Eyewitness accounts are a peculiar source of information on history. On the one hand, they are highly subjective and have to be given analyzed with a degree of caution (Trueman, 2010). On the other hand, sometimes, they are the only indication that a certain event transpired in the first place. As a result, eyewitness accounts are both relevant and are not really trustworthy at the same time.
First, there are numerous reasons to doubt the trustworthiness of eyewitness’ testimonies. Humans have a remarkably inadequate memory when it comes to past events. People can be convinced that they remember something happen, when in reality it transpired in a completely different manner. Aside from the imperfection of memories, there is also the problem of an ulterior motif. Eyewitnesses can lie about what they saw, the possibility of which also compromises their accounts.
Second, eyewitness testimony are still an indication that cannot be completely dismissed. As much as people can lie about the events that happened, they can also be inclined to tell truth. The probability of truth increases, when multiple people share the same story. Actually, one of the ways historians ensure that a certain event happened in the first place is comparison of different accounts. Before technological means of recording information were invented, eyewitness testimony had been the primary source of information.
Altogether, eyewitness accounts are a highly contested source of historical data. The reason why people make the error of relying on such accounts may lie in the absence of any other proofs. However, even when the actual account is false and the described event had never really transpired, it may still serve as a source of information on what people were interested in and what set their contemporary agenda.
Reference
Trueman, C. R. (2010). Histories and fallacies: Problems faced in the writing of history. Crossway.