Well, they both help us learn about history in different ways. Oral Histories allow us to see how the people in another time thought of themselves, because as stories get passed around, they are changed by each person who tells them. As for artifacts, they give us a way to see how people lived, whether it be pots they used at home, clothing they wore to work in, or ceremonial robes and masks for celebrations.
2006-09-14 14:15:38
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Both tend to deal with the history that didn't end up written in the history books. Most of the people who do oral history interviews (at least the ones I've used in my research) were'nt famous. Nobody wrote a book about them or even mentioned them specifically. The oral history is their opportunity to tell their story. Artifacts can date before written history. They tell us about how people lived. For instance, what kind of dishes someone used tells us whether they had money and how much. Maybe they only had wooden trenchers that they carved themselves, but if they made more money they would have gone to pewter and if they had a lot of money they would but china (not only expensive, but fragile). Even when artifacts date from historic periods, they give us information that it usually didn't even occur to people to record.
2006-09-15 17:50:52
·
answer #2
·
answered by pag2809 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
People have been using oral history and artifacts to pass on culture from generation to generation ever since language was developed. It's still in use. What you know about your family history was probably oral history.
2006-09-14 15:46:35
·
answer #3
·
answered by OldGringo 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Oral histories bind cultures, and provide a sense of continuity. For the first 600 years, the old testament was "oral only," and Native Americans still tell stories.
Artifacts, give us an insight into the way people lived and thought.
A good example, is all the mumified cats, in the Egyptian tombs, and the Heiroglyphics depecting the god Osiris, Ra, and Hathor.
The Human race--specifically any culture--must have a sense of continuity, heritage and belonging, or it will be adrift in a sea of the present, making the same damn mistakes over and over again.
2006-09-14 14:16:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by ericnifromnm081970 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
oral histories are tricky since the more time since the event the more chance there is to skew the actual event. remember the old kids game telephone? after a few people the message gets garbled. artifacts are also open to interpretation but they illustrate alot about the overall behavior of a society.
2006-09-16 03:00:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by melvinschmugmeier 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Social examine books are completely uninteresting money owed. attempt to learn extra with reference to the persons you're reading approximately - verify our wikipedia and different web content. as an occasion, Ben Franklin substitute right into a entire playboy, and he had extremely undesirable gout. all human beings is so a lot extra complicated than they inform you - look them up on the internet, and have a look into to locate some extra thrilling money owed of the wars you're analyzing. customize it as much as you could, and that'll help you keep in mind. (think of approximately this: getting to grasp approximately how Stonewall Jackson substitute into completely prissy and sucked lemons during battles. it relatively is extra exciting than memorizing precisely the place and whilst he have been given killed. Oh yeah - and his arm is buried one by one from him. you will locate it in VA).
2016-09-30 23:27:13
·
answer #6
·
answered by lininger 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
How about you read your textbook, and figure it out yourself? Because it would help if we could see one, but we can't.
2006-09-14 14:11:50
·
answer #7
·
answered by Jell-O = ♥ 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I got no clue
Do you?
2006-09-14 14:21:08
·
answer #8
·
answered by lady_lbrty 3
·
0⤊
0⤋