Question

Write a short essay on literary sources are more useful than archaeological sources for writing history?

Answer 1

Yes it is more reliable as it shows exact happenings and without bias, but interpretation of that source can be different in various perceptions. Another view No. All sources, whether primary or secondary, need to be evaluated. Moreover, the term primary source can be problematical. There are many kinds of primary sources, and in all cases their reliability needs to be assessed. The fact that a source is 'old and ancient' does not necessarily make it primary or reliable. Take, for example, a chronicle kept by monks in a medieval monastery of key events that happened in their own lifetime. Key questions one needs to ask include these: . Was the author, at least in part, repeating gossip? . Did the author actually witness any of the events described? . Did the author have contact with witnesses to the events? . What written sources, if any, did the author use and how reliable are they? . Is the chronicle largely a summary of other accounts? . In what sense, if any, is the chronicle actually a primary source? . Is the source, perhaps, in reality no more that a summary of other secondary sources? (If so, it might be classed as tertiary - that is, third tier - source). . Does the author or his monastery have some point of view or particular interest or grievance that it seems to 'push'? . Are there competing versions of the chronicle and, if so, what accounts for the variations - and how drastic are they? . Is the chronicle generally naive or does it show indications of skepticism and evaluation? On the other hand, if you are looking at the monastery's medieval laundry lists, then there is presumably no reason to be skeptical. In practice one often has to take 'authority' as a guide to reliability, for example, the fact that among specialists in the subject a source is generally regarded as reliable, and/or the fact that it has been recommended by a teacher that you trust on the scholarly or scientific level

Answer 2

Explanation:

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.