110 issue 才开始练，希望大家可以帮我看看

gigi_tniasUID: 2993302

110.When we concern ourselves with the study of history,we become storytellers. Because we can never know the past directly but must construt it by interpreting evidence,exploring history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit. All historians are storytellers.

A controversial debate has arisen to the public attention over the past decades and even stood unsolved today that whether we should hold the reality side of history or the integrality of it. My opinion goes as history can never be seperated from reasonable interpreting evidence. History are indeed a story with sequences of evidence of the past.
According to the ancient Greek , history means knowledge acquired by investigation and the study of human past, which point out that we can never know the past directly. So reasoning in history is necessary when we are investigate and do the research of the past. Moreover most history of peoples all over the world process a passing pattern like this: firstly, the event was kept in ancestors' mind through legends and then in the pattern of epics , history is passing from one to one for centries. Obviously, simply the same as the Homer's epics based on folk oral literal and made up by many mythic legends and hero stories , history can hardly be separated from legend, epics or myth. And we must admitted that stories connecting the fragment evidences is the basic component in the complete history.
Supposing the historian just collect the historical evidence and provided you with the time list in snatches, will you still have the patient to read the history. In the process of discovering and analysing history, imaginary is unavoidable. As all evidence collected comes in fragment, the historians must draw the description of the past and tell us such things as the culture way of thinking and religion beliefs at that time. They are not only expected to tell us what affairs happened at a particular time in history but also and the most important is to develop those affairs into historical law.  If we compared the fragment evidence to the sands down the river bridge ,the imagination are the water which full filled the river connecting the sands together and made the integrality of the history. And as a result ,they recur the prosperous or the ruin at those historical moments in a completely way. That is to say the archeology or the passed history evidence provide us with the clue or the key point of the story and historians reproduce the story fully and lively. So, sure we can regard it as more of a creative enterprise than an objective pursuit and call them great storytellers.
Farther more,as the old saying "believe everything in book as no book", no one can swear to God that what they recorded are totally conformed to the historical facts. After all, we don't have a personal experience in ancient time, therefore some scenes of that period we have induced in historical books are fabricated by our historians based on imagination and information they have got. History ,more or less, would be deleted ,added or tampered with in the thousands years of delivering. And each writers of history owning their personality and emotional tendencies which may would lead the readers to different aspect of history in viewing the past and forming their understanding though they've already try their most to be objective.
To sum up, historians can be called storytellers to some extent as imaginary, fabric and personal characteristic would hardly be avoided in the process of recording history.