In the article, three versions of presentation of the past: the oral presentation, its transcription from the tape, and the narrator’s comments and additions to the version transcribed from the tape, are compared from the standpoint of narrated history research. The question is to what extent the information that is interesting for narrated history research varies in the different versions of presentation of these memories. The analysis reveals that the transcribing of an oral presentation does not in itself change the interpretation of the past. The difference in information results from the aims of the interviewer and the interviewee. The narrator offers an emotional adventure story, in which he as the first-person character comes out as a winner. The interviewer-historian, however, places the narrator’s everyday life more precisely in the temporal and spatial framework. This analysis draws the researcher’s attention to the importance of interpersonal relationships when remembering historical events. From the point of narrated history research, more attention could be paid to how (new) conditions make people behave and how this in turn affects the internal life of the community. This way, interest in the specific historical event fades, but there is room for discussion on people’s behavioural patterns in certain periods of time.
free text keywords: interview, narrated history, oral history, Tartu, Anthropology, Cultural Studies, lcsh:Ethnology. Social and cultural anthropology, lcsh:GN301-674, Medicine, business.industry, business, Dermatology, medicine.medical_specialty, Oral history