Final answer:
The absence of written sources forces historians to rely on archaeological evidence and oral traditions, making it difficult to reconstruct ancient histories with certainty. Written records provide clearer narratives, but when absent, the history of ordinary people and specific events can become obscured or misinterpreted.
Step-by-step explanation:
The implications of the absence of written sources in reconstructing ancient human history are significant. Without written records, historians and archaeologists must rely heavily on archaeological artifacts and oral traditions to piece together past societies. Objects, paintings, and material culture provide valuable insights but often lack the detailed context that writing can offer. Without writing, determining the specifics of historical events, beliefs, political structures, and daily life becomes much more challenging, requiring educated guesswork and interpretation.
When we lack written sources, we're left with a history that often highlights the lives of the elites, leaving the experiences of ordinary people obscured. Even though texts can enrich our understanding with specifics, they often reflect the perspectives and biases of their authors. Thus, historians must use a critical eye when evaluating oral histories and consider the potential for 'fake news' or incomplete narratives even when dealing with ancient written sources.
Ultimately, the absence of written sources calls for a cautious and multi-disciplinary approach to reconstructing history, one that combines archaeological findings with a careful analysis of the oral histories that have been preserved, acknowledging that some aspects of history may remain hidden or misinterpreted without the clarity offered by the written word.