Download A source paper - MyWeb at Loras

Timothy Johnson
9/26/16
Smith
Source paper
What is a source? A source is defined as “a place, person, or thing from which something
comes or can be obtained (dictionary.com). Sources for the past can come in many different
forms. When we look for evidence of Roman civilization, we look in a multitude of places for a
multitude of things. Three common places where we can find evidence of Ancient Roman
history are as follows: artifacts, writings, and architecture. While going through these example of
sources, I will analyze the strong points and weak points of each type of source throughout this
paper and I will conclude with how much I think we know about the Ancient Roman world to
this day. Pieces of the past are taken a little more literally when we delve into the world of
artifacts.
Artifacts that we find from the ancient times could be a multitude of things. Anything
from a small coin to an entire shipwreck under the ocean. Archeologists can use these artifacts to
piece together a lot of things. For instance, if an archeologist finds a bowl, a cauldron and a
couple of forks at a dig site; he and his peers a can piece together what everyday life looked like
in a Roman household. How they cooked things, how they ate their food, maybe even what their
diet was based on the utensils that have been found. A sword that has been found can possibly
shed some light on how these people fought each other, how they gripped their swords, what
they made their swords out of. But there can be some confusion within this practice. If an
archeologist finds a utensil that he doesn’t know the use for, he may hazard a guess. If he
guesses wrong, then we have a completely incorrect vision of what the past looks like. The same
thing could happen if the item is broken, or missing a piece. We could be completely wrong
about an entire culture, and we would not even realize it. While I think we have a good idea of
what happened in the Roman past, we could be wrong about other aspects of Roman history and
we do not even know it. Another primary source that is very important to our knowledge of the
Roman past would be the various writings and teachings that the authors and philosophers wrote
back during that time.
Fortunately for us, a lot of Roman writings and teachings survive to this day. Some
famous Roman authors that many know include, Cicero, Julius Caesar, and Virgil. Stories,
legends and teachings that these people wrote can inform us a great deal about the past. Thanks
to written records, we can learn a lot about Roman culture as a whole just by looking at some of
the works that these people wrote. We can learn what these people thought about Roman society;
we have a lens straight into these people’s minds. But therein lies the issue. These people are not
very far off from people that we know today. Ancient Romans had opinions too. For example,
Livy is considered biased because of how much he loved Rome and the Roman people. He can’t
see the side of Rome that could have been bad around his time. If you are a person who has to
write about Emperor Nero, would you write about him burning down Rome? Or would you
rather write about how charismatic and wonderful he is? If your job and your life is on the line in
ancient Rome, then you should probably pick the second option (especially if the emperor is
Nero, he’s crazy). The point is, writers had opinions; and in some cases they HAD to write the
things that they wrote or else something bad would happen to them.
There is a ton of ancient Roman architecture that is still around today. The Coliseum in
Rome still stands, as well as Hadrian’s Wall in north Britain. These structures can tell us a lot
about an ancient people. A house that is uncovered in Roman Gaul (modern day France) can tell
how they constructed their houses, walls, tables, etc. This house can also hold other artifacts that
give a clear picture of what Roman life was truly like. We all know the about the Coliseum in
Rome and we know what the Romans used it for, gladiator battles. Thanks to other evidence that
we have found, we actually know what the Coliseum is used for. But what if other evidence of
an ancient structures purpose is not found? What if archeologists found an entire castle buried
under layers and layers of dirt? Once they unearth it, they date it to be around the time of ancient
Rome. But what if literally nothing else is found in that castle? The archeologists can assume
what the castle was used for, but they can never know for sure what it was used for.
In conclusion, a source is only as good as how much information is found. I believe our
idea of Roman history is correct for the most part so far. But maybe there are some things that
we have not considered? Information is key to understanding the ancient world, if we find more
information about a source, then we can learn more than we ever could without it.