ABSTRACT
Among the most obvious sources for contemporary history are the memories of people who have lived through past events. In the second half of the twentieth century “oral history”—the interviewing of eyewitness participants in past events for the purposes of historical interpretation and reconstruction-has had a significant impact upon contemporary history as practised in many countries. Yet oral historians have been plagued by criticisms about “unreliable memories”. In this article I outline the arguments for oral history and the basis of such criticisms, and then use examples from my own interviews with Australian war veterans to show that the so-called “unreliability” of memory can be a resource rather than a problem for historical research.
