Posted: May 07, 2015 4:06 pm
I have spent a lifetime studying History, and when I say lifetime, I'm talking about 60+ years.
Firstly to answer the question of what is "Ancient History?" This is the subject of my formal education for which I obtained my degree cum laude, so I think I can answer this.
Ancient History covers the period from the birth of civilisation, meaning the birth of organised civil arrangements, to the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West. That is the period from around 3000 BCE to the middle of the fifth century CE.
To answer the question of how History is examined, a historian starts with three questions:
1) What happened
2) When did it happen
3) Who was involved
Then comes the rest:
What are the after-effects, what evidence do we have, how do we test the evidence, is there any evidence outside of that presented by the answers to the three first questions.
It may not have been a science when Herodotus told his stories, and Thuycidides reported his story of the Peloponnesian War, but it is becoming more and more scientific now with what we are able to learn from archeology, palaeontology, forensics, and other sciences related to examining whatever humans leave behind.
Yes in the past it was reported by the victors from their point of view, it was filled with glorious battles won by the people who wrote the history, but that's not how it's reported today.
When you look at a newspaper report, or an "eye-witness" news report on a TV news channel, you are not looking at history. You are looking at journalism which is always biased in favour of the reporting team's opinion, and spectacle created for the purpose of making money.
History, in its purest sense, applies the same rules as science does. Take the evidence and weigh it up and accept what the evidence shows, even if it hurts.
So yes, I would say that it might have not been particularly scientific in the past, but it's becoming more so now.
Firstly to answer the question of what is "Ancient History?" This is the subject of my formal education for which I obtained my degree cum laude, so I think I can answer this.
Ancient History covers the period from the birth of civilisation, meaning the birth of organised civil arrangements, to the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West. That is the period from around 3000 BCE to the middle of the fifth century CE.
To answer the question of how History is examined, a historian starts with three questions:
1) What happened
2) When did it happen
3) Who was involved
Then comes the rest:
What are the after-effects, what evidence do we have, how do we test the evidence, is there any evidence outside of that presented by the answers to the three first questions.
It may not have been a science when Herodotus told his stories, and Thuycidides reported his story of the Peloponnesian War, but it is becoming more and more scientific now with what we are able to learn from archeology, palaeontology, forensics, and other sciences related to examining whatever humans leave behind.
Yes in the past it was reported by the victors from their point of view, it was filled with glorious battles won by the people who wrote the history, but that's not how it's reported today.
When you look at a newspaper report, or an "eye-witness" news report on a TV news channel, you are not looking at history. You are looking at journalism which is always biased in favour of the reporting team's opinion, and spectacle created for the purpose of making money.
History, in its purest sense, applies the same rules as science does. Take the evidence and weigh it up and accept what the evidence shows, even if it hurts.
So yes, I would say that it might have not been particularly scientific in the past, but it's becoming more so now.