History is a discipline.

[keannu]

[FONT=&#54620]History is a discipline. It is the art of reconstructing the past. As historian John Tosh writes, “All the resources of scholarship and all the historian’s powers of imagination must be harnessed to the task of bringing the past to life—or resurrecting it.” The past is messy, but historians make sense of the mess by collecting evidence, making meaning of it, and organizing it into some kind of discernible pattern. History is an exciting act of interpretation—taking the facts of the past and weaving them into a compelling narrative. The historian works closely with the stuff that has been left behind—documents, oral testimony, objects—to make the past come alive. As John Arnold has noted, “The sources do not ‘speak for themselves’ and never have done so.... They come alive when the historian reanimates them.”

Does this discipline here mean "a field of knowledge" or "strong training"?[/FONT][FONT=&#54620]

[/FONT]

 

[Rover_KE]

You usually make your own choice first before asking us.

 

[keannu]

I thought it could help you to choose better, but it may not work.
If you think it's unnecessary, I won't do that. Anyway, I need the answer for this question this time.

 

[Rover_KE]

We do want you to try to figure out the answer for yourself.

The paragraph goes on to explain what history is all about and how historians interpret it.

Which sounds the more plausible way of describing history in a few words — 'a field of knowledge' or 'strong training'?