Reliability of Oral Transmission

[godfry n. glad]

Okay, history buffs...

I've taken an interest in the claims of the efficacy of oral transmission of information over long spans of time. I've become engaged in a discussion where one conversant claims that Icelandic sagas preserved accurate historical data for 900 years without significant loss in accuracy of the information.

I've asked for the source citation and will consider it, but I'm looking for more general approaches to the use of "oral tradition" as supporting data in historical research. I personally don't give it much credence, but I'm curious as to this claim and the wider claim that if the Icelanders can do it for 900 years, why can't we expect the Old Testament traditions to be similarly accurate despite their having been transmitted orally for a significantly long period of time. I suspect that claims are being overblown, but need more info, and that accurate transmission depends upon the type of information being transmitted and the means of transmission.

Does anyone here have any decent sources which discuss the reliability of "oral transmission" in historical research? Please don't send me to Google, as I already tried that and got a shipload of highly polemical apologetic materials.

[Watser?]

All I can say is that I have heard the claim before (when I was in university) and there seems to be something to it. That is: it has been proven with archeological evidence that stories told by local populations were accurate. But how accurate and how you would be able to tell I don't know.

[Angakuk]

Godfry,

I just ran across this (http://csfa.tamu.edu/mammoth/issues/vol16/vol16_num3.pdf) article in the Mammoth Trumpet. The link is to a pdf file and the relevant article, "Oral Traditions and Rules of Evidence" starts on page 17.

You might want to see if you can get hold of a copy of Oral Tradition: A Study in Historical Methodology (http://www.amazon.com/Oral-Tradition-Study-Historical-Methodology/dp/0202308197/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b/105-1897832-5330014) by Jan Vansina.

Also, if your library gives you access to JSTOR articles you might want to check out these two links.
A Note on Oral Tradition and Historical Evidence (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0018-2656(1970)9%3A2%3C195%3AANOOTA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23)
Investigating Oral Tradition (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8537(1986)27%3A2%3C203%3AIOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G)

[godfry n. glad]

Godfry,

I just ran across this (http://csfa.tamu.edu/mammoth/issues/vol16/vol16_num3.pdf) article in the Mammoth Trumpet. The link is to a pdf file and the relevant article, "Oral Traditions and Rules of Evidence" starts on page 17.

You might want to see if you can get hold of a copy of Oral Tradition: A Study in Historical Methodology (http://www.amazon.com/Oral-Tradition-Study-Historical-Methodology/dp/0202308197/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b/105-1897832-5330014) by Jan Vansina.

Also, if your library gives you access to JSTOR articles you might want to check out these two links.
A Note on Oral Tradition and Historical Evidence (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0018-2656(1970)9%3A2%3C195%3AANOOTA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23)
Investigating Oral Tradition (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8537(1986)27%3A2%3C203%3AIOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G)

Thanks, Angakuk!

I'd already run across this (http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/mt.php?a=48), which piqued my doubts about the nature of the data accurately conveyed over such time periods.

And, yes, the databases I have access to do include JSTOR titles. The problem is, I don't have a decent searchable bibliographic database for anything other than health/medico articles. Your cited articles will hopefully give me an excellent start (assuming they provide decent bib cites with the articles).

:qthanks:
:godfry:

[Angakuk]

You are welcome. That is the same article from the same issue. Your link is to the html version and mine was to the pdf version.

BTW, I think that the Mammoth Trumpet is some of the best anthro/archeo reading on the web.

[godfry n. glad]

That's high praise, indeed.

[Angakuk]

Well, only if I actually know what I am talking about.