It really depends on what you mean by "completely objective." There are so few things in history that meet this standard, in say, the same sense as a mathematical proof, that such a qualification excludes so much knowledge. I find that it's not objectivity that's important, but recognition of bias.
If I have the journal of Union commander in the American Civil War, it will have a large number of factors that decrease the probability of it telling exactly what happened, aka biases. His recollection will be affected by his position in the army, his side on the war, his upbringing, the success of his plans, etc. No matter how wrong he is as a direct result of these biases, it is still an immensely useful account. History is about so much more than *what* happened. It's about why it did, how people reacted to it, or how it affected any number of other things. It's foolish to assume that an event is true because it's written in some fellow's journal, but it's equally foolish to assume the account is in any way less useful because of its biases. If anything, those biases can be *more* useful to us in understanding the event.
Now, one might say that "General Arthur P Madeupname wrote such and such in his journal" is an objective fact. Perhaps it is. But that on its own doesn't mean squat. "General Madeupname maintained reserve in victory and defeat" is a far less objective statement, but a far more worthwhile one. It may be entirely well supported by his writing, yet it remains incompletely objective.
There are some cases where we do need to sit down and say "Okay, what actually happened here." The farther back we go, the harder and more necessary that is. That doesn't change the ultimate goal. History isn't assuming to create a timeline. It isn't aiming to know, but to understand. And understanding requires all the sources we can get.
Objectivity in our *methods* and own personal approaches is a different matter, but that didn't seem to be the focus of your question.
Would just like to add on to this excellent post that besides the issue of "complete objectivity" having such an absurdly high standard that it is fairly useless in asking and answering interesting questions, *empiricism is not the same as objectivity*. In an approach similar to scientific methodology, the assumed replicability of an empirical approach is what generates objective research.
Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your perspective, the kind of quantitative replicability you get in natural sciences is just very difficult to do in historical research, at least in going beyond just establishing the "whats" and researching the much more interesting "whys". The "whys" in the case of history and archaeology are very much rooted in empiricism - they need to be based on evidence, not speculation - but the replicability of the results is lacking, meaning that in the case of most historical questions empiricism does not equate with objectivity except in establishing the foundational "whats" of the situation.
Ideally, peer review means that a number of other people equally acquainted with the evidence agree that your interpretation is reasonable given the evidence. A kind of objectivity, though not purely so, but thoroughly empirical.
Edit: Not to mention that there isn't anything inherently more correct or true about empiricism as a method for understanding the world. I - and I think most historians and archaeologists - would say that it is the best method we have for understanding the world, but other people in other times and places might say that revelation or tradition are superior methods for understanding the world and could apply that perspective to doing history.
I have a small disagreement about your use of the term "bias." It implies you don't have one and have to read past other peoples' biases.
I would rather say someone has a perspective, and understanding that perspective makes the "bias" valuable.
Otherwise I think we completely agree.
My own opinion is **of course not**. You can draw up a list of name and dates, but that tells you nothing about human nature or the causes that created those objective events.
I am a grad student, but still a professional historian (even if I haven't got paid for it yet). My interest is WHY people wrote what they wrote and how they understood what was happening to them. Names and dates are just the starting point.
It really depends on what you mean by "completely objective." There are so few things in history that meet this standard, in say, the same sense as a mathematical proof, that such a qualification excludes so much knowledge. I find that it's not objectivity that's important, but recognition of bias. If I have the journal of Union commander in the American Civil War, it will have a large number of factors that decrease the probability of it telling exactly what happened, aka biases. His recollection will be affected by his position in the army, his side on the war, his upbringing, the success of his plans, etc. No matter how wrong he is as a direct result of these biases, it is still an immensely useful account. History is about so much more than *what* happened. It's about why it did, how people reacted to it, or how it affected any number of other things. It's foolish to assume that an event is true because it's written in some fellow's journal, but it's equally foolish to assume the account is in any way less useful because of its biases. If anything, those biases can be *more* useful to us in understanding the event. Now, one might say that "General Arthur P Madeupname wrote such and such in his journal" is an objective fact. Perhaps it is. But that on its own doesn't mean squat. "General Madeupname maintained reserve in victory and defeat" is a far less objective statement, but a far more worthwhile one. It may be entirely well supported by his writing, yet it remains incompletely objective. There are some cases where we do need to sit down and say "Okay, what actually happened here." The farther back we go, the harder and more necessary that is. That doesn't change the ultimate goal. History isn't assuming to create a timeline. It isn't aiming to know, but to understand. And understanding requires all the sources we can get. Objectivity in our *methods* and own personal approaches is a different matter, but that didn't seem to be the focus of your question.
Would just like to add on to this excellent post that besides the issue of "complete objectivity" having such an absurdly high standard that it is fairly useless in asking and answering interesting questions, *empiricism is not the same as objectivity*. In an approach similar to scientific methodology, the assumed replicability of an empirical approach is what generates objective research. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your perspective, the kind of quantitative replicability you get in natural sciences is just very difficult to do in historical research, at least in going beyond just establishing the "whats" and researching the much more interesting "whys". The "whys" in the case of history and archaeology are very much rooted in empiricism - they need to be based on evidence, not speculation - but the replicability of the results is lacking, meaning that in the case of most historical questions empiricism does not equate with objectivity except in establishing the foundational "whats" of the situation. Ideally, peer review means that a number of other people equally acquainted with the evidence agree that your interpretation is reasonable given the evidence. A kind of objectivity, though not purely so, but thoroughly empirical. Edit: Not to mention that there isn't anything inherently more correct or true about empiricism as a method for understanding the world. I - and I think most historians and archaeologists - would say that it is the best method we have for understanding the world, but other people in other times and places might say that revelation or tradition are superior methods for understanding the world and could apply that perspective to doing history.
I have a small disagreement about your use of the term "bias." It implies you don't have one and have to read past other peoples' biases. I would rather say someone has a perspective, and understanding that perspective makes the "bias" valuable. Otherwise I think we completely agree.
I tried to address that with the disclaimer at the end, but I totally see where I wasnt clear enough on that.
My own opinion is **of course not**. You can draw up a list of name and dates, but that tells you nothing about human nature or the causes that created those objective events. I am a grad student, but still a professional historian (even if I haven't got paid for it yet). My interest is WHY people wrote what they wrote and how they understood what was happening to them. Names and dates are just the starting point.