In this dissertation I argue that the historians Herodotus and Ctesias use the depiction of autopsy as unreliable in their texts to demonstrate that historiography is not objective. Because their texts claim to use autopsy as a means for accessing information about foreigners, I investigate the ways that these authors use visual motifs of othering physical bodies to highlight the unreliability of autopsy. I also argue that the characters within the narratives frequently manipulate the autopsy of observers in order to convey particular messages or truths, often simultaneously. The use of clothing to conceal or reveal the body is used to temporarily alter the way a body is perceived in terms of its identity, while the body’s permanent alteration through violent means is similarly a communication to an observer, but there is an additional element of superiority implied through threats to bodily integrity. After showing that autopsy is unreliable and able to be manipulated, I consider the implications when autopsy is not the basis of a historical report, such as the representation of the most distant regions of the earth in the histories of Herodotus and Ctesias. Though these regions are depicted using different motifs than the nearer regions of barbaroi, we see that the fluidity of identity remains even when autopsy is absent. I argue that this plurality of truth and representation, which is present throughout the works of Herodotus and Ctesias, demonstrates a similar plurality of history. As a result, each author makes interpretive claims while producing a narrative that allows the readers to rely on their own ideas of what is believable within the text.