History

Non-written sources such as historical artifacts and oral interviews have some advantages over written sources. Non-written sources provide the researchers fresh information with regard to specific subjects. By fresh, we mean information which are derived directly from its source. In short, information gathered are not yet subject to human error. To illustrate this case, suppose that the researcher found a strange document which discusses the history of the Roman Empire from the perspective of a 3rd century priest. The information which can be derived from this document is fresh because its internal validity is not yet affected by human biases in interpretation. Now, a researcher who is dependent on written sources should be overtly cautious of historical claims. Scholars often base their claims from the claims of other scholars. This is quite the case in written sources.

Overt reliance on oral historical interviews should likewise be avoided. Sometimes claims are exaggerated. For example, some scholars argue that the Alice Paul and the Womens Suffrage Movement supported abortion. These scholars based their claim from in-depth interviews of high-ranking government officials in the Wilson administration. It is clear, however, that Alice Paul regarded abortion as a moral predicament.

There are some written sources which are very beneficial to historians. These are narratives and historical biographies. These sources offer flexible interpretations to given historical claims.