What comes into your mind when you think of British food? Probably fish and chips, or a Sunday dinner of meat and two vegetables. But is British food really so uninteresting? Even though Britain has a reputation for less-than-impressive cuisine, it is producing more top class chefs who appear frequently on our television screens and whose recipe books frequently top the best seller lists.

It’s thanks to these TV chefs rather than any advertising campaign that Britons are turning away from meat-and-two-veg and ready-made meals and becoming more adventurous in their cooking habits. It is recently reported that the number of those sticking to a traditional diet is slowly declining and around half of Britain’s consumers would like to change or improve their cooking in some way. There has been a rise in the number of students applying for food courses at UK universities and colleges. It seems that TV programmes have helped change what people think about cooking.

According to a new study from market analysts, 1 in 5 Britons say that watching cookery programmes on TV has encouraged them to try different food. Almost one third say they now use a wider variety of ingredients (配料) than they used to, and just under 1 in 4 say they now buy better quality ingredients than before. One in four adults say that TV chefs have made them much more confident about expanding their cookery knowledge and skills, and young people are also getting more interested in cooking. The UK’s obsession (痴迷) with food is reflected through television scheduling. Cookery shows and documentaries about food are broadcast more often than before. With an increasing number of male chefs on TV, it’s no longer “uncool” for boys to like cooking.

If you want to tell the history of the whole world, a history that does not privilege one part of humanity, you cannot do it through texts alone, because only some of the world has ever had texts, while most of the world, for most of the time, has not. Writing is one of humanity’s later achievements, and until fairly recently even many literate (有文字的) societies recorded their concerns not only in writing but in things.

Ideally a history would bring together texts and objects, and some chapters of this book are able to do just that, but in many cases we simply can’t. The clearest example of this between literate and non-literate history is perhaps the first conflict, at Botany Bay, between Captain Cook’s voyage and the Australian Aboriginals. From the English side, we have scientific reports and the captain’s record of that terrible day. From the Australian side, we have only a wooden shield (盾) dropped by a man in flight after his first experience of gunshot. If we want to reconstruct what was actually going on that day, the shield must be questioned and interpreted as deeply and strictly as the written reports.

In addition to the problem of miscomprehension from both sides, there are victories accidentally or deliberately twisted, especially when only the victors know how to write. Those who are on the losing side often have only their things to tell their stories. The Caribbean Taino, the Australian Aboriginals, the African people of Benin and the Incas, all of whom appear in this book, can speak to us now of their past achievements most powerfully through the objects they made: a history told through things gives them back a voice. When we consider contact (联系) between literate and non-literate societies such as these, all our first-hand accounts are necessarily twisted, only one half of a dialogue. If we are to find the other half of that conversation, we have to read not just the texts, but the objects.