Question

can you give some points for debate (literary sources are more important than archaeological sources) against

Answer 1

The follwoing points may help you:

a. Literary sources are more useful than archaeological sources because they provide detailed information on the objects and events of the past.

b. People used it to write holy texts, chronicles of rulers, letters and teachings of saints, petitions and judicial records, and for registers of accounts and taxes.

c. It is easy to understand literary sources.

• The advantage of writing history from literary sources is that a historian can research on facts of the time that have been documented by writers of that particular period.

• Use of archaeological sources for writing history would involve a lot of speculation and surmise as the ruins, artefacts, structures and sculpted figures do not tell stories by themselves.

• It is, therefore, quite obvious why literary sources are considered to be more reliable than archaeological sources in writing history.  

Answer 2

Answer:

Literary sources are more useful than archeological sources for writing history. Literary sources are more useful than archaeological sources because they provide detailed information on the objects and events of the past.

Explanation:

HOPE THIS HELPS PLEASE FOLLOW