Ancient and ArchaeologyÌý permalink
Written History of England
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 1st March 2007
Is it true to say that :-
before the Roman Invasion there is no record (written, myths, or otherwise)of British celtic history - battles, kings , heroes etc
that if it wasnt for the Roman occupation and it was a celtic land for those 400 yrs - they would be the same with no record of that period ??
that the first record we had of anything would have been the Saxon history - albeit a history written many moons later (was it The Anglo Saxon Chronicles that was the first record of the Dark ages)
st -
Message 2
Posted by U2280797 (U2280797) on Thursday, 1st March 2007
Well, Gildas has many, many faults, but being Anglo-Saxon is not amongst them.
-
Message 3
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 1st March 2007
Rhys
thanx
just googled him - but it seems that he was AFTER the roman occupation
was there any history of Celtic life before 55bc or 44ad ??
poems ? anything
st -
Message 4
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Thursday, 1st March 2007
One cannot really refer to England until after the end of Roman Britain.
Iron age Britain before the Romans was not a literate society although there are some references to it prior to Julius caesar's first landing in 55BC.
Julius Caesar gives some details on Britain as does Tacitus. As far as I am aware the first book about Britain written by a Briton is 'The Ruin of britain' by Gildas written about 540AD of which I have a copy. The first English history is by Bede written in 731AD of which, for some strange reason I seem to have two copies. -
Message 5
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 1st March 2007
Tim - thanx
what i am trying to find out is - was there any history before the romsn invssion there must have been fierce battles etc - but do we know anything about that time ?? -
surely Gildas was only guessing
st -
Message 6
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Thursday, 1st March 2007
I'm sure you are aware that Celtic society was an oral society. Hence the power of the Drudic social class in pre-Roman and early Roman era Britain (also the Celtic mainland in Gaul, though that was earlier again)
Also, IIRC, there is no such thing as "written" celtic. As Druids did not hold with written script there was no need to develop any form of consistent writtings. The advent of Rome and the Latin alphabet influenced the creation of a written form of British, though at a much later stage (Gildas wrote in latin AFAIK).
In oral societies stories and histories are passed down in a much more stringent manner as the spoken word is the only record, obviously after a few generations one would assume some alterations to the story, but Celtic history is also largely myth, hence stories of kings and fairies, magic caldrons, etc.
The only written histories are what were written after the fact and many years later. -
Message 7
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 1st March 2007
Stalteri is ok,
it is ages ago and it has nothing to do with the subject, but I found what happened to the 100,000 French from Dunkirk. It was one topic we togheter discussed in depth. And I mentioned a study, which would be done end of 2006. Found this study. Will start a new thread on Wars and Conflicts for you.
Warm regards,
Paul.
PS: I can't keep it quiet so long
. They nearly all were sent back to Cherbourg to take part in the further campaign of the battle of France... -
Message 8
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 2nd March 2007
stalteriisok, I do not know why no-one is able to give you a straight answer to a straight question.
Yes it is true. Nobody in Britain, before the Romans came, left any written record at all about anything that happened in Britain.
There were writings by some geographers mentioning Britain BC. I do not know but it may have been Herodetus who mentioned the trade with Britain in tin.
I think it was Julius Caesar who gave the first written description, of Britain and the Britons.
During the Roman occupation, I cannot think of anybody who actually lived in Britain writing about the place.
So Gildas was, I think, the first Briton (that we know of) to write about what was happening in Britain. He wrote in Latin, in the early 6th century. Nobody has been able to show that anything he wrote was in error. -
Message 9
Posted by Tim Of Aclea (U4517144) on Friday, 2nd March 2007
In terms of writing by a known Britain, there are two letters written by St Patrick who predates Gildas but Patrick was not wrting a history of Britain (too the extent that 'The Ruin of Britain' can be considered a history).
When exactly St Patrick lived is still a matter of dispute but certainy earlier than Gildas. -
Message 10
Posted by Dai Bath (U2444609) on Friday, 2nd March 2007
I do not know but it may have been Herodetus who mentioned the trade with Britain in tin.
Ìý
The earliest known about Wales from written record is by Herodotus. (you've asked about England in fact)
St Patrick was C3rdAD,(and Irish) about the same time as St Augustine started his mission in these Islands.
Are the two letters mentioned by Tim "fragments", or known to have existed because they are mentioned later?
Isn't the first historical EXISTING evidence of any real note things like the illuminated manuscripts of the C8thAD?
"Meditations" by St Augustine? Beautiful writing and thought. -
Message 11
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Friday, 2nd March 2007
Patrick was British rather than Irish and if Herodutus was writing about Wales then he must be from the 7th/8th Century AD then
-
Message 12
Posted by Dai Bath (U2444609) on Friday, 2nd March 2007
Yes It is not a question about the 'History of writing' but 'written history', which must lead to an explanation of Oral Traditions (in Wales and Ireland too if we may) and poetic mnemonics, and oral methods of remembering, by Bards,Druids, and Brehonsters.
Those parts of 'Britain' which are now England
but had Celtic populations 'Cumbria', 'Cornwall'
and so on would have had the same Oral traditions
so reference to the better known Oral history of
Wales in this context is NOT amiss. Some things, we Welsh, are/were good at!
It would do no harm to mention the pre-latin script.What was it called again? I can't remember! That would help to place in context non-latin 'written' history. There WAS a script! -
Message 13
Posted by Dai Bath (U2444609) on Friday, 2nd March 2007
Instant reply to that one! I was wondering whether anybody would pick it up. We are getting in to modern connotations of England/Wales/Ireland, and now Britain, aren't we?
Isn't it right that Patrick arrived in Britain and migrated almost immediately to the Irish Islands?
That may be the only sense in which he was British. -
Message 14
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Friday, 2nd March 2007
no, he was born and bred in Britain, was captured, teken to ireland, gained his freedom, moved to France, and then returned to ireland to preach the gospels.
there is nothing modern in this. Britain is the proper term for the land south of the wall at that time -
Message 15
Posted by Dai Bath (U2444609) on Friday, 2nd March 2007
Runes and Futhark (younger )C5-7thAD
And also something from the University of Wales,
which looks very interesting indeed
-
Message 16
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Friday, 2nd March 2007
runes aren't celtic and from what I can see of the Aber site it isn't focused or concerned with proto-british writings from the BC era or even the early centuries ad but from the development of the latin script celtic languages onwards, though the aber site looked rather interesting
-
Message 17
Posted by Dai Bath (U2444609) on Friday, 2nd March 2007
Is it true to say that :-
before the Roman Invasion there is no record (written, myths, or otherwise)of British celtic history - battles, kings , heroes etc
that if it wasnt for the Roman occupation and it was a celtic land for those 400 yrs - they would be the same with no record of that period ??Ìý
There is Archaeological record but otherwise yes it is true.
A legal 'writ' is frequently an ORAL thing, so asking about 'written' record may also be a question about the memorised history, ie true myth and legend.
Generally the bards and druids only remembered 8 generations back, although I have heard 12 mentioned too. That could be no more than
500years ((My grandfather was born in 1856; my nephew may live until 2056.... 4 generations 200 years.... 8=400; 12=600 years at the very outside
AND the memory passed with it.
I saw the point about Patrick above. -
Message 18
Posted by Dai Bath (U2444609) on Friday, 2nd March 2007
De Excidio Britanniae
It looks as though Gildas is acknowledged to be same time as Augustine and the 'storyline' looks like inferior Augustinian preaching, but why is there no comparison with Augustine who also wrote in Latin as all educated people did in All of these islands at that time?
Gildas Welsh writing in Latin
Augustine wrote in Latin (but not history.... that is why!)
Perhaps the turgidity of Gildas was through confusion of religious exhortation and history....
with not much attempt to please with fine thought,
unlike the Great Saint and doctor of the Church. -
Message 19
Posted by Dai Bath (U2444609) on Friday, 2nd March 2007
I'm asleep! Apologies!
as St. Augustine the Less to distinguish him from his illustrious namesake from Hippo. Augustine was chosen by Pope Gregory the Great as leader of the mission sent from Rome for the evangelisation of the EnglishÌý -
Message 20
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 2nd March 2007
What i find difficult to understand is the complete absence of any type of history before the roman invasion - even the celtic version of Beowulf
the Celts - as we know - are a very "bardic/poetic" people and dont like to forget anything no matter how far back (ie the Irish now still remember Drogheda etc ) - yet there is not even anything resembling the Norse Sagas - and the only descriptions of Britain are the Roman ones - why is that ??
even the dark ages - saxon/vikings etc - are only recorded by the saxons - who were there - years after by saxon writers
st
paul - looking forward to see the post - -
Message 21
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Saturday, 3rd March 2007
stalteriisok, if you are asking strictly about pre-Roman Britain, before 43AD, i am not even sure that the Britons then could write. They had coinage - but I do not think that they had any words on them - somebody correct me if I am wrong.
Note that these were iron-age Britons, living in different conditions to the Celts of post-Roman Britain. There is no evidence that they were bardic/poetic. Then again there is no evidence that they were not. If you want to find out what they were like, all that you have to turn to really is Julius Caesar's description, apart from the scanty information thrown up by archaeology. -
Message 22
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 3rd March 2007
I think that we have to accept that the languages spoken in Britain before Roman contact were not written. For this reason it it impossible to be sure what they were, although from place name studies a Celtic language seems highly probable.
Iron age coins did have simple messages but the script was Roman capitals and the whole institution of Iron Age British coinage was surely a Roman inspiration. The type of coin legend seen might be a king's name: BODVOC, TINC(OMARUS), or a mint-site VER(ULAMION). Some may have had contracted Latin expressions of the X son of Y type.
Doubtless in British, Saxon and Scandinavian society court bards created and learned by heart long epics that told of their patrons' deeds and ancestry. The Viking sagas, in their written forms, were medieval creations. Literacy was yet another thing that the Romans, or later the Christian Romans, did for us.
TP -
Message 23
Posted by Dai Bath (U2444609) on Saturday, 3rd March 2007
The Celts were good at Maths as it helped them with the calendar.
If you do some clicking from the wiki reference above you will see some Calendar words "Samhain" == Summer... from pre Roman times which may have come down to modern use through Wicca practices and also Druid festivities.
It was a full moon last night which accounts for my brain storm above! I should have been checking the calendar more carefully, which I normally do! -
Message 24
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Saturday, 3rd March 2007
TP - thank you, I knew somebody knowledgable would set me right about the coins.
I fail to understand how a society of any sophistication at all can function without writing. Information must have been communicated orally, but this is inherently unreliable. I do not think they could have had a real sense of history. They may well have had oral traditions, but I reckon most will have regarded these as just stories, without any consideration of whether they were true or not.
Iron age life must have been very limited, especially considering they had virtually no vegetables, and few fruits, apparently. -
Message 25
Posted by Dai Bath (U2444609) on Saturday, 3rd March 2007
Literacy was yet another thing that the Romans, or later the Christian Romans, did for us.Ìý
There may be no shame in that since the city of Milan was founded by Celts in 600BC, so Latin may have been the language to use in all parts of the
known 'world'. Rome was a colony of Athens. -
Message 26
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Saturday, 3rd March 2007
Gar, I will take some convincing that Latin was the language of the Celts, before the Romans came.
-
Message 27
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Saturday, 3rd March 2007
Hi fascinating
did a bit of research before this post and some sites (will post ref) suggested that early Celts ID have some knowledge of written language
yes Julius Ceasar gave a description 55bc - BUT thats all we have !! - and he never mentioned any history before his invasion
i cannot believe that there is absolutely NO oral history that was written down afterwards ??(well actually i have to !!)
st -
Message 28
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Saturday, 3rd March 2007
stalteriisok, why can't you believe it.
Most of the time that the human race has been on this planet, nothing has been written by them of what happened to them. All that we do know, from the first many thousands of years of human existence, is surmised from archaeology. Contemporary written history is only available from a few cultures. I think I am right in saying that the only knowledge we have of sub-saharan Africa comes from what European writers who came into contact with the place have written down. There is oral history but I regard that as unreliable.
At least Caesar's description is 100 years prior to the Roman take-over.
It has to be said that the Romans were singularly un-interested in other cultures. It seems nobody went out to the provinces to write about the geography, peoples and cultures there. And virtually nothing has come to us of provincials writing about their own lives. There is no book entitled 'My Life in Londinium' nor even 'My Life in the Roman Army'. Possibly such things were written, but got lost when the Muslims destroyed the libraries. -
Message 29
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Sunday, 4th March 2007
hi fascinating
agree with wot u say - but after Julius for 100 yrs we were at least known by a race who could keep a written history - but nothing after JC ???? -
Message 30
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Sunday, 4th March 2007
Stalteriisok
Why would they write about barbarian tribes in a barbarian land? There was no reason for scholars or scribes to travel to BRitain to record a barbarian mythology. They didn't even do it in the lands of Gaul which were securly Roman. -
Message 31
Posted by Dai Bath (U2444609) on Monday, 5th March 2007
The cradle of modern civilisation was Greece and Rome. If any script was used at all by pre Romans
in Northerly Celtic countries, it was the latin one,
just the same as it would have been for the Celts of northern Italy.
Iconography and script are closely linked to each other. Chinese use characters which are pictures themselves.
A message would have been sent orally in pre Christian times by a reliable messenger with, if necessary, a good memory. -
Message 32
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Monday, 5th March 2007
Richie
yes indeed good thinking - but u would have thought that the roman writers would have mentioned bits about the land they had just invaded
I find it hard to believe that the Celts recorded nothing ???
st -
Message 33
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Monday, 5th March 2007
Stalt,
It is quite possible that there were reports written by the Romans when and just after they invaded, but that they havent survived down the centuries to us, the Romans were a very literey people, but they also tended AFAIK to concentrate more on politics, subversive comedy and Greek tracts rather than socio-historical narratives of conquered peoples.
You seem to be coming at this from the point of view of the Victorian era imperialism where such things were recored and diseminated because of large media demands by the public for such exotic information. The Roman era public were not so demanding. As long as they got to see amazons and Celtic chieftains in gold chains being paraded in victory parades they were happy, they were not as interested in knowing about their history or relgious beliefs. Certain elements in the Roman elite would have been but it would have been a specialised audience. However that is all conjecture on my part as I know of nothing beyond Caesar's works that detail the Celtic world at that point in time
Again with your second point you still seem to be coming at it from a modern PoV, where we today document everything, sometimes in triplicate. 2000 years ago this was not considered important by every society. Rome, Greece, the Eastern States, Carthage, Egypt all had millenia long bueracracies behind them, centruies long customs where events were chronicalled, logged, etched in stone. This was an alien concept to a people more interested in farming enough food to survive the winter, where the druids most likely performed the same function as they seem to be shown as doing later, in that they are both the Priest and the Recorder. Myths and legends abound. I would be greatly surprised if the later celtic myths do not have their roots in the era pre Roman invasion, but their recording was not something that was socially important to an agraian society -
Message 34
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Tuesday, 6th March 2007
Richie, I agree with you, but I think it should be emphasised that the most important difference between the citizens of Ancient Rome and those of Victorian England was technology, most particularly the technology of printing, as well as the production of cheap paper.
In 1st century Rome the poet Martial remarked that his book of epigrams could be had for 20 sesterces. This was a small book; if bound as a modern day book it would be a paperback of less that 50 pages. This sold for 5 denarii (= 20 sesterces) which is FIVE DAYS WAGES for an ordinary labourer.
This, to me, is one major reason why so few titles were produced in ancient times. -
Message 35
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Tuesday, 6th March 2007
Hi Fascinating
Yes, the cost of literture is an important factor. Education was/is an expensive buisness, as is writing books and then mass prodicing (to a certain extent) that book in ancient times. I suppose that when I used the comparison of Victorian England and Rome it should have been more of a comprehensive comparison with increasing literacy, increasing awareness, increasing leisure time, the simple rise of the middle classes, -
Message 36
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Tuesday, 6th March 2007
As has been said, the need for writing was not great in Iron Age Britain. Few people other than the upper classes would travel far beyond the confimes of their village.
I believe that the theory goes that the druids were very much against written records as they were the keepers of knowledge, thus giving them their position of authority. -
Message 37
Posted by Dai Bath (U2444609) on Tuesday, 6th March 2007
hard to believe that the Celts recorded nothingÌý
They did but in Latin.
In medieval Welsh there is evidence of previous language systems, but that is not the written word you seek. -
Message 38
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Tuesday, 6th March 2007
Richie, I believe that all those things you mention, increasing literacy, increasing awareness, increasing leisure time, the rise of the middle classes, could only happen because of the technology of printing.
-
Message 39
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Tuesday, 6th March 2007
ritchie
thanx again - like the bit about the later Celtic myths incorporating earlier happenings -
BUT - there doesnt seem to be any earlier or later myths - just a vast vaccuum of what was a very civilised society
the earliest non Roman history comes from the Saxons - who had no love for the Celts !!
(all this came from a throwaway remark from my daughters homework lol)
cheers ST -
Message 40
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Tuesday, 6th March 2007
stalteriisok, well, maybe it wasn't a very civilised society. The druids had human sacrifice, according to the Romans. Anyway the Iron Age Britons were not civilised, because they did not live in cities.
I disagree with the postings saying that they did not 'need' to have writing. If they had been given knowledge of a written language, they would have used it alright. Just as when coins became available to them, they thought they were a damned good idea.
They did not have writing because they were unsophisticate, backward, barbarians.
What do you mean, I like stirring up controversy?? -
Message 41
Posted by Mick Mac (U5651045) on Wednesday, 7th March 2007
Essentially this question is about means of communication. Before writing this was done by word of mouth. In more recent times we have pictorial and digital means of passing information on. From the point of view of corruptibility no particular method is better or worse than any other.
In Celtic cultures the custodianss of communal knowledge were the druids or bards or learned men whose job it was to remember the history of the community or tribe. These human repositories of learning had to train for the job by memorising vast quantities of information in the form of stories, poems and genealogies.
In Gaelic Irish culture the function of walking encyclopedia was often the preserve of certain families.
Much of the story incorporated in the Bible is information that was handed down from generation to generation in this way. Archaeologists and ancient historians have confirmed the veracity of much of what was recorded in the Bible.
Just like Biblical stories much of the ancient history of Britain (and, indeed, our general history up to modern times) must have survived in the oral traditions of the people. This fact has been recognised in many Celtic and Scandinavian countries where oral traditions are assiduously recorded and studied by academics.
So, to answer your question:
before the Roman Invasion there is no record (written, myths, or otherwise)of British celtic history - battles, kings , heroes etc
Ìý
In Ireland there is a record but it was written down by Christian clerics from the oral tradition, partly to debunk that pagan tradition and partly to accommodate to the new christian and/or political circumstances that pertained in Ireland at the time of its writing down.
I am sure a similar process must have occurred in Britain. -
Message 42
Posted by Dai Bath (U2444609) on Wednesday, 7th March 2007
Much of the story incorporated in the Bible is information that was handed down from generation to generation in this wayÌý
Were the Talmuds not written down?
The Welsh Law book "Law" by Hywel Dda was passed orally from the C9th to the C13th by the Law makers
and was then written down in script by Fwchan Hywel
a descendant at Jesus college Oxford. It was written in Welsh and Latin. There were four 'redactions'.
It was used as the basis for Welsh law until the beginning of the C17th after which English Law was
used exclusively, in Wales.
Alfred of Wessex his book was in Anglo Saxon (Winchester) and that of Aethelfryd of Kent also in the C10th. They were both books of Law.
Alfred also translated Orosius from Latin (Spanish)a history of the world.
Read Melvyn Bragg the "Adventure of English" and log on to the "In our time" message board and programme website for enjoyable learning on the subject. -
Message 43
Posted by Mick Mac (U5651045) on Wednesday, 7th March 2007
Hi Gâr
Irish law (and Welsh, no doubt, as they spring from the same well) is the oldest, most original, and most extensive of mediaeval European legal systems. It is a unique legal inheritance, an independent indigenous system of advanced jurisprudence that was fully evolved by the eighth century. It is also far less well known than it deserves. It is embodied in the tract known as the Senchus Mór (‘Great Tradition’) which later became the Cain Patraic – the law of distress and the rights of the person in the community – after the introduction of Christianity to Ireland.
Indigenous ancient Irish law was person centred. It reflects a legal system that respected individuals first and property second; a system that revered the sanctity of contract and wherein the environment was of paramount importance; a system in which women had equal property rights to men and could divorce; and one in which the individual owed a duty of hospitality and protection to strangers. Imagine also a legal system of self-help that needed no court or police force to enforce it, since it was respected so by its citizens.
See and
Paddy -
Message 44
Posted by Dai Bath (U2444609) on Wednesday, 7th March 2007
Paddy!
is the oldest, most original, and most extensive of mediaeval European legal systemsÌý
Ah Yes! European but NOT Middle Eastern as per the Talmud discussion on the enclosed link above.
While the cradle of civilisation was Athens and Rome,there were many other cultures before it particularly in the middle east.
My name is Hywell so I know about Senchus mor and the Law of distress which was also part of Hyweliau Law. -
Message 45
Posted by Dai Bath (U2444609) on Wednesday, 7th March 2007
It appears, indeed, to have maintained its authority amongst the Irish people until the beginning of the seventeenth Century a period of over 1,100 years.Ìý As did the Law of Hywel dda (Howell the good) I have a copy of his book in front of me.
The Howell (O'Well; Ui'Well) West Waleians carried our ancestor's book of Law until the C17th at which time we adopted a coat of Arms instead. The Owl; the
Fox; a Book of Law in the centre.
The debt to the Old Testament has always been clear and particularly to the book of Leviticus, also a book of Talmudic Law. One family name is indeed Lewis.
The sequence of history of the Western world from the Hebrews, must not be ignored. -
Message 46
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 8th March 2007
Paddy Dear 'from the point of view of corruptibility no method is better or worse than any other'.
I beg to differ. Written records are much less corruptible than oral history. At least with contemporary written documents you know what some people actually thought in the past. Thus with a thing like the Rosetta Stone you can actually understand whole languages, from 2000 year ago. Oral history can never come close to anything like that. -
Message 47
Posted by Mick Mac (U5651045) on Thursday, 8th March 2007
Hi fascinating. You said:
Paddy Dear 'from the point of view of corruptibility no method is better or worse than any other'.
I beg to differ. Written records are much less corruptible than oral history.Ìý
I meant this as a generality and as such it suffers from he same drawbacks as any other generality – you can always find an exception to disprove the rule!
However, we are talking about the pre-Roman world and so I stand by my statement. It would be pretty difficult to record on stone for posterity all of the information in the memory of one bardic brain or put it on paper (papyrus, vellum, whatever). Stone inscriptions weather and become illegible and paper (etc) disintegrates if not stored properly. All forms of communication are subject to corruption. Even if we move forward in time to the period when manuscripts were routinely copied, the texts were frequently inadvertently altered or deliberately amended as a result of the scribe’s carelessness or the scribe’s agenda.
That is just the information that has been handed down. We can go further and say that information on stone has been deliberately erased in the past and documents have been wilfully destroyed.
My point is simply this: any method of communicating information is corruptible, either by neglect, carelessness or design. In this respect, no method is better or worse than any other. History abounds in examples that can be used to illustrate this.
I think our reliance on the truth of the written word derives ultimately from the way generations of us have been historically schooled by the apparatus of state and church. Your Rosetta Stone is nothing more than a royal edict of one of the Ptolemys. The written word was paramount to organising and controlling large bodies of people from one central authority. Such centralised authorities required and developed executive, legislative and judicial arms. We swear on the Bible (‘In the beginning was the word…’); a royal writ has to be obeyed, hearsay is inadmissible as evidence, ownership is marked by the possession of a deed, etc..
I will say, though, that in its own time the written word has the advantage of travelling further and longer without being corrupted. But from the perspective of a 21st century amateur historian it is just as corruptible as any other method of passing information down to later generations.
At least with contemporary written documents you know what some people actually thought in the past.Ìý
This is true, but you must acknowledgee that the information the writer supplies is filtered through their mind. They have decided on what to tell you and how to tell it (e.g. Julius Caesar, St. Patrick, Bede). Such writers have an agenda, whether they are conscious of it or not. Their agenda 'corrupts' the information they have passed on to later generations.
Paddy -
Message 48
Posted by Dai Bath (U2444609) on Thursday, 8th March 2007
The history of mankind is all about successive developments in communication. I like Paddy's enthusiasm for the latest one.
The last one was the printing press in the c16th
when the consequences of MASS production of printed matter the NUMBER of print runs done by the printer has the effect of making it more reliable than mere human memory. You may say hundreds of people might have remembered it but not half as easily as hundreds of books inside covers, and in today's world memory bytes inside personal computers.
It is well worth googling etc further to examine the history of Chinese paper making methods in the
C8th when they were brought along the Old silk road to places like Baghdad and Toledo, and by the
C10th were being used as far a way as Winchester's
scriptorium.
It was what it was WRITTEN ON, which was the key concern espcially to us with the curiosity of 1100
years to deal with. Much better to write on paper
than tpo have to "write" on the human brain! Much better NOW to write on seamless file/folder computer copies than to write on paper at all!
Think of the Computer as a brain and then the question is settled. -
Message 49
Posted by Dai Bath (U2444609) on Thursday, 8th March 2007
Even the format of the book partitioned in to eighths or sixteenths to facilitate opening and closing, is the simplest form of computing organisation.
Look at the spine of your book, or if you have got an old one, take it to pieces and ask yourself how the book was printed and contructed!
Could you do it yourself? Sort so much information
in to sixteen pages and then do the next sixteen and the next sixteen?!
No you could not; nor could you produce THOUSANDS of books like it in a short period of time!
Think too of the first books as simple information storage units, but it took four hundrd years to invent the seamless computer page.
Before the printing press 100 or so scribes would sit down altogether and they would take a dictation, man yof them using diferent spellings
and doing it with quills. The language changed quite rapidly, simply becos the scribes all had different ideas of how the word should be spelled.
Ha! Ha! Today we have got spell checkers of our choice! -
Message 50
Posted by Mick Mac (U5651045) on Thursday, 8th March 2007
³Òâ°ù,
Yor arguments about the printing press and mass production do not apply to the thread topic whuch concerns pre-Roman Britain and the history from that time that survives today.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.