Greco-Roman inquirers about the past place great value the source's being directly witness-based, or close enough.
This [page]https://beliefmap.org/greco-romans/value/history/witness-testimony) analyzes 5 arguments:
On the other hand, this counterevidence is also analyzed:
If an historian actually observed the event on which he was writing, or relevant details, he would often proudly boast of it right within the text itself.
This is relevant because, for those historians who did indulge in boasting within their text, such boasting quickly diminishes for every remove from a relevant witness; we never really see boasting for material obtained 3rd hand. This makes sense if witness testimony was prized, but little sense if it was not.
Historical works from the Greco-Roman mediterranean proudly self-identity as relaying witness testimony.
See [this page]https://beliefmap.org/greco-romans/histories/say/im-witness-based) to analyze these 4 supporting arguments:
This is relevant because such self-identification was often gratuitous if the author was not intact trying to relay that his work carried value in virtue of connecting directly to witnesses.
But as a counter-evidence:
Greco-Roman historiographers tended to lambast the use of hearsay in their reports (especially when witnesses were available).
See this page to analyze 4 arguments:
Historians usually stuck to writing in the witness-age.
But, as a counter-evidence…
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.
See this page to analyze some examples and 5 arguments:
This is relevant because people, including historians, usually don't strive for something they place no value on obtaining.
But as 2 counter-arguments…