Oral traditions have played an important role in this study. The content, nature, and use of ‘tradition’ are very important in a variety of disciplines, including history. Historians, archaeologists, ethnographers, interpreters, and cultural landscape specialists use oral history to collect and document individual life histories, migration histories, historical events as well as histories of communities and of tribal settlement (McDonnell, 2003:99, 102). Despite its significant and obvious importance, there is still a considerable resistance against oral studies in traditional historiography.
There is a plethora of definitions and arguments for and against oral history and oral tradition. The term ‘tradition’ is a widely discussed …show more content…
Generally, it refers to a set of beliefs, customs, doctrines, ethical and moral standards, and cultural values that are transmitted orally (in non-written form) or by personal example (Yagod, 1996:1308). The Concise Oxford English Dictionary describes the word ‘oral’ as ‘spoken rather than written’ materials and explains the word ‘tradition’ as a form of communication and ‘transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation’ (Oxford English Dictionary, 2002). However, there is much debate about the usefulness of oral tradition for historical studies. For Elizabeth Tonkin, oral tradition, as explained in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, is a form of communication which has been handed from generation to generation, is not as authoritative as History, because its contents can accumulate over time, be contaminated by spurious additions, or can include cruces which are due to copyists’ errors (Tonkin, 1986:203-213). However, oral tradition and history have long been a valuable tool for preserving cultural and historical memory. They preserve the history of the past, the events, and contribute to answering the how and why of human actions in the form of stories, legends, songs, speeches (McDonnell, 2003:99, …show more content…
Nafīsī’s edited revision retains the incurred interventions, as the copyist gives his personal reason for altering the original text in certain places, stating that ‘because the book bears my handwriting and that one ought not to cast a negative doubt [on me], I saw it necessary to review the [original author’s] comments and interpretations” (1950: 123). In the second occasion, the copyist even goes on to argue against Nāṣir Khusraw and includes his own writing in the main text. After copying down one of Nāṣir Khusraw’s discussions, the copyist, who also refers to himself as muʾalif (author/compiler) and nawīsandah (writer), refers to his anti-Nāṣir Khusraw’s emotions, stating that “a sense of pride mobilised the writer [i.e., the copyist]” (nawīsandah rā ghayrat-e bejunbīd)”, and further adds that “it is worth to [let readers] know that the issues that [Nāṣir Khusraw] has expressed include a number of errors”. From this point onwards he goes on to include his personal opinions in the main text (1950: 82-4). In a third place, the copyist plainly states that “here were also much rubbish, fancies and incorrect analogies, which we have omitted, and whatever was close to knowledge has been written [i.e., copied] down” (1950: 121). These examples demonstrate that written documents are not immune from copyists’ interventions, as