ABSTRACT
In many ways, the search for a historiography (or perhaps even an understanding) of terrorism runs counter to the nature of Clio. Historians it seems are poorly suited to provide the kinds of answers, the kinds of generalizations so sought after in the growing field of terrorism studies. History addresses questions and provides answers that are always rooted in the specific context of the past, in essence in a time and under conditions that have come and gone. As Yale historian Beverly Gage (2011) notes, there is for terrorism at best only a developing historiography. Further, writing in the 1970s, Walter Laqueur (1986; 1999) argued that agreement on a definition had proven impossible and was unlikely to be remedied anytime soon. Histories of terrorism can tell us about characteristics, conditions, methods, and means but, akin to Laqueur’s reflection on definition risks, when generalized, tend to be either imprecise or, worse, misleading. As he insightfully noted, there is “no such thing as terrorism pure and unadulterated, specific and unchanging … rather there are a great many terrorisms” (1986, 88–89). This then is the rich and fallow ground where historians have and must continue to ply their trade to tell us how we got here but not what to do next.
