans. It is frequently made up of two cultures: humanities and science. Humanities is about culture of human, and culture of human is linked to the past. When we constitute humanity with science, we must use evidences, such as scientific findings, as part of the evidence for historical interpretation of historical events. We don't find nearly as much scientific detail in other historical literature as we do in environmental history. Scientific details add to the uniqueness and accuracy of this type of history writing.