What are the strengths, and limitations, of different types of historical evidence?

Rounded historical study requires the appraisal and evaluation of different types of historical evidence. Most of this is written evidence, gathered from administrative records, books/pamphlets, or literature/poetry. The main strength of this type of evidence is the fact that it tends to survive, in some form, to the present day - there is just more of it, usually, than other types of evidence. Also, it tends to be very descriptive and useful for supporting detailed theories about the past. However, we also have be aware that evidence can be faked, or written for a variety of political or personal reasons that can distort its usefulness to the historian.
Other types of evidence include archaeological remains, coins and oral accounts, which can be extracted by the historian through interviews if the events are recent enough. This final type can be very accurate and has the added bonus that you can fact-check the account in real-time; it is also important to remember, however, that the events might be very fresh and coloured by political biases. Archaeological remains are a very useful form of evidence for giving insights into everyday life, but are often limited in what survives; the same is true of using coins as accurate indicators of the past. All types of historical evidence should be used critically, with caution.