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.