Final answer:
Historians are limited to studying the past through written sources to the point in history where writing was invented, which can vary by region. Europe and China have richer textual histories, while regions like Africa and Latin America may rely more on archaeological evidence and other forms of material culture to understand their pasts.
Step-by-step explanation:
Historians are largely limited by the advent of writing when it comes to studying the past using written sources. This limitation means that the chronological scope of history proper can typically go back only as far as when humans began to deliberately make records. The earliest civilizations, such as those of the Fertile Crescent, marked the beginning of written history. However, historians must also look to material culture, such as archaeological artifacts, to understand the societies before written records.
Some regions of the world, such as Europe and China, have a long tradition of written documents which provide a more complete historical narrative. Characters like Herodotus and Sima Qian laid the foundations for historical writing in the West and China respectively. Yet, other areas like Africa and Latin America have less comprehensive historical records, primarily because fewer texts have survived. Historians often rely on non-written sources, like oral histories and physical artifacts, to fill these gaps.
When examining the past, even during the documented historical period, there is an acknowledged bias towards elite perspectives. This means many groups remain 'hidden from history' as fewer written records discuss their lives. To address this, historians have to depend on varied sources, such as newspapers and court hearing records, to illuminate the experiences of underrepresented groups like women, the poor, and minority communities.