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 artefacts.

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 artefacts.

The debate about whether we should exert our imagination on learning about the past has never come to an end. Some of the professors are in favor of the imaginary reconstructions when it’s hard to obtain the truth of the history, while quite a lot of people are apposed to that idea, with respect to what the real truth might be spoiled and concealed

It should be admitted that the extent and the direction of our creativity added to the interpretation behaviors are a ponderable problem. For me, I show my great respect to the reality of history, but I couldn’t ignore the dilemma that sometimes without creativity, humans are unable to know about the past, especially when the evidence is absent and the historical relics lack of persuasion. This kind of obstacles is never a minority, as we put ourselves’s in archaeologists‘ shoes. If the basic logical deductions and association of evidence is forbidden from heritage analysis, we might find ourselves in a stagnation where no improvements or progress is able to be made.

It’s our logical and probable deductions and imaginations that conquer the restrictions and broaden our horizons to see more possibilities. The imaginations bring us to what we expect that happens on the antediluvian times, give us more chances to make assumptions and experience the past virtually. From historical accounts, documents, manuscripts and artifacts, we make careful investigations from a descendants views, to admire the last glow of old dynasties, to take a glimpse of archaic architecture and its former grandeur sceneries, and to remind us of the possible vicissitudes and bittersweet process what our predecessor’ve been through, and to reflect on our own. We depict a detailed and lively history of our own.

But we never lose our objectivity. It should be set as basic regulations that, no matter how the history might be like, we are the devout recorders, interpreters and audiences. Why I should say that? It’s because we neither beautify nor ruin our past, for the conscientiousness of our own. It’s also because we should always focus on our identity: we will never be the participants of our past, we have no rights and abilities to change the past. Furthermore, it’s finally because we take responsibilities as storytellers of our offsprings. Once our depictions of the past were misinterpreted by our descendants, the dusty histories will be totally distorted or sink into oblivion.

Our archaeologists or the relevant professors are the successor of the interpretations, passing on our recordings and objective explanations of the past. We contain our own emotions and using basic deductions to touch more hidden details, but we are doing our best to stay neutral and stay impassive. We hold back our extensions and just to show the connotations, expecting our offsprings, with more advanced and full-fledged knowledge to give us who will also be parts of history, a more fascinating and amazing answer.