Arts >> Books >> Book Publishing

Which evidence is more reliable artifacts or written records?

Artifacts are generally considered more reliable evidence than written records. This is because artifacts are physical objects that can be examined and tested, while written records are subject to interpretation and bias.

For example, an artifact such as a stone tool can provide direct evidence of human activity. The tool can be examined to determine how it was made, what materials were used, and how it was used. This information can provide valuable insights into the lives of the people who made and used the tool.

In contrast, a written record such as a historical account may be less reliable. The account may be biased or inaccurate, and it may be difficult to determine the truthfulness of the information. This is especially true for events that occurred long ago, when there may be few other sources of evidence to corroborate the account.

Of course, there are also cases where written records can be more reliable than artifacts. For example, a well-preserved written record may provide detailed information about a particular event, while an artifact may only provide fragmentary evidence. Ultimately, the reliability of evidence depends on a number of factors, such as the age and condition of the evidence, the context in which it was found, and the expertise of the people who are examining it.

Book Publishing

Related Categories