issue110 事隔两个星期，再次请求拍砖

mack1983UID: 183345

Issue110: 558 words 45 minutes
When we concern ourselves with the study of history, we become storytellers. Because we can never know the past directly but must construct it by interpreting evidence, exploring history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit. All historians are storytellers.

Are we telling stories when studying history or are all the historians are storytellers, as the speaker claims? As far as I am concerned, I believe as complex as the issue is, whether we are storytellers or not should depend on specific circumstances, which I would discuss below.

On the one hand, when we study the history of the past not far ago, it is untrue to say that we are telling stories. With the development of technology, human have acquired much more recording methods than ever before. Besides traditional instrumentalities such as pen and paper, modern creatures like video camera, camera and tape recorder came into our life, all of which could serve as recording tools. Take the World War 2 for example. Journalists and photographers had given us live images and sounds from the real battlefield and backside, which record every details of that human disaster. Moreover, newspapers, documents and other written or printed materials also provide us with variety of approaches to it. Owing to these precious fortunes, it is easy to reappear the landing on Normandy in films before our eyes with exactly the same commanders, troops and geological situations that time; with the video tape and pictures came the history of China's 8 years' anti-Japanese War, which caused countless casualties and loss of fortune; thanks for the documents and video tape, we could know what Russian people had done to stop the aggression of German and made the enormous ice land become the tomb of invaders. Can we say all of these are stories fraught with imaginations and fantasies? Is it fair to neglect the risky and arduous jobs the journalists and photographers have done in the World War 2 and assert this war is nothing but a story? Maybe no one could.

On the other hand, when we consider the history of long time ago, we might find ourselves somewhat a storyteller. Without persuasive evidence defined as written materials and live images or sounds, of the past incidents, there are no other means to make the history coherent but by interpreting and envisioning the limited evidence. The worst thing is, there were even no written materials--- maybe the most important evidence the historians could depend on--- before the age of human, the so-called "truth" derived from that time is more of stories than fact. An apt illustration of this viewpoint involves the extinction of dinosaurs. Without witness and impelling evidence, how could a historian convince his colleagues and the public that his theory for the extinction of dinosaurs is undoubted, while the others about the same issue are nonsense? Therefore, still we could see there are many groups believing they are the mouthpiece of truth exist in the world. Clearly, we can see that, it is difficult for us to show the public what the history actually should be once the extent of time is far from what records could reach.

In sum, as the situations discussed above, I believe the history of not far ago could be explained by historians or ordinary people precisely only if they acquire enough persuasive evidence. Whereas talking about the history without human beings or when words just emerged, our research of history is more of a story-telling thing.

linakUID: 155465

Issue110: 558 words 45 minutes
When we concern ourselves with the study of history, we become storytellers. Because we can never know the past directly but must construct it by interpreting evidence, exploring history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit. All historians are storytellers.

Are we telling stories when studying history or are all the historians are删 storytellers, as the speaker claims? As far as I am concerned, I believe as complex as the issue is, whether we are storytellers or not should depend on specific circumstances, which I would discuss below.

On the one hand, when we study the history of the past not far ago, it is untrue to say that we are telling stories. With the development of technology, human beings have acquired much more recording methods than ever before. Besides traditional instrumentalities such as pen and paper, modern creatures like video camera, camera and tape recorder came into our life, all of which could serve as recording tools. Take the World War 2 for as an example. Journalists and photographers had given us live images and sounds from the real battlefield and backside, which record every details of that human disaster. Moreover, newspapers, documents and other written or printed materials also provide us with variety vaious of approaches to it. Owing to these precious fortunes, it is easy to reappear the landing on Normandy in films before in front of  our eyes with exactly the same commanders, troops and geological situations that time; with the video tape and pictures came the history of China's 8 years' anti-Japanese War, which caused countless casualties and loss of fortune; thanks for the documents and video tape,thanks for...这个就重复了，删掉，前面分号改逗号  we could know what Russian people had done to stop the aggression of German and made the enormous ice land become the tomb of invaders. Can we say all of these are stories fraught with imaginations and fantasies? Is it fair to neglect the risky and arduous jobs the journalists and photographers have done in the World War 2 and assert this war is as nothing but a story? Maybe no one could. 怎么感觉像是在强调the development of technology呢^_^，文章里面说到video啊，什么camera的地方太多了点，重点在not a story，提到了战争，那战争怎样怎样呢，没说

On the other hand, when we consider the history of long time ago, we might find ourselves somewhat a storyteller. Without persuasive evidence defined as written materials and live images or sounds, of the past incidents, there are no other means to make the history coherent but by interpreting and envisioning the limited evidence. The worst thing is, there were even no written materials--- maybe the most important evidence the historians could depend on--- before the age of human, the so-called "truth" derived from that time is more of stories than facts. An apt illustration of this viewpoint involves the extinction of dinosaurs. Without witness and impelling evidence, how could a historian convince his colleagues and the public that his theory for the extinction of dinosaurs is undoubted, while the others about the same issue are nonsense? Therefore, still we could see there are many groups believing they are the mouthpiece of truth exist in the world. Clearly, we can see that, it is difficult for us to show the public what the history actually should be once the extent of time is far from what records could reach.

In sum, as the situations discussed above, I believe the history of not far ago could be explained by historians or ordinary people precisely only if they acquire enough persuasive evidence. Whereas talking about the history without human beings or when words just emerged, our research of history is more of a story-telling thing.
感觉语言不错，就是论证上可能还不是特别得当，不错了啊，写得比我好，呵呵

xiaoheUID: 162707

论点明确，条理清晰，语言流畅。限时能写出这样的文章，实在令人佩服。

不过我觉得你的论证并不足以让人信服。
考古工作不仅是依据media来进行的，还有遗迹、古器物等。
而且现在考古界采用高科技，能测量出土层的年龄，能对地下遗迹在不发掘的情况下就了解其质地、构造等等。CCTV中“探索与发现”、“科技博览”等科普节目中都有过相关介绍。如前不久介绍的始皇陵的考古发掘工作。
其实考古作为一门科学本来就是一项极具客观性的工作，意义也很重大，了解历史的真实面目有利于我们找到事物发展的规律。

所以，我觉得采用唯物的、发展的观点来讨论这个话题会更有力度一些。你看呢？