Question regarding the nature of surviving evidence of early Medieval Europe

C

charruss

Joined Aug 2010

2 Posts | 0+

Discussion Starter
• Aug 11, 2010

• #1

Hi all. I'm currently a student and am visiting this forum with the hopes that maybe somebody on here could provide me with a little advice on an essay question that I have become utterly stuck on and cannot figure out what to write about. I certainly don't expect or want anyone to write the essay for me but am simply hoping that I can post the question here and recieve some general pointers about how I could go about answering it.

The question is as follows... "How does the nature of surviving evidence affect the way that early medieval historians work?"

As I mentioned earlier I am not posting here with the aims of people writting the essay for me, I am simply in urgent need of guidance of how to answer this question.

Thanks in advance.
Tom

 

Melisende

Joined Jul 2007

1,716 Posts | 44+

Australia

• Aug 12, 2010

• #2

Tip: you could look at current surviving records and discuss how different authors / historians have interpreted them and which of our modern day texts have become "authorities" based upon whichever records their authors have used.

Sorry if that sounds confusing.

EG - the Anglo Saxon Chronicle; Bede's "History" - which of the older text are the more accepted and why - even if now they may not be accurate - another discussion point accuracy.

 

Kirialax

Joined Dec 2009

5,364 Posts | 1,122+

Blachernai

• Aug 12, 2010

• #3

Do you have a geographical range for this topic?

 

Scarlet Knight

Joined Jul 2010

49 Posts | 0+

New Jersey

• Aug 12, 2010

• #4

A lot of European history is interpreted from texts and artwork that have survived the centuries.

I took a Development of Europe course last semester, and we had assignments analyzing The Song of Roland, Beowoulf, and works of art at the Met in NY.

Artwork, literature, architecture, etc. are all good jumping points for your essay. By analyzing Midieval Europe's culture, historians can interpret their way of life.

 

C

charruss

Joined Aug 2010

2 Posts | 0+

Discussion Starter
• Aug 13, 2010

• #5

Thanks for the advice all, also @kirialax, the geographical range is limited to Europe.

 

Sargon of Akkad

Joined Jun 2009

6,987 Posts | 17+

Glorious England

• Aug 14, 2010

• #6

Sarcophagi are also important - I watched a documentary that explained how much of our knowledge of the development of armour in the 12th and 13th centuries is down to representations of knights on tombs - small things such as buckles that are displayed on the knight's side, not covered by his tabard.

 

Iolo

Joined May 2010

2,964 Posts | 1+

Rhondda

• Aug 14, 2010

• #7

'History is the propaganda of the victors'. When the first archaeologists dug Roman sites in Britain they simply dug down to Roman stone. Why? Because they believed 'Saxons' walked in onto a nothing, because they believed a version of Bede, who wrote rubbish because his sources were rubbish. By digging down to stone they destroyed all the evidence of building in wood that their skills weren't up to understanding. Similarly, their view of place-name evidence was based on the idea that all the Romano-British were wiped out, so all placenames must be germanic (and they didn't know British anyway). A few simple notions serve desperately to distort history when there isn't enough written evidence.

 

Kirialax

Joined Dec 2009

5,364 Posts | 1,122+

Blachernai

• Aug 14, 2010

• #8

charruss said:

Thanks for the advice all, also @kirialax, the geographical range is limited to Europe.

Click to expand...

Then if you include the East, numismatic and sigillographic data are also important.

 

davu

Joined Jun 2010

4,078 Posts | 3+

Retired - This Mountain isn't on a Map

• Sep 2, 2010

• #9

The question is as follows... "How does the nature of surviving evidence affect the way that early medieval historians work?"

Click to expand...

you just have to love it. someone who asks the big question and doesn't get his butt kicked because its "speculative". one response was "the winners wrote it". another that i am way more familiar with is the "kensington stone". there the response is "modern archaelogists absolutely refuse to give credit were credit is due even in the face to hard (physical) evidence they are wrong".

i think this student has touched a subject that is paramount to mediaeval research because we are so lacking information and try to cover it up with "experts".