1999（71）While there are almost as many definitions of history as there arehistorians，modern practice most closely conforms to one that sees history as theattempt to recreate and explain the significant events of the past.Caught in the web of itsown time and place，each generation of historians determines anew what is significant for it inthe past.In this search the evidence found is always incomplete and scattered;it is alsofrequently partial or partisan.The irony of the historians craft is that its practitioners alwaysknow that their efforts are but contributions to an unending process.

（72）Interest in historical methods has arisen less through external challenge tothe validity of history as an intellectual discipline and more from internal quarrelsamong historians themselves.While history once revered its affinity to literature andphilosophy，the emerging social sciences seemed to afford greater opportunities for askingnew questions and providing rewarding approaches to an understanding of the past.Socialscience methodologies had to be adapted to a discipline governed by the primacy of historicalsources rather than the imperatives of the contemporary world.

（73）During this transfer，traditional historical methods were augmented byadditional methodologies designed to interpret the new forms of evidence in thehistorical study.

Methodology is a term that remains inherently ambiguous in the historical profession.

（74）There is no agreement whether methodology refers to the concepts peculiarto historical work in general or to the research techniques appropriate to the variousbranches of historical inquiry.Historians，especially those so blinded by their researchinterests that they have been accused of“tunnel method，”frequently fall victim tothe“technicist fallacy.”Also common in the natural sciences，the technicist fallacy mistakenlyidentifies the discipline as a whole with certain parts of its technical implementation.

（75）It applies equally to traditional historians who view history as only theexternal and internal criticism of sources.And to social science historians who equatetheir activity with specific techniques.

解析：
71) While there are almost as many definitions of history as there are historians,modern practice most closely conforms to one that sees history as the attempt torecreate and explain the significant events of the past.
句子分析：
第一、句子可以拆分为三段：While there are almost as many definitions of history as there arehistorians, / modern practice most closely conforms to one / that sees history as the attemptto recreate and explain the significant events of the past.
第二、句子的结构：
1)主干结构是While there are almost as... as there are... +主句，While引导让步状语从句，从句中as...as结构是比较级，这句话直译为有多少历史学家，就有多少关于历史的定义。
2)主句中one是宾语，后面的that从句是它的定语从句。
3)sees history as把……看作是，不定式短语to recreate and explain...作名词the attempt的定语。
第三、词的处理：
While 虽然，尽管
definitions 定义，界定
modern practice 现代(补词：史学家的)实践
conforms to 符合于，趋向于认为
attempt 试图，尝试
to recreate 再现，重现(不能说重新创造历史)
events 事件，结合上下文引申为史实
完整的译文：
几乎每个历史学家对史学都有自己的界定，但现代史学家的实践最趋向于认为，历史学是试图重现过去的重大史实并对其作出解释。

72) Interest in historical methods has arisen less through external challenge to thevalidity of history as an intellectual discipline and more from internal quarrels amonghistorians themselves.
句子分析：
第一、句子可以拆分为三段：Interest in historical methods has arisen / less through externalchallenge to the validity of history as an intellectual discipline / and more from internalquarrels among historians themselves.
第二、句子的结构
1)主干结构是一个简单句：Interest... has arisen less through ...and more from...
2)并列状语less through ...and more from的翻译是关键，through和from意思完全相同，表示原因，直译比较少的是因为……，更多的原因是……
3)challenge后面的不定式短语to the validity of history as an intellectual discipline是它的定语，直译对历史作为一门学科的正确性提出异议，internal quarrels后面的介词短语among historiansthemselves作quarrels的定语。
第三、词的处理：
Interest in historical methods 对历史方法的关注(兴趣)
arisen 来自于，产生于challenge质疑，挑战
validity 真实性，正确性as an intellectual discipline作为一门学问(一个学科领域)
internal quarrels 内部意见不统一，内部分歧
完整的译文：
人们之所以关注历史研究的方法论，主要是因为史学界内部意见不一，其次是因为外界并不认为历史是一门学问。

73) During this transfer, traditional historical methods were augmented by additionalmethodologies designed to interpret the new forms of evidence in the historical study.