I've taken a few courses on ancient history, particularly of ancient Greece, and am growing increasingly confused with scholarship dealing with that subject matter. It seems as if every 'scholarly' book I read on the ancient world deals more with historiography than anything else, and I come away from readings more familiar with scholars' names than those that made the history. Basic textbooks in the 100 to 200 levels cite scholars' arguments very rarely, and mostly deal with source material. Anything beyond that, however, seems to really focus more on the historiography, and the history of scholars drawing different conclusions from the same evidence. I realize that historiography is important, but in the field of Classical Studies, it seems to be a much more prominent facet of historical scholarship.
Is this because of how little sources there are? Massive archaeological discoveries seem to be rare, but they seem to indicate a lack of evidence and a 'thirst' for it by scholars.
I am by no means a scholar or authority in history, or really anything--I'm just an undergraduate student trying to understand the nuances of a field. Is my generalization that scholars of ancient history are struggling to make use of inherently limited source material correct, or would those who are more-read in this regard disagree with me?
I'm sure there are people here who will disagree with me, and that's fine.
You are right to identify the paucity of sources. The effect of that is everyone working in these fields has basically read everything, so we all know what each other is talking about (if we're good at our jobs, which of course isn't a given). The issue then comes down to interpretation - how do you understand a particular source, how do you use it in conjunction with other sources, etc. Of course for that you cite the scholar you're quibbling with. There are better and worse ways to do this. Personally I like making arguments from the primary sources rather than evaluating other scholars' works, but both approaches are necessary.
Whether other periods rely equally on historiography, I don't know. I don't study them.
As someone trained in ancient history, but who has taken courses with many historians of other periods, I will argue that any academic historian who is important in their field and is advancing new ideas will have to engage with historiographical trends and scholarship--not just ancient historians. Yes, scholars of Herodotus and Plutarch and Livy will interpret the primary sources differently, and yes, if you want to interpret Livy I.14.6-8 in a novel way, you are going to have to engage with any previous scholar who has written about that passage. For a text thousands of years old, there may be a lot of people who have discussed that passage of Livy.
But, for scholars of medieval manuscripts, or of feudal Japan, or of Ottoman Egypt, or of any other period in any part of the world with written primary sources, modern historians are going to interpret the primary sources differently. Even historians of the 20th century disagree with some aspects of the primary sources from the World Wars, or with the US Civil Rights Movement, or the Space Race. Historians have to distill a wide variety of sources to construct a narrative history for their audience, and every historian is going to do so in a manner differently from every other historian. For serious scholars, these differences are debated through academic publications.
What I think your questions is really asking about, OP, is pedagogy. How is history being taught in college classrooms? In my experience, every 100-200 level history course will not cite sources very liberally. Textbooks will give a narrative of events that is generally accepted among most historians.
In upper-division course, however, and not just in ancient history courses, professors will generally begin assigning different point of views from different scholars. Historians on the whole have disagreed about everything in the field; that is just the nature of the field. For students and scholars serious about learning and producing history, there is no such thing as a single, agreed-upon set of facts to give to a class. I argue that this is not unique to ancient history, but to all history.
Is my generalization that scholars of ancient history are struggling to make use of inherently limited source material correct
I don't understand how discussing other scholars would mean one is "struggling to make use of inherently limited source material" (emphasis mine). Could you elaborate a bit one why you see it as a struggle?
Of course one could write a history of Rome or whatever entirely based on source material alone. As you've noticed it'd be of sufficient level for introductory courses. But once you start to go in-depth you'll have to engage not just the sources, but also what others have said about those sources. How have other scholars interpreted the sources on this subject? Are there different opinions on the translation of certain phrases? Is there some context you should be aware of? Sure you could figure all of this out yourself, but that would be a lot more work than just digging through the literature.
And who's to say you won't miss something - something others have already brought to attention? No one is perfect. Realistically, you're probably not a better scholar than everyone who went before you. So you take advantage of those who have gone before you, even especially if they've occasionally made a mistake. This is how our understanding of ancient history improves, building on the work of others. If everyone starts from scratch every time, we'd get nowhere.