Studying Ancient History

Studying Ancient History

Year 11 - 2010

Historiography, n., pl. -phies. 1. The body of literature dealing with historical matters;

histories collectively. 2. The body of techniques and principles of historical

research and presentation. 3. The narrative presentation of history based on a critical examination, evaluation, and selection of

material from primary and secondary sources and subject to scholarly criteria. 4.

An official history. (1)

Stone AgePaleolithic -"Paleolithic" means "Old Stone Age," and

begins with the first use of stone tools.Mesolithic - The "Mesolithic," or "Middle Stone Age"

(from the Greek "mesos," "middle," and "lithos," "stone") was a period in the development of human

technology between the Paleolithic and Neolithic periods of the Stone Age.

Neolithic - "Neolithic" means "New Stone Age." This was a period of primitive technological and social development, toward the end of the "Stone Age."

Prehistory Bronze age - he term Bronze Age refers to a period in human cultural

development when the most advanced metalworking (at least in systematic and widespread use) included techniques for smelting copper and tin from naturally-occurring outcroppings of copper ores, and then smelting those

ores to cast bronze. These naturally-occurring ores typically included arsenic as a common impurity. Copper/tin ores are rare, as reflected in the fact that there were no tin bronzes in Western Asia before 3,000 BC. The Bronze Age forms part of the three-age system for prehistoric societies. In this system, it

follows the Neolithic in some areas of the world. Iron age - In archaeology, the Iron Age refers to the advent of ferrous

metallurgy. The adoption of iron coincided with other changes in some past cultures, often including more sophisticated agricultural practices, religious beliefs and artistic styles, which makes the archaeological Iron Age coincide

with the "Axial Age" in the history of philosophy.

Ancient history – 3000BCE (rise of Sumer and Egypt)to 476 CE (fall of Rome)

How much of the past do we

know???

How little of the

past do we

know???

“Only a part of what was observed in the past was remembered by those who observed it; only a part of what was

remembered was recorded; only a part of what was recorded has survived; only a

part of what has survived has come to the historians’ attention; only a part of what has come to their attention is credible; only a part of what is credible has been

grasped; and only a part of what has been grasped can be expounded or narrated by

the historian …”

How do Historians know what they know???

Literary Sources •Histories composed by classical authors such as Herodotus of Greece and Livy and Tacitus , the Roman historians. •Poems•Plays •Hymns •Inscriptions detailing – law, treaties, kings’ achievements, administrative records, letters or prayers.

Non- literary sources

•Artifacts •Pottery and tools dug up by archaeological excavations •Remains of ancient cities •Tombs•Cemeteries •Buildings •Coins •Medals

Problems in historical interpretation

•Fragmentary evidence •Value judgment s•Bias, inaccuracy and omissions.

Fragmentary EvidenceMuch of evidence is fragmented. Making it all too easy to reconstruct a distorted picture of the past. How to we know the relative importance of such evidence in the society from which it came from?

Value Judgments

By choosing what we today consider a significant event or an achievement, we are making value judgments. Particular values of modern civilizations should not be applied to the civilisations of very different ancient societies.

Bias, inaccuracy and omissionsLiterary evidence: - •Authors in the ancient world, were naturally prone to bias, inaccuracies, omissions, gullibility and the repetition of hearsay, so their writings have to be carefully crosschecked, if possible, and cannot usually be accepted at face value. •Some of these texts were written years/centuries after events that are being described.

Documentary evidence: - Most of this evidence is factual, therefore better in this respect. In the case of royal inscriptions of kings achievements, it can bee assumed there is often exaggeration, if not downright falsification, in order to increase the kings’ prestige.

Work of historians • Questioning •Researching •Assessing the reliability of the sources•Analyzing, synthesizing and interpreting the evidence contained in the sources •Publishing the articles

Making sense out of shreds of evidence.

All images are from Google Images