Claim Though often considered an objective pursuit learning about the historical past requires creativity Reason Because we can never know the past directly we must reconstruct it by imaginatively interpreting historical accounts documents and artifacts

The author claims that learning history is more of a creative pursuit, not objective as many people believe. He reasons that past cannot be known directly and requires reconstruction through imaginative interpretation of historical accounts, documents and artifacts. While creativity is a key for generating knowledge about the past, objectivity is also essential to verify that knowledge. Therefore, prioritization of one over the other is unjustified.

Undoubtedly past cannot be known directly. The more distant one goes in the past, the more difficult it gets to ascertain the information. Past is then construed through imaginative interpretation of historical accounts, documents and artifacts as the author suggests. Historians differ from archivists in the sense that their task is not to preserve documents and records but to interpret and extrapolate the available resources and information to make a story. The whole process is like putting different pieces of a puzzle together to form a picture. Therefore, generating knowledge about the past indeed requires creativity and imagination.

Consider, for example, an archaeological excavation project requiring expertise from different professions. Archaeologists through analyzing the age and source of material used for making utensils, weapons, etc. can provide information about the economy, trades and lifestyle of the population. Biochemist can study fossil remains to predict life expectancy, physical traits and common causes of mortality; whereas linguists can decipher the inscription and pictorial representation on the walls to give an idea about the culture, literature and intellectual maturity of the ancient civilization. Finally, it is the job of a historian to use his creativity and imagination to put this information in a context and chronology with respect to other events to give a complete picture.

However, when creativity takes precedence over objectivity, the whole history could be distorted in the garb of creative, rather artistic liberty. This is aptly illustrated by the myriad examples of dramatist and filmmakers who, in the attempt to portray a colourful history, ended up distorting it. For example, very little is known about the father of Sultan Osman I, Ertugrul who laid the foundation of Ottoman Empire. Yet the makers of the Turkish super-hit drama Dirillis: Ertugrul used wild imagination and creativity to produce a 5 season long action packed series inventing a new history. Moreover, there is a difference between interpreting evidence to know about the past and inventing evidence to prove one’s staunchly held belief. Unfettered creativity devoid of objectivity paves way for the latter. For instance, Adam’s bridge has long been believed to be created by a deity in Indian Mythology. In 2007, NASA’s remote sensing image was used to prove the same point to the extent that the organization itself had to come forward to clarify that such images cannot reveal about the origin and age of the structure.

One of the main benefits of history is to take lessons from past mistakes. This is not possible without objectivity in the approach. Due to national pride or personal biases, people tend to suppress historical evidences which are contrary to their interest and overemphasize those supporting their viewpoint. For example, a Mongolian learning history from the native books and sources is more likely to learn about glories of Mongolian conquest than the carnage it brought. Hence, without objective perusal of history, he can barely learn the lessons about destruction resulting from the imperialist appetite. Lastly, objectivity is also needed to discern between historical fictions embodied in historical facts. For instance, the story of Trojan War and Horse was either completely accepted as a fact or discarded altogether. It was only through objective analysis of historical records and artefacts, that the historians concluded that while the War did take and the city of Troy was burnt, the story of Trojan horse was an innovation.

In conclusion, the relative importance of creativity and objectivity in learning history is similar to that between the quantity of information and its quality. It is as important to fill the gaps in historical knowledge as it is to rectify falsely held historical beliefs. Therefore, learning about historical past requires both creativity and objectivity for historians must address both the lack of information about the past using the former and false historical information employing the latter.