Why are objects a useful source of historical evidence? Flashcards
Define objects:
The term ‘objects’ refers to any item which has been made and used by humans. This could include sculptures or pieces of art, as well as more ordinary items such as tools or coins.
What two types of history are objects especially useful for?
Historians have made increasing use of objects as primary sources in recent years, and they have proven to be highly useful in two key areas:
- They have provided an insight into older societies who did not leave a written record.
- Advancing our understanding of everyday life of past peoples that was not captured in writing.
What are the limitations of objects as historical sources?
- They are often unintelligible on their own.
2. Historians must have significant background knowledge in order to understand them.
Can study of objects ever replace written sources as evidence?
No, the study of objects can only ever complement the study of written material, and not replace it.
In what circumstances are written sources non existent or limited?
- Some societies did not have a written language: hunter-gatherer communities in Africa, Asia and Latin America all fall into this category.
- Additionally, particularly in ancient societies, written sources may have perished over time.
How are coins, an example of objects as evidence, especially useful in the study of Greek and Roman history?
In the field of classical studies, where written evidence is restricted, coins constitute a major body of historical, economic and artistic evidence.
The number, value and composition of the coins provides important economic information, while the design illustrates the leader of the time and provides insights into religion, political thought and artistic features.
How have changes in the types of history studied made objects a more important source of evidence?
As social history (history of ordinary people’s everyday lives) has risen in importance since the 1960s, objects have been able to provide important information about everyday life and culture which had not been captured in the more commonly used written materials.
What is the factor that means that many people in the past would not have left any written records?
High levels of literacy have only been achieved in the last hundred years or so. Before then many people could not read or write.
What types of objects have been studied to increase historians’ understanding of social history?
Historians have studied toys, clothing and furniture to illustrate culture, taste and the leisure activities that people took part in.
Tools and machinery can also be studied to gain an insight into work life and technological advances.
What are the drawbacks of studying objects on their own and out of context?
It is often difficult to tell what an object was used for, or its monetary or sentimental value, in the absence of written information.
Can objects on their own help us to write history?
No, objects can only ever be used in conjunction with written sources and cannot replace them.
Can objects have a bias?
Yes, objects can be subject to the same political bias as written sources, and this limits their usefulness.
Artwork, for example, may seek to depict certain images for political purpose. The Bayeux Tapestry has been used by historians as an important source for the Battle of Hastings, however, it was ultimately commissioned by Bishop Odo to present William’s version of events, and thus justify his claim to the throne.
As such, we cannot take the tapestry’s depiction of Harold Godwinson’s oath to support William’s quest to succeed Edward the Confessor as entirely factual.
Can objects be changed later on limiting their value as a historical source?
Yes, objects are much easier to alter than written sources. For instance, analysis of the Bayeux Tapestry suggests that the arrow in Harold’s eye may have been added later. This leaves the cause of his death in doubt.
Overall, the Bayeux tapestry clearly shows the limitations of objects: they can be created and altered for political purpose.
Conclusion for an essay about how useful objects are to the historian:
Overall, objects are highly useful as primary sources, particularly in the areas of classical and social history.
They have provided important historical insights into societies who let little or no written record.
However, objects can be difficult to analyse in isolation, and can sometimes display significant bias.
As such, objects often need to be used in conjunction with written sources about the period, which places a clear limitation on their usefulness.
Suggested introduction:
The term ‘objects’ refers to any item which has been made and used by humans. This could include sculptures or pieces of art, as well as more ordinary items such as tools or coins.
Historians have made increasing use of objects as primary sources in recent years, and they have proven to be highly useful in two key areas. They have provided an insight into older societies who did not leave a written record, as well as advancing our understanding of everyday life of past peoples that was not captured in writing.
However, objects do have some significant limitations. They are often unintelligible on their own, and historians must have significant background knowledge in order to understand them.
This means that the study of objects can only ever complement the study of written material, and not replace it.
