The primary sources for historians has always been the documents, but lattely new forms of acessing the past has been in use. One of then is Oral History. The question is rellated to the capabillity of this methodology to be realible in really challenge the well known old methods and enrich the way of writting history.
Many times oral history is more authentic in spite of changes and modification over time than official history but preserves main elements of reality. Official history is written with a purpose.
I think both communications of history are aiming to a purpose. So it´s no help to distinguish the two methods. I think oral history shows personal impressions, wishes and experiences. Try to analyse your own reminiscenses and find out the truth of your data.
The scientific analysis will be reserved for written and researched history. Here some rules are established and can be proved. So I try to prefer this kind of historical data collection and scientific analysis.
Hi Julio Bittencourt Francisco; Though the oral history has more influence of individuals/personal impressions even than it had its own importance. As you said, I also feel that both type of history are with purpose. Few references are attached here which could be helpful to you in your ongoing project. Thanks.
http://www.conservation-us.org/foundation/initiatives/oral-history-project#.VF944vmSxMw
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/762
http://imponderabilia.socanth.cam.ac.uk/articles/article.php?articleid=26
http://www.hampton.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1768
It definitely does! The richness of the oral tradition has been, indeed, rediscovered which enables many people and cultures to share new wisdom and practices that were previously unknown.
If - as White says, "history is but what historians write" - in both the historiography and at a larger scale in the social and human sciences the oral history has come to be recognized as a value in its own.
It is not a question of choosing one source of information versus choosing another source of information. All sources of informations have to be used. It is not always possible to reconstruct living culture from dead artefacts. Oral culture is a living culture and so is privilege source of information about an ancient living culture. The living culture is an invualable source of information which allow to interpret the archelogical remains. We cannot understand the mind and culture of ancient human just on the basis of the artefacts. These need interpretation in term of living culture.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Methodology