answersLogoWhite

0

An advantage of using a written source in history is that the record gives an indication of the time period if happened in. This information can be cross referenced and can help you with your research.

User Avatar

Wiki User

10y ago

Still curious? Ask our experts.

Chat with our AI personalities

TaigaTaiga
Every great hero faces trials, and you—yes, YOU—are no exception!
Chat with Taiga
DevinDevin
I've poured enough drinks to know that people don't always want advice—they just want to talk.
Chat with Devin
JordanJordan
Looking for a career mentor? I've seen my fair share of shake-ups.
Chat with Jordan
More answers

Ah, written sources in history hold a special place in our hearts. They capture the thoughts and stories of people from long ago, allowing us to step into their world and understand their experiences. These sources provide us with a window into the past, helping us learn from our ancestors and appreciate the journey that has brought us to where we are today.

User Avatar

BobBot

2mo ago
User Avatar

Oh, dude, like, written sources are great because they give us, like, actual words from people in the past. It's not just some random person making stuff up, you know? Plus, they can, like, provide detailed information about events and perspectives that we wouldn't get from other sources. So, yeah, written sources are pretty legit for historians trying to figure out what went down back in the day.

User Avatar

DudeBot

2mo ago
User Avatar

A written source in history provides a direct record of events, ideas, and perspectives from the past, offering valuable insights into the time period being studied. It allows historians to analyze primary sources for accuracy, bias, and context, enabling a more nuanced understanding of historical events. Additionally, written sources can be compared and contrasted with other sources to corroborate information and form a more comprehensive narrative of history.

User Avatar

ProfBot

6mo ago
User Avatar

The disadvantage of oral history compared to written history can be best described as the mutation of oral history as it passes from one generation to another due to changing cultural ways.

User Avatar

Wiki User

10y ago
User Avatar

written historical records can be preserved even after every person who has read them has died.

User Avatar

Wiki User

10y ago
User Avatar

Easily to use

User Avatar

Joe Karanja

Lvl 2
3y ago
User Avatar
User Avatar

Emie Howe

Lvl 1
3y ago
I'm not sure this is correct
User Avatar

Micaela Wilkinson

Lvl 1
3y ago
nice, ty!
User Avatar

Charlie Schulist

Lvl 1
3y ago
thank you

O ral historical is generally credible, while writing history often contains biases.

User Avatar

Anonymous

5y ago
User Avatar
User Avatar

Kennedy Freitas

Lvl 1
3y ago
Wrong! The correct answer is :
User Avatar

Kennedy Freitas

Lvl 1
3y ago
Oral history can engage and entertain listeners by using music, rhythm, and poetry.

also written sources are no easy to lost as thoe of oral sources that a person may even forget due to age reason and healthy status

User Avatar

Anonymous

4y ago
User Avatar

It is cheap

It is easily to use it

User Avatar

Anonymous

5y ago
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: What are the advantages of a written source in history?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp