Translation history, which is here taken as including interpreting and audiovisual mediation, needs conceptual tools firstly in order to distinguish itself from other kinds of history, with which it then can and should interact. And if there is a specific circumstance in which those tools need to be special in some way, it is presumably related in part to the nature of the data, both quantitative and qualitative, entering translation history: typically there is an abundance of diverse linguistic information deriving from the comparison of texts, an exceptional degree of unreliability in paratextual pronouncements on those texts, and frequent, albeit not ubiquitous, marginality in the identity and milieux of translators, often requiring the indirect inferences of detective work as one goes further back in time.The following survey of conceptual tools starts from the text-based concepts that seem to be most central to the Western translation studies, then moving to those that are process-based and more susceptible to historicize a wider range of translation forms. Attention will be paid to the inherent essentialism of most of the conceptual tools developed within Western translation studies and to the ways those concepts can run aground when confronted with a wider range of translational data. Some proposals will be made as to how a few basic categorical splits may be redressed in order to embrace a plurality of translation forms, hopefully without dissipating into positions where translation is always already everywhere.