Critics over the Nature of Historical Evidence - Article Example

Critics over the nature of historical evidence Name: Instructor: Course: Date: Critics over the nature of historical evidence Introduction Authors of historical books make use of various types of evidence. In the historical books, there is use of primary and secondary sources of evidence. Primary sources are those that use first hand information. Such sources make use of first hand evidence and they include photographs, maps and diaries that were created at the time of the event or immediately after the event. Secondary sources on the other hand include published accounts that are found in books and other forms of recordings. Secondary sources make use of second hand information. The gaps and silences in our historical evidence tell us that the historical evidence used might have gone through many changes. Authors argue that the present happenings are a continuation of things that happened in the past. They claim that historical happenings represent our nation because they talk about the things that happened in the past. Historians find primary sources of historical evidence more appropriate because they have some facts while secondary sources lack some of these facts. There has been a lot of criticism over the nature of historical evidence. From the early 1970’s, there has been a noticeable expansion in the scope of the national past as shown in the heritage of the Australian museums. Several museums have been started and thousands of heritage sites. Some of the historical sites are of dubious value in terms of their capacity to aid in the formation of a critical historical culture. Body Several criticisms have been made over the nature of historical evidence. On the case of museums, there is a set of questions asked about the principles governing the selection of specific artifacts for display. On the side of historic sites, questions arise regarding the choice of the period to which the site is restored or in the case of its preservation projects at which its continued development is arrested, Tonny B, 1988, pp 2. For example in the case of the homes of prominent early settlers families, there is a question on whether the buildings and furnishings restore to the founding years of those family’s fortunes or to the period of their most significant political and cultural influence. More over, there is a question on how the artifacts within such households should be arranged. Another criticism on the nature of historical evidence is on the caption, videos and tape-slide shows through which the artifacts are explained and contextualized, Tonny B, 1988, pp 3. In addition, it involves the functions of the guide books used as historical evidence. There are questions on the conceptions of the public and their values as shown by the language and imagery used in such publications. According to Martin G. 1978 PP 242, there are doubts on the way some narratives containing historical information are compiled. It has to be acknowledged that they do not sensationalize the potential of the new settlement for producing naval stores. Some of the historical documents provided do not produce convincing evidence of the connection between all the artifacts it entails. Historians have come to terms with the influence that framed or shaped some historical happenings. Some of the historical evidence is criticized for altering the historical happenings and providing dishonest and unfair information. In addition, some historical evidence are criticized for denying people their participation in the presentation of a society’s cultural and social economic life. Exclusion of important historical happenings in the historical evidence leads to the distortion of the knowledge presented in such evidence hence the nature of historical evidence has faced a lot of criticism. In addition, the nature of historical evidence is criticized for offering different explanations and interpretations of the same historical happening, Wood G, 1993, pp 55. For example, it is not clear why people are presented with different pictures of one historical happening. Atwood B 1996, pp 44 says that the nature of historical evidence has also been criticized based on its content. Some of the contents found in the historical documents have no authenticity and some are even confusing. Moreover, some criticisms of the nature of historical evidence claim not to understand some of the authors of the historical documents. According to Davison G, 1988, pp 55, some historical documents can be criticized because they have little actual information about the historical events being described. They also contain less significant representation of the actual events described. In addition, different authors create different versions of single historical events and leads to information controversy, Summers A, 1975, pp 269. Due to information controversy, readers start to criticize the nature of historical evidence. Readers come across historical information circulating within high and popular culture and this makes readers to criticize the nature of historical evidence. According to Atwood B 1996, pp 46, the nature of historical evidence can also be criticized because some sources can be forged. Readers fail to believe some of the information given in the historical documents because they feel that such sources might be forged. In cases where authors, provide strong indications of the originality of their works, readers tend to believe such works without criticism. People also criticize the nature of historical evidence due to bias. Authors of some historical documents have bias for what they write. When readers identify some works of history to be biased, they end up criticizing such works. Any historical document should be free from bias to avoid criticism. Moreover, the witnesses of the historical events should also avoid being biased to ensure that the information they provide is free from bias. Bias reduces credibility of any historical document, Nicholas N, et al, 1993, pp 78. According to Singh M, 1994, pp 28, people criticize the nature of historical evidence because they cannot confirm the references. This means that any historical information referring to sources that cannot be confirmed faces criticism. In addition, readers prefer historical documents that use eyewitnesses as references especially in historical events where an eyewitness could report the actual happenings of the events. This is so mostly in historical documents that contains facts that are known by many people in the current world. Another criticism of the nature of historical evidence is based on the analysis of the pre-existing information about its content. When readers find that a particular historical documents dose not use any pre-existing material, they tend to criticize that source, Singh M, 1994, pp 28. Integrity is another cause of criticism of the nature of historical evidence. Readers usually look at the original for of any historical information to see whether it was created or not. Moreover, readers also consider the intention of the author in writing the historical document. When they realize that the author had a bad intention, they criticize his/her historical document. According to O’Farrell P, 1979, pp 6, the nature of historical sources is criticized since historical sources such as oral testimony cannot be tested hence people cannot rely on them. Conclusion The nature of historical evidence has faced a lot of criticism. Some of the historical documents we read lack credibility and authenticity. In this connection, people criticize such historical works. Historical works are criticized on the basis, of the authors, their intentions, reference and credibility. Any historical work that lacks credibility must face criticism from the readers. Authors should therefore ensure that the historical documents they write have credibility and are well written to avoid criticism. References: Attwood B. “making histories at monash” Australian historical association Bulleting, no. 82. 1996 may pp 43-46 Davison G. “The use and abuse of Australian history” in Susan J. and Stuart (Eds), making the bicentenary Parkville, 1988 Vic: university of Melbourne pp 55-76 Martin G, “Economic motives behind the founding botany bay” in Ged M. (Eds). The founding of Australia: the argument about Australia’s origin. 1978. Sydney: hale and iremoger pp 237-251, 298-303 Nicholas N et al. “unshackling the past” in Gillian W. and Gail R. (Eds). Uncertain beginnings: debates in Australian studies. Brisbane: university of Queensland press, pp 75-89 O’Farrell P, “oral history: facts and fiction” quadrant, 1979, November, pp 4-8 Read P, “who is holding the microphone?” Australian historical association Bulletin no. 74. September pp 24-32 Singh M, “The struggle against curriculum imperialism: questioning invisibility And stereotypes in Australia’s history” in Ray L. Invasion and after: a case study in curriculum politics. 1994. Brisbane, Queensland studies pp 26-39 Summers A, “Damned whores” in damned whores and god’s police: the Colonization of women in Australia. Ringwood: penguin books, chapter 8, pp 267-289 Tonny B, “Out of which past? Critical reflection on the Australian museum and Heritage policy.1988. Brisbane institute for cultural policy studies, Griffith university pp 1-29 Wood G, “Convict origins” in Gillian in Gillian W. and Gail R. (Eds). Uncertain beginnings: debates in Australian studies. Brisbane: university of Queensland press, pp 53-59, 211 Read More