The Nature of History

MaizieD

Despite growstuff's eloquence I still don't think that you can count Ks and Qs out of historical significance. As much as anything they contributed to the 'culture' of their time. And changed or consolidated the socio-political direction the country moved in.

How dismissive! My alleged eloquence is irrelevant.

British kings and queens haven't been patrons of the arts and sciences in the way European dukes were for centuries. Their influence on on politics and other matters is now almost nil and has been heading that way for centuries.

Anybody care to say who the monarch was when slavery in the Caribbean was abolished, when the spinning jenny was invented or the Napoleonic Wars were being fought? (Without Googling)

I am from North Cornwall and only a couple of miles from Tintagel.

Interested to read that post Roman, Anglo-Saxons emigrated into the East of this island (not known as England) and mingled with the Celtic race and were largely an agrarian economy trading with the north if Europe, whilst the west of the country, remain largely Celtic, rather wealthier than the east because of the resources like tin etc and traded with southern Europe and the Mediterranean.

Tintagel was significant because there has been archeological digs there and this evidence was found.

I like the anthropological side of history and was recently lucky enough to attend a U3A course in early British history where we looked at the housing, diets, illnesses and living conditions of that time. unbelievably awful conditions caused by lice, poor diet, damp, cold and internal worms which most people had to endure...

Whitewavemark2

I am from North Cornwall and only a couple of miles from Tintagel.

Interested to read that post Roman, Anglo-Saxons emigrated into the East of this island (not known as England) and mingled with the Celtic race and were largely an agrarian economy trading with the north if Europe, whilst the west of the country, remain largely Celtic, rather wealthier than the east because of the resources like tin etc and traded with southern Europe and the Mediterranean.

Which is why Cornwall had links with Brittany and the Welsh (especially on the west cost) to this day share DNA links with people from Iberia.

Mercia controlled all England for over a 100 years until the Norman invasion.

Luckygirl3

I hated history at school as it was all about killing basically.

I wanted to know what people ate, when toilets came in, how they made their money, what they wore, what they thought, how they treated illnesses, what music they played and on what instruments. OK, tell me which king/queen was in power and how that impinged on people's lives; tell me about political movements - but I wanted to know how people lived.

Not a very good school then, poor teaching to ignore the social values of Thomas Crapper, Victorian philanthropy to help improve the lives of the poorest. Obviously learnt more at my little village school.

growstuff

Whitewavemark2

I am from North Cornwall and only a couple of miles from Tintagel.

Interested to read that post Roman, Anglo-Saxons emigrated into the East of this island (not known as England) and mingled with the Celtic race and were largely an agrarian economy trading with the north if Europe, whilst the west of the country, remain largely Celtic, rather wealthier than the east because of the resources like tin etc and traded with southern Europe and the Mediterranean.

Which is why Cornwall had links with Brittany and the Welsh (especially on the west cost) to this day share DNA links with people from Iberia.

Mercia controlled all England for over a 100 years until the Norman invasion.

Yes I know.

What I hadn’t appreciated was, that rather than invasion, the Anglo Saxons simply settled in the east and at first in their own groups, but of course gradually intermingled with the celts. So it was done peacefully, but in the west the celts retained their own culture and way of life. DNA shows how this is still markedly so even now.

The clash was largely between east and west.

One thing I learnt in my studies of history is that where you have three historians you will find four opinions, and none of them can claim to be 'right'. All will enjoy arguing their case, but the ones who recognise the rights of others to put forward their own perspectives (and are willing to engage with them, rather than putting them down) are likely to be far more successful.

Doodledog

One thing I learnt in my studies of history is that where you have three historians you will find four opinions, and none of them can claim to be 'right'. All will enjoy arguing their case, but the ones who recognise the rights of others to put forward their own perspectives (and are willing to engage with them, rather than putting them down) are likely to be far more successful.

Historiography (and even changes in historiography over time) can be just as fascinating as historical facts.

Luckygirl3

I hated history at school as it was all about killing basically.

I wanted to know what people ate, when toilets came in, how they made their money, what they wore, what they thought, how they treated illnesses, what music they played and on what instruments. OK, tell me which king/queen was in power and how that impinged on people's lives; tell me about political movements - but I wanted to know how people lived.

Yes, and more yes.

And later- I became fascinated with parallels with other countries, Europe, and then the world. What happened at the same time in other countries and Continents.

Even in relatively 'minor' ways. Our house was built in 1587 - and my curiosity led me to look at what happened that year elsewhere. The year Mary Queen of Scots was beheaded at Fotheringhay (I have sat on that mound many times and reflected since)...Having such an event to pin a date on, makes it all so much alive and real (poor Mary).

Doodledog

One thing I learnt in my studies of history is that where you have three historians you will find four opinions, and none of them can claim to be 'right'. All will enjoy arguing their case, but the ones who recognise the rights of others to put forward their own perspectives (and are willing to engage with them, rather than putting them down) are likely to be far more successful.

Agreed, life init?

The Augustine bible used at the coronation was around when the community at Tintagel was at its height.

whitewavemark2 I regret that that view of how the Anglo/Saxons came to Britain is already under assault. Recent DNA studies, taken from nearly 500 graves, show a massive migration of settlers from Denmark and Germany into Britain in the early medieval period and many of the men are buried with weapons, Such a large migration, must have involved some forcible claiming of land from local people www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05247-2

It is fascinating to see how our interpretation of the past is based on our own cultural determinants, and how archaeological science sometimes proves these, but can also refute them.

In the 19th and early 20th century the past was seen in terms of invasions or mass migrations, based on the attitudes of a country with a large empire, to whom these forms of change made sense.

These views were the norm when I began my archaeological studies 40 years ago. Then modern norms took over and everything became, not movement of people, but movements of culture transferring from one group to another.

We have seen the same changes of interpretation with the introduction of Beaker culture over grooved ware cultures in the Bronze Age. First it was seen as an invasion of Beaker people, then it was seen as cultural change.

Recent DNA anlysis has shown, that it was, actually, an invasion and at least 90% of the ancestry of Britons was replaced by this wave of migrants,

My primary and early secondary school history was mostly of the kings, queens and battles type but later on I was fortunate enough to have a teacher who covered things like Mohammad and the rise of Islam, and the European Renaissance. I started the O-level syllabus "Background to the Modern World" but only did the first year of the two-year course, covering the Great Exhibition, the unification of Germany, the American Revolution and Civil War, the Great War, and the rise of Hitler, which was interesting and useful enough but didn't enthuse me enough to complete the course and sit the exam.

Years later, in the 1980s, I attended a WEA course on Landscape Archaeology, and that really fired me up. Of course, once you know about the three-field system you can't help but notice ridge-and-furrow everywhere, as well as old field boundaries, earthworks, pillow mounds, holloways and many other usually unremarked features that show how the everyday life of the ancestors of people like most of us lived.

The history of the enclosures is just fascinating, how both Church and Nobles forced serfs into modern slavery to be abused for the sake or fast industrialisation . culmunating in the current wave of AI and automation.

And as a keen gardener and nature lover, how Capability Brown 'natural landscaping' became a part of this too.

Key stage 3 History (top level) trues to cover incredible amounts!

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/239075/SECONDARY_national_curriculum_-_History.pdf

We have also used our recent passion for genealogy to find out about so much, the complexity of slavery, immigration- push and pulls, colonisation, religions, and so much more- as we have discovered how hugely mixed and 'complicated' our two families are, literally from all over the world, and all races - even though you'd never ever know by looking at us, our ACs and GCs. History comes alive when it is so close to you and yours.

Fleurpepper we have never had serfs in Britain. Peasants were tied to the land, although it never stopped them scarpering off to towns, but could not be sold or transferred to other land.

Open fields were not universal, only on a sweep of land roughly the same as the chalk/limestone areas. Once you get away from this champion country, you find farmers who had holdings of land and were more likely to be freeman. However there were and still are many landless labourers

Peasant ties to the land were serfs. Semantics.

But of course England had serfs.

Serfs were the poorest of the peasant class, and were a type of slave. Lords owned the serfs who lived on their lands. In exchange for a place to live, serfs worked the land to grow crops for themselves and their lord. In addition, serfs were expected to work the farms for the lord and pay rent.

Serfs couldn't be traded like slaves, but Britain certainly had them. About 65-70% of the people mentioned in Domesday were either villeins, bordars or cottars (all forms of serfs) while about 10% were slaves. Slaves could be bought and sold.

growstuff

Serfs couldn't be traded like slaves, but Britain certainly had them. About 65-70% of the people mentioned in Domesday were either villeins, bordars or cottars (all forms of serfs) while about 10% were slaves. Slaves could be bought and sold.

Caribbean slavery started in the mid 1600s and the first slaves there were not African, they were Irish!. It was nothing to do with Monarchy either. When Cromwell took over Ireland and many were dispossessed, 50,000 destitute Irish were “Barbadoed” - sent to Barbados as indentured laborers or POWs (slaves), none ever returned of course.

It was soon realized they were not productive in that climate only then we’re African slaves transported

According to family - I really should have watched the coronation - as it's 'History in the making!'. What difference would it make, I wonder? If I can't summon up an interest, why bother?

School history, kings, queens, battles, wars etc. - boring as hell - yet now, I'm fascinated by all the history and archeology programmes on TV. They bring life in the past into focus.

History is the story of man's past.

In time past history was largely about heroic events and history existed for the purpose of encouraging and binding together the feelings and actions of a tribe or nation.

Modern academic history is rigorously scientific by which I mean that all admissible evidence comes from disinterested sources such as archaeology, and place names. However there is always an element of subjective interpretation of evidence and modern historians are aware of this.

The justification of history is that people who are alive may be inspired or informed by people who are dead, even long dead. For instance we look to Churchillian values to know that the Allies were morally justified in taking up arms against Hitler and Nazism and this guides us into the future.

Another justification for history is one that some grans here will be aware of; I mean some grans will have been researching their family histories to try to connect with their personal roots.