Debate on Archaeological resources are more useful than Literary resources for writing history
Answers
Answered by
2
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.
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.
Similar questions