Greco-Roman historiographers often evaluated and discussed the reliability of their sources/claims mid-text in their histories.
This article covers 7 categories full of examples...
This is relevant because it is a live demonstrate of their critically examining sources.
Some historians offered advice or principles for doing historiography right, and in general the principles align with modern values (with minor exceptions that we can be on the look-out for).
This is relevant because these recommended principles likely represent the historian’s own modus operandi, and these principles are themes we repeatedly find among ancient Greco-Roman writers of history.
Ideal Greco-Roman historiographers worked hard to relay honest witness testimony, and in their eyes: the more direct/1st hand the testimony was, the better it was.
This page analyzes examples and 6 arguments…
This is relevant because it is clear enough that getting to 1st hand testimony (or close as possible) requires critically examining sources. There are several “tells” which suggest that a given source actually does or does not trace back to what was truly seen.
Greco-Roman historiographers tended to lambast the use of hearsay in their reports (especially when witnesses were available).
This page analyzes 4 arguments:
This is relevant because we can presume they weren’t overwhelming hypocrites, i.e. they strove to discern reliable (qualified) witnesses, and this involved examining them and what they say.