Replies

Jan Vansina, most famously, brought a sceptical, rational approach to the use of oral traditions as historical sources, much as Leopold von Ranke had brought a sceptical, rational approach to the use of written documents. Historians have always used oral sources, of course, but Vansina's approach represented a methodological advance that brought the use of oral sources up to the standards of the modern scientific history that began with Ranke. Vansina's breakthrough was followed by the increasing use of oral sources in other fields of history.

Herein lies the problem.
"Reconstituting" history is not like just "adding water".
It involves intimately the intention , the biases and the wishful thinking of the "reconstitutioner".

Regadless if his good intentions and expertise, that can never substitute for written documents created by the people whose history is being written. It is simply impossible.

Call it anything you want, but "history" it isn't.

Reading a written document employs just as many biases and wishful thoughts as using oral sources. Look at any serious attempt to translate Egyptian or Mayan hieroglyphic inscriptions if you need further proof.