History as an art form

Great thread, JPB. I think it depends on the qualifications of the authors. When I was just a kid, I became interested in folks like Thor Hyerdahl and Robert Silverberg. At that time, of course, I really didn't think about science or art classifications, but now I don't think it matters.

If you can find it, try reading this book.

Lost Cities and Vanished Civilizations

Lost Cities and Vanished Civilizations is a 1962 book by Robert Silverberg that deals with the then-current archaeology studies of six past civilizations. The book is divided into six chapters, and each deals with a particular civilization: Pompeii, Troy, Nicola, Babylon, Chichen Itza, and Angkor Wat. Silverberg also deals with the historical search for the past through the life works of archaeologists such as Heinrich Schliemann and Henry Rawlinson.

Schliemann is of particular interest as he was not, what the community refers to as credentialed.

Re: History as an art form

Re: History as an art form

Well, first of all, I would venture to guess that there are no "arts" departments at American universities. There are fine arts departments and liberal arts departments, but no just plain arts departments.

History has sometimes been placed in with the social sciences and sometimes with the liberal arts. In my experience, it is mostly found within the liberal arts curricula of American universities. But just because it's an "art" doesn't mean that it doesn't adhere to broadly accepted criteria of validity. In other words, determining whether something is historically accurate is not of the same order as determining whether something is esthetically pleasing.


Yes and no. We can't view ancient documents -- especially ancient histories -- in the same way as we view modern records. Herodotus, for instance, accepted second- and third-hand accounts uncritically, which was perfectly acceptable for a historian of his times. Accounts of battles would routinely inflate the number of the enemy to increase the glory of the victor, so numbers are always suspect. Saying that the opposing forces numbered in the "hundreds of thousands" was just another way of saying "a lot," just as a journey of a "thousand leagues" would be another way of saying "a long way away." All ancient texts, therefore, should be read with a great deal of caution.

That being said, there is an equal danger of going too far the other way -- of saying "the documents are unreliable, so let's just interpret them any way that we want." The historian is obliged to work with the documents as the only historical evidence, and he treads on very dangerous ground when he strays too far from them. This is, regrettably, a big problem for historians of the ancient world, but it's unavoidable. Just because we don't have a very good historical record doesn't mean we're free to "make it up as we go along."


Through accepted historical methodology. That's not something that can be easily summarized in a short paragraph, but a few of the methods are: (1) verify the authenticity of the source; (2) check it against other sources; (3) create a narrative that plausibly links known events and provides motivations for the actors; and (4) draw conclusions based on everything that you've compiled. Ancient history has a lot more gaps in the record than other periods, so more has to be "filled in" by the historian. As such, the conclusions should be more tentative.

For instance, we all know that there was a guy called Alexander the Great who conquered much of the ancient middle east. The main sources that we have for the facts concerning Alexander, however, were written over three hundred years after Alexander's death. Imagine if the only information we had of Isaac Newton or Louis XIV was a biography that was published in 2007. On the other hand, we don't have much else to go on, and so we use what's available, but we remain cautious and try to verify as much as possible through independent sources.

There are, therefore, good histories of Alexander the Great and bad histories of Alexander the Great, even though they all pretty much rely on the same sources. It all depends on whether the historian has judiciously weighed the sources and constructed a plausible narrative.

Reading along what flaja writes above, I suppose, that stugying history and archaeology differs totally from here to the USA. (For example, you have to do a couple of exams in auxiliary sciences of history - and can't become an archaeologist without having studied history).

Most of those we call here "early historians" studied either theology and/or some language and/or literature or ...
Mommsen (that's Theodor) got e.g. his Nobel prize in literature for his History of Rome.
He had studied law.

When I [re-] studied history a couple of years ago at the (German) (Distance University of Hagen, the department of older and old history was lead by a profossor, who had specialised (besides others) in the history of writing. That made it a lot easier for me to get the credits .... without having to read Greek sources in original :wink:

A graduate student specializing in ancient history will have to know something about archeology, as well as ancient Greek and Latin (and at least one other modern foreign language -- I'd choose German, just because the Germans have done a lot of good work in this field) and historical nusmismatics (lots of old coins out there). For someone specializing in modern history, on the other hand, it would be much more important to know something about sociology or economics than to know about archeology.

I'm reading along and enjoying the discussion. Thank you, all.

The rules of evidence for history are not substantially different from the rules of evidence in law, other than that, usually, no one's life or freedom are in the balance. In addition to what Joe has mentioned, it should also be mentioned that an important tool in judging the accuracy of what someone writes is the question of who benefits. Obviously, Iulius Caesar is not a good source on the character of Ceasar, because of a rather obvious interest he would have in portraying Caesar in the best light. The ancient texts suffer from the problem that both histories and biographies were usually panegyrics (which means something written in lofty language in order to praise someone), or, less often, a hatchet job. People wrote to extol the excellence of someone, and occasionally to demonstrate what an evil rotter someone was. In such cases, the question of who benefits becomes more important, because a panegyric is usually written to attract the favorable notice of those who can socially or politically benefit the author.

Another problem with ancient history is that it was usually written in order for the author to make a name for himself, and to attract the patronage which would allow him to abandon other pursuits and concentrate on his personal interests. So, for example, Herodotus went to the Olympic games, and read his book publicly, in the hope of selling the book, and perhaps attracting a patron. The book quickly became popular, but i doubt that it ever made much money for Herodotus. Many, perhaps almost all ancient historians, include long speeches by historical figures in their works, which are extremely suspect (no shorthand recorders) because one must ask how the historian would know, accurately, what someone said speaking at length; and because, when the barbarians are bearing down on you in their thousands with violent intent, it ill behooves a leader to waste any time on giving stirring speeches. Successful leaders, especially military leaders, are more prone to act than to speak. The ancient Greeks seem to have liked the sounds of their own voices, but those who, the memory of whom we have preserved, were successful leaders, would more likely have acted than orated in a tight spot.

So, just as did so many other ancient writers, Herodotus was not simply recording events, he was also attempting to appeal to an audience. Herodotus is, however, refreshing because he doesn't necessarily speak as though from ultimate authority, and when he does report at second- or third-hand, he tells you that this or that was, at least, what the locals told him. His work on the wars of the Persians and the Greeks are important because they provide a narrative upon which to "hang" other bits and pieces which have survived, and to provide some perspective on events. Additionally, for however unreliable much of the information he acquired in his travels may have been, these accounts at least provide us evidence of what various groups of peoples thought of themselves, and those things for which they thought they should be favorably noticed. It makes Herodotus, for all the caution with which his work should be approached, an invaluable ethnological source.

Most of the work of historians is a plodding, dull collecting of records which were not necessarily intended to be history. The accounts of the transactions of the temple societies of Mesopotamia thousands of years ago, which were recorded on wet clay in a form of writing known as cuneiform, are pretty dull in themselves. Who cares how many bushels of wheat was collect at Ur of the Chaldees five thousand years ago? But the point is that these records provide a picture of a fairly well regulated set of societies which flourished over a period of three thousand years, and that picture is one of a sophisticated system of division of labor and the distribution of resources. Both Sumerian cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphics, deriving from pictographs (small stylized pictures which represented a word or a name) both survived and developed over a long enough period of time that a good deal can be inferred from succeeding accounts in those texts, both about the development of the writing itself, and the development of the societies which produced them.

Succeeding accounts can also tell us a great deal about individuals. For example, when the Egyptian Pharaoh Thutmose II died almost 3500 years ago, he was not immediately succeeded by his son, who was still a small boy. Rather, his wife, Hatshepsut (meaning "first of the noble ladies") became the regent for her stepson, and in fact proclaimed herself Pharaoh, or "King," and ruled Egypt for more than 20 years. Some of the monumental inscriptions from her reign have survived. As is usually the case, they tell what a wonderful, powerful and awe-inspiring ruler she was. When she died, her son finally ruled in his own right as Thutmose III. Long after Thutmose III took the throne, statues of Hatshepsut were thrown down and buried, and some were smashed before they were buried. References to her in official histories were removed, and the "cartouches" which give her name were chiseled off stone walls and obelisks. Some Egyptologists long thought that Thutmose was bitter at being denied his royal place for two decades, and was attempting to expunge all records of her. However, the situation is probably more complex. Not all references to her were removed, and it appears that only public references were removed. Most people were illiterate, so it would only have mattered to the affluent and literate, and to the priests. It seems more likely now that Thutmose, a very capable and successful ruler and military leader, was simply attempting to remove public references to Hatshepsut as Pharaoh, and may only have been attempting to put her back into her role as his stepmother, co-regent, and a queen, rather than a king in her own right. For whatever his intent, the record of Hatshepsut was not obliterated, and both that which survives, and the often obvious attempt to remove records of her as Pharaoh still tell us a good deal about her, about Thutmose III, and about the society in which they lived.

Among the Chinese, history was selectively recorded for thousands of years, also. The class of bureaucrats, who were more important than any religious leader ever was to China--the Mandarins--kept careful and detailed records from which they determined policy in any situations which arose, and for which they believed their histories provided precedent. It was ever the object of the Mandarins to maintain a continuity of policy and governance in each dynasty, so that Chinese history until quite recently is a record of what the Mandarins did and decided, for however much they may appear to have been records of the great rulers of China. As with all other ancient texts, which requiring caution in the interpretation, they open a fascinating window on a world which passed away thousands of year ago.

Some histories can be more valuable than others, because they are primary sources, even when they were constructed form secondary sources. So, for example, Titus Livius (known to the modern English-speaking world as Livy) wrote a monumental history of Rome entitled Ad urbe condite, "From the Foundation of the City." Much of it is suspect, for the old obvious reasons. In his first five books (each "book" would be roughly equivalent to a chapter in a modern book), he records the legendary history of the Romans, and does so without critical comment. But he also records a good deal of history for which we would have no record today had he not written his book. He records records which no longer exist, and refers to Roman historians whose works have not survived. In 390 BCE, the Gauls, hired by the Tuscans (Estruscans, as some people call them), broke into the city of Rome, and burned and sacked the city. After a few months, they finally left. Very likely, camp diseases were killing too many of them, and with no more fighting to do, and no more loot to be had, they drifted back to the north. During this time, the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus on the Capitoline Hill held out against the Gauls. Livy refers frequently to the linen rolls, the records of the temple which the priests managed to preserve when the rest of the city was put to the torch. The linen rolls did not survive the Lombards when they took over Italy, if they had even survived that long--but they survived indirectly in Livy's book, where he will tell of this or that man who became Consul, or held another important public office, and that his source was the linen rolls.

Even the legendary histories which Livy records can give us a source for speculative interpretation. The Romans spoke Latin, and were, therefore, very likely Latin or Hernican tribesmen who decided to fortify the hills on the banks of the Tiber River--we can hardly be expected to take the tale of Romulus and Remus at face value. The rape of the Sabine women is also a suspect story, but it could be a case of the Romans attempting to cast in a favorable light a raid on the Sabine tribes to get women and cattle. I rather doubt that the fathers and the brothers of the Sabine women who were kidnapped ever reconciled themselves to the act, and became the friends of the Romans. It is far more likely that they acquiesced to military reality, and accepted that they could not get their sisters and daughters back, and accepted that they would have to be tributary to a more powerful military force.

The legendary tales also often cover what otherwise would have been embarrassments to the Romans. The Romans claim that for the first two and half centuries of the city, they were ruled by seven kings, the Tarquins, from 754 BCE to roughly 500 BCE. The Romans then claim that the last Tarquin king, Tarquinius Superbus (Tarquin the Proud) became overbearing, so they threw him out. To the north of Rome were the Tuscans, who lived in a region known as Etruria (hence, Etruscans). The Tuscans had formed a league of city states, which at the time of the rise of Rome was dominated by the city of Tarquinia. It is equally probable that the Tarquins were a series of governors placed over the Romans by a then more militarily powerful state than that the Tarquins were actually kings. If they were, the dynastic name Tarquin is suspiciously similar to Tarquinia. Whether or not the Tarquins were actually kings in their own right, or satraps, or governors placed over the Romans, the explusion of the last Tarquin lead to war.

The war did not go well for the Romans, who were driven back within their city walls, and besieged. This is embarrassing for a proud people, so we have two legendary tales with which the Romans could attempt to regain some of their pride. One is the tale of Horatio at the bridge, which was a means of alleging some military glory by the sons of the city, even though they were obviously defeated in the field and driven within their walls. The next was the story of Mucius Scaevola. The name means Muscius the Left-handed. According to the tale, while the Tuscans besieged the city, from the Janiculum (the only one of the hills of Rome which lies across the river), Mucius entered the camp of the Etruscan "King", Lars Porsenna, with the intent of assassinating the King. He lunged at the man who was sitting on a dais paying the troops, mistaking the aide of the King for the King himself. Taken captive and brought before Lars, it is claimed that he thrust his right hand in a brazier full of burning charcoal, and burned it off, telling Porsenna that there were 300 more Roman youth sworn to attempt his assassination, and that each was as courageous as he was himself.

The story runs that Porsenna, impressed by the courage of Mucius, released him, and then, frightened by the threat, lifted the siege and withdrew, assuring the Roman independence. What is more likely is that the Tuscans, occupying only the hill of the Janiculum, from which they could safely be supplied, were unable to completely surround the city. Unable to prevent the Romans from supplying themselves, camp diseases and costs eventually forced them to lift the siege and withdraw. The stories of Horatio and Mucius Scaevola were tales by which the Romans could maintain their pride despite having been militarily humiliated by the Tuscans. The story of the gods Castor and Pollux coming to the aid of the Romans when Tarquinius Superbus convinced the Latins to join him in attacking the Romans is as implausible as any of the others, but at least is a tale which does not attempt to hide a Roman defeat. The evidence is good that this was the last throw of the Tarquins, and the victory at Lake Regillus assured Romes indepence and domination of Latium. Of course, it's always nice to get the people to believe the gods are on your side, especially if you plan to build an expensive temple.

Another problem of history is that historians don't seek to explain to their readers those things which they assume their readers will already know. So, for example, much of what Livy tells us would lack detail if it were not for Polybius. Polybius was a Romanized Greek, and an official of the Roman administration which had only recently been put in place to rule the Greeks. His Histories, also often published as The Rise of the Roman Empire, was written to explain the Romans to his fellow Greeks. The father of Polybius had attempted to defend the independence of the Greeks during the Macedonian wars, which Rome fought just before the Third Punic War, the war in which Carthage was defeated, and by which Rome came to dominate the Mediterranean. Polybius was one of many hostages taken to Rome to assure the good behavior of the Greeks while the Romans fought the Macedonians. Polybius spent more than fifteen years in Rome, and his resources for a history of the rise of the Roman Republican Empire were therefore nearly complete. It is also believed that he accompanied Scipio when that general finally defeated the Carthaginians and took and destroyed the city of Carthage.

Polybius is an invaluable resource because, of course, he does not assume that his fellow Greeks will know much about the Romans, and therefore he explains a great deal that we might otherwise never have known. During the Third (and final) Punic War, the city state of Corinth allied itself with the Carthaginians, and with the fall of Carthage, Corinth was taken and destroyed the same year. Greece now fell under the power of Rome. Polybius became one of the public officials entrusted with setting up a government for the Greeks, under a Roman authority. As the Greeks, other than the Corinthians, had not taken arms against Rome, the Roman hand lay relatively lightly on the Greeks. Within a few years, Polybius was free to return to Rome. There he had access to records for his history, and it is believed that he interviewed many veterans of the Punic Wars and the Macedonian Wars. Like Herodotus, he is likely to point out that he is reporting what he was told, rather than simply asserting that he knows the true story without giving sources. Personally, i rate Polybius and Herodotus as the two best of the ancient historians.

A final recommendation would be Plutarch. He was a Greek historian and biographer who lived in the first century of this era, dying about 120 AD. His Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans is an invaluable resource, often the only coherent account of events and persons in ancient times, although he must be approached with a good deal of caution, beause he has a habit of embroidering his accounts with long speeches, and claims about people and events which are flatly contradicted by other accounts. Very likely, Plutarch was a successful popular writer. So, for example, his remarks about Cleopatra are suspect, because they were slighting remarks, and Cleopatra was then viewed unfavorably by the Romans. As well, he was so biased in favor of Athens, and the city states which traditionally allied with Athens, that much of what he writes is suspect. He attacked Herodotus unmercifully, but it is very probable that he did so because he felt that Herodotus didn't give Athens and her allies all the credit for defeating the Persians.

He also makes much of Aristides, calling him the noblest of Greeks. When the Persians first landed near the village of Marathon, the Athenian city militia marched out to meet them. In those days, powerful men did not trust one another, and used a common technique in ancient societies--there was more than one commander, each of whom took it in turns to command the army for one day. On the day that the Athenians arrived at Marathon, the commander was Miltiades. He made his dispositions and the Greeks "slept on their arms." The next morning, Aristides was to have taken command, but he is said to have deferred to Miltiades, in order that the latter could use his dispositions of the Greek forces as he had planned, and defeat the Persians--which he did. As there are other sources for this account, including Herodotus whom Plutarch otherwise despises, it is very likely true. But Aristides was only one of the strategoi, or battle leaders, and was leader of his own tribe--each strategos lead his own tribe, having been chosen by the tribe by acclamation. Although Aristides may have been the noble and selfless man he is portrayed as being, and although he may have been as incorruptible as is claimed, it is far more likely that Miltiades had the command with or without the support of Aristides, as Miltiades was chosen at the city assembly before the army left Athens, and did not appear as a leader of any tribal contingent, which is what Aristides was doing. Aristides was the darling of the aristocratic class of Athens, and Plutarch, if not actually a member of any aristocratic family, always showed a decided partisanship for the aristocratic faction in Athens, even 500 years after the battles between the Greeks and Persians.

Nevertheless, Plutarch is well worth reading, because he is often the only source for certain events and people. He should be read, however, with a good deal of caution, because he was a lover of rhetorical writing, and, for example, wrote his biographies to "compare and contrast" the personal qualities of the Greeks and Romans about whom he wrote. A far more interesting and probably reliable author from ancient times was Thucydides. He was not only an important actor in the period of the wars between Athens and Sparta, his narrative is refreshingly skeptical of people's motives. His biggest fault is a very noticeable preference for aristocratic factions over the claims of "rabble rousers," but one can recognize that and take into account.

I have purposely avoided accounts of Alexander "the Great" because i happen to despise the man. Of the accounts of his life, if find Plutarch's to be the most laughably fawning, and probably almost completely unreliable. The Anabasis of Arrian is probably the best account, as Arrian focuses on the military aspects of the campaign, and avoids a discussion of Alexander's character. In my never humble opinion, that is as well, as Alexander's character doesn't bear close scrutiny.

I have also avoided histories of the middle east, apart from those which deal with the clash between the Greeks and the Persians, because there never was such a pack of liars, and almost all of them have a religious ulterior motive for lying. I also find it excruciatingly boring.

Set, a simple thank you for such an effort seems insufficient, but I do thank you for taking the time and effort for that post -- very interesting.

Indeed, thanks a lot, Set!

In medieval times, we don't have a lot of history written, amd often have to get it from .... something else.

Like for example the "Prümer Urbar", a listing (tax book) of properties and goods belonging to the Abbey of Prüm. The Prümer Urbar was made up in 893. (online transcript of the 1222 copy)

And that is even more interesting, since we don't have the original but only that 1222 transcript. Where there mistakes, voluntarily or just by accident? Even falsifications? Etc, etc

Such makes history interesting!

An excellent picture of life in Europe in the middle ages also emerges from manor court records, when the peasants took their grievances, or were haled for their behavior, before the court of the temporal or ecclesiastical manor house to which they were bound. Often, as well, these transcripts record bargains struck between peasants for property transfers, or between parents and their adult children to transfer rights in property in exchange for shelter, food and an annual change of clothes--a primitive form of old age security. The French have long carefully examined such manor court records, and the English have begun to do the same in recent decades. Has this been done much in Dutchland, Walter?

Re: History as an art form

Just to expand on this point: history may be placed in the liberal arts department or in the social sciences department, but I have never heard of history being placed in the fine arts department. The discipline of history shares little in common with the fine arts (which is, I think, what your acquaintance was suggesting). Unlike a painter, for instance, a historian does not approach a blank canvas when starting a project. Instead, it's more like connect-the-dots, where most or all of the dots are already there on the page. It's the historian's job to connect those dots to form a coherent picture.

Excellent simile . . .

Indeed.

Over here universities that teach archaeology courses have them in their own department separate from history, although some (what I would consider to be) archaeology courses may be included in a school's anthropology department. Most of the large universities likely all have a history department, but few have anthropology and even fewer still have archaeology.

Sounds to be an interesting book, in today's The Guardian:

bm