This is achieved by incorporating the advances in neurosciences into historiographical theory and methodology in the attempt to reconstruct the past[1] It was first proposed by Harvard professor Daniel Lord Smail in his work[2] and it offers historians a way to engage critically with the implicit folk psychologies in the interpretation of evidence.
[3] An account cited that neurohistory can be traced back to William Reddy's reception of experimental psychology and that this launched a neuroscientific wave in several fields of human sciences until it reached history.
[5] Smail argued that the neurological complex lies at the heart of experience and is directly associated with social practices and institutions so that historians can no longer think in terms of nature and nurture.
[6] As a historical approach, neurohistory allows the idea that the brain can be a narrative focus of history, one that is not anchored on the framework of political organization.
[8] It leads to the so-called implicit presentism drawn from historians' inferences projected from their folk-psychological notions through reconstructed context.