More of Morley

Actually writing about Ancient History and the way to go about it is hard to describe. Before I started university, I thought (having taken essay subjects at A-level) that I understood how to write an essay and how to conduct research. However, I now understand that the teaching I received was specific to exam boards etc. - basically writing what an examiner wanted to read, not necessarily what I had to say.

Recently I read a section of Neville Morley's Writing Ancient History, and it throws some key issues that many people do not really think about into debate. For instance, in Chapter 2, Morley highlights the issue with so-called 'facts'. Now, I always took facts as, well, facts. But what actually is a fact? According to Morley, "a fact is an interpretation that is so widely accepted that it can be taken for granted - until it is challenged" and goes on to give the example of how it was once believed the Earth was the centre of the universe. I'm sure if you asked someone on the street about historical facts, they would argue that dates and numbers are facts. But, as Morley points out, it is the historian's job to interpret sources and facts.

So, historian or interpreter? The study of Ancient History is based largely around interpretation: there is only so much that still exists that was present in the ancient world. To refer back to my previous post in this blog, this is another reason why Ancient History is so intriguing. We don't go through a definitive timeline with exact dates and numbers: we interpret what the ancient world left us, and try to make sense of what there is: sometimes, those interpretations are so widely accepted they do become facts.

Question Mark

Questions. Answering and asking questions so far have dominated my life, whether they are trivial or academic. But questions and answers are what actually shape history. I was sitting in a lecture today, and the word that continually cropped up was “why?” Why would Aristotle say this? Why would Alexander the Great portray himself as Heracles? Anyway, the point is, I am asked constantly “why” I study Ancient History. Do I want to be a librarian or a teacher? No I do not. Do I want to go on a dig to Egypt or the homes of other ancient civilizations? Possibly, but that is not why I am studying Ancient History. The fact is that questions are what make history. It is a historian’s prerogative to question: reliability, accountability, so on and so on. With my life having been surrounded by questions, I feel that the subject where I find the most intriguing questions to be answered lies in ancient history.

As an undergraduate of only two weeks, one could say, “of course I still have so much to learn”. But it not what I want to necessarily learn  (although of course knowledge is the key) but more so what I want to ask. Because I find, personally, that without questioning, learning becomes much harder. That is why I enjoy ancient history so incredibly much: there are so many questions to be asked. You could say this of any subject I’m sure. But after putting across this idea to friends and family, many agreed that history is a subject that involves constant questioning, whether it be artifacts, scriptures, sources or remains. With no disrespect to the discipline, the same questions cannot be asked of Mathematics. There is no simple 1+1=2 in history. There is no formulae for events, no predictability. That is why the questions that can be asked of the ancient world are so fascinating: they date so long ago, that no one really and truly knows absolutely everything about their way of life and cultures. There are no strict answers.

This brings me on to my final point. Asking “why” in an Ancient History lecture may not bring you the definitive answer you were looking for. It will, however, provide the basis to learn the ways of the ancients – the rest is up to you.