
The discipline of ancient history encounters unique types of evidence
and therefore has expertise in areas where evidence is of a limited
or compromised nature. As a discipline, it has had to develop ways
of interpreting data that is not only obscure but often unique
and/or damaged. In addition, and unlike the majority of disciplines,
it can rarely supplement existing evidence.
Historically this has shifted the burden of research to a discourse
on methodology and complex interpretative systems, whereby the
same evidence is examined repeatedly from a number of different
angles or in different combinations. This tends to produce a level
of sophistication that is rarely necessary in disciplines where
clarification can be sought in the form of further research. As
such the only checks on the validity of our understanding of ancient
history are normally internal: there can be few experiments; control
groups are only available as uneasy comparative studies; and orthodoxies
can be instantly overthrown merely by the chance discovery of a
single archaeological item.
The learning process in this interdisciplinary project will, then,
potentially be two-way: ancient historians are only erratically
aware of methodologies used in other disciplines, and any remedy
to this situation, even in the short-term, could be of immense
benefit in studying the ancient world (the 2003 Journal of Hellenic
Studies contains a piece that supplements our scant knowledge of
population levels by using modern models). On the other hand, the
inherently multidisciplinary methodologies used in ancient history
may throw new light on the approaches used by other disciplines. |