Historiographical works belong to a truth-aimed genre, and they are intrinsically claiming to accurately recount the past as it actually happened.
• Polybius etc. say they were aiming for accuracy.
• Historians strove to produce 1st-hand-as-possible history.
• Historians laboriously collected info/investigated.
• Historians critically examined claims.
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.
• Histories DID get witness approval and/or close.
• Historians oft say “witness testimony only!”
• Lying historiographers pretended to be or use witnesses.
• Ancients prize testimony being 1st hand as possible.
• Greco-Roman histories self-claim to be true.
• Ancients strove to echo “from beginning” witnesses.
This is relevant because they were fairly able to produce a true history with effort. Exceptions abound, but for the most part they wrote within the witness-era or shortly after, making it likely that most of their material did enjoy witness-approval or close.
Historical works from the Greco-Roman mediterranean proudly self-identity as relaying witness testimony.
• Polybius etc. testify that they did.
• Historians oft say: “I saw this all 1st hand.”
• Histories cited witnesses via emphasis.
• Histories DID get witness-testimony or close.
• Historians didn’t even strive to produce a witness-based history. [See page link above.]
Greco-Roman historiographers tended to lambast the use of hearsay in their reports (especially when witnesses were available).
• Historians insist “ONLY share/relay 1st hand info.”
• Historians say hearsay is a last resort.
• That’s wrapped into the definition of historia” (ἱστορία).
• Historians usually stuck to writing in the witness-age.
• Historians labored to produce direct witness-based history.
On the other hand, arguably…
• They did not feel witness-grounding was important.