Abstract:
The main thesis of this research has been that historiographical methods and techniques are not synonymous to accuracy of account. There has been series of criticisms and investigations concerning ancient Greek historiography both in ancient and contemporary perspectives. Apparently, many early Greek historians’ accounts are inaccurate as we see in Herodotus’ criticisms against Homer and Hecataeus. Thucydides, who wrote his account after Herodotus, equally criticized his predecessors of inaccurate accounts. Although criticisms were common with the Greek writers, Thucydides’ criticisms are more serious in tone than his predecessors’. Among other criticisms, Thucydides believes that his predecessors’ accounts are inaccurate due to their methods and techniques. As a result, I am motivated by Thucydides’ criticisms to find out how Thucydides himself gave by his account, and how, generally, historiographical approaches and accuracy of account differ or otherwise.
In so doing, I have employed interpretative and analytical approaches which are inherent in normative research approach as a branch of the many methods under qualitative research. I conclude the research by stating that the accuracy of accounts does not necessarily come about through method and technique alone but by analysis and interpretation that is free of biases, and by available evidence that supports the account. Moving forward, criticisms of historical accuracy should focus on the analysis and evidence but not solely the approaches employed in writing history.
