A Note On Oral Tradition And Historical Evidence

History and Theory 9 (2):195-201 (1970)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The assumption that "oral tradition" is unitary and somehow impervious to influences which historians consider when analyzing written sources is mistaken. Oral tradition falls into three broad categories - formalized oral literature, informal historical knowledge, and personal recollections - and each has its own particular dangers or limitations. Critical assessment is even more important for oral sources than for written ones because, as shown by a number of African examples, oral sources are less permanent and more dependent on the performer, audience, and social situation

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,388

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-02-04

Downloads
55 (#409,745)

6 months
2 (#1,294,541)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Oral History and The Epistemology of Testimony.Tim Kenyon - 2016 - Social Epistemology 30 (1):45-66.
Comments on Tim Kenyon's "Oral History and the Epistemology of Testimony".Ben Almassi - 2015 - Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references