Analytical Comparison between Oral Tradition and Oral History

In recent years, proceeding written data based on oral histories has been considered as part of the oral traditions of oral history. The fundamental error of this view is clear when defining the term “oral history”, which is: the act of collecting historical data based on narratives and stories that have been quoted orally. This definition precedes the scientific method of “oral history”, i.e. gathering historical information based on targeted, active and informed interviews.Oral history is fundamentally different from that of oral tradition; oral tradition is a way of transmitting general cultural issues from one generation to another. In different societies oral traditions share some similarities with each other despite the fact that various factors such as race, religion as well as natural and human geography have caused fundamental differences.Oral history, as used currently, refers to the act of collecting evidence and documents, through various scientific methods, mainly active interviewing. Previously, portable voice recorders were commonly used which was employed scientifically and more extensively; thus, it were possible to store the oral evidence. Moreover, the expansion and development of democracy in the modern world spreads the functions of such methods to all classes and strata of civil society. This paper aims to, in addition to revising of oral tradition, to provide further details on its background and functions in different communities. Also an analytical comparison between oral tradition and oral history will be discussed.