This week’s reading from Lubar and Kingery outlines the unique insight that examination of material culture can afford us into the past. In distinguishing between art and artefacts, the authors make clear the different avenues by which one can learn about a culture’s beliefs, conditions and changes. Whilst art is intentionally expressive of the culture in which it is made, artefacts reveal more of the beliefs and assumptions, perhaps unknown even to beholders, embedded in certain objects. What I found particularly interesting was Prown’s argument that examination of material objects allows a greater objectivity of historical inquiry through the commonality of our senses. In first evaluating objects based on sensory reactions and perceptions, one is able, to a certain extent, to bypass individual cultural preconditions that influence interpretation.