Debate on Archaeological resources are more useful than Literary resou – InterviewSolution

1.	Debate on Archaeological resources are more useful than Literary resources for writing history
Answer» 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.

Discussion

No Comment Found

Related InterviewSolutions

The second battle of Panipat was fought between dash
ਸਥਿਤੀ ਤੇ ਕੀ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਵਪਏ।ਲਕ ਵਿਸ਼ੇਸ਼ਤਾਵਾਂ ਦਾ ਅਧਿਐਨ ਕਿਉਂਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਹੈ।ਪੰਜਾਬ ਨੂੰ ਭਾਰਤ ਦਾ ਪ੍ਰਵੇਸ਼ ਦੁਆਰ ਕਿਉਂ ਕਿਹਾਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ।ਪੰਜਾਬ ਵਿੱਚ ਇਸਲਾਮ ਧਰਮ ਦਾ ਪ੍ਰਸਾਰ ਤੇਜ਼ੀ ਨਾਲਕਿਉਂ ਹੋਇਆ?ਪੰਜਾਬ ਦੀ ਭੂਗੋਲਿਕ ਸਥਿਤੀ ਦਾ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਦੀ ਆਰਥਿਕ3
In which climatic region does Nepal lies? Mention the characteristics of this climate in six points.
Where naren took shelter for the relaxation of his mental tenson
Discuss how being a Filipino affects your "self".how can becoming a better Filipino influence your duty to become a better version of yourself
Battle of Panipat 1761
Why narendra nath refused to be satisfied with worldly aspirations
Tick the correct answerpressure depends on depth to decrease the pressure exerted by an object on a surface
"problem make man matured"justify in points
How is compaining done for electrons held in India