Continuity

[glenatron]

I've just been watching a programme about the Dark Ages on Channel 4 and it managed to avoid my current bugbears of modern documentary-making in that it wasn't laughably portentious (every wildlife documentary in the world seems to do this now) or obviously factually incorrect (like Channel 4's recent series on pagans) and really brought home the nature of disruptive historical shifts. The more I have read about history the more it seems that the standard idea of sudden and revolutionary change- the fall of Rome, the Saxon invasions, the Renaissance is pretty much mistaken. We are taught about history as a series of stages, steps along the road to our modern pinnacle of enlightenment. The more I have read around the subject- and I'm sure any real historians reading this will be far more acutely aware of this than I am- the thread I increasingly pick up on is that for most people, for most of the time, things didn't change terribly much. The sun rose, the sun went down, the crops grew or failed and whether Rome or a local Romano-Briton or a Saxon claimed ownership of the land you went on as you always had. Even the idea that much of the learning of Rome was lost after the fall and only regained in the Renaissance is largely mistaken- throughout the Dark Ages the people who had kicked the Romans out, or been abandoned by them, were trying to be more like them and recover something of the glory of Rome, while the imperial traditions continued in Byzantium and the eastern empire for many years afterwards and through it all trade continued right across europe. The ancient world was more connected and far more continuous than my gcse history lessons ever lead me to believe.

I suspect part of my fascination with this is because I have been reading quite a bit of historical fiction over the last year - rediscovering the Mary Sutcliffe books I loved when I was small and now rereading the intricate, devious and brilliantly researched novels of Dorothy Dunnett, who I wholeheartedly recommend to anyone who wants a mixture of dramatic 15th century ( start with Nicolo Rising ) or 16th century ( start with The Game of Kings) action and plots so cunning I can't even find an amusing comparison for how cunning they are.

Comments

historians say....

[kittyfantastico.livejournal.com]

that the issue is more complex than simply whether or not we can think of linear history as continuity, progress (there's a loaded pistol), or as epoch chains. I, myself, (as a burgeoning historian) go with the continuity theory. It gets rid of the messy issue of periodization being masculinized, and requiring it to be changed to suit the changing roles of women in society....or any other 'othered' person for that matter.

Essentially, did the guy plowing his field really care that there was a roman emperor or a holy roman emperor? Likely not. He may, however, have cared about the rampaging invaders that visited for tea occassionally (the huns, vandals, franks, vikings, saxons, celts....zombies, you know).

Re: historians say....

[shanks01.livejournal.com]

Zombies?! When in history did THAT happen?!?!

;)

Zombie History 101

[kittyfantastico.livejournal.com]

Geez, when didn't it happen? See those people on the bus that gaze off out the window, they speak to no one....make no eye contact. They are the zombies, just waiting for their chance to take over all the living people, for their brains and stuff.

Re: historians say....

[glenatron.livejournal.com]

The whole 'othered people' system almost always seems attached to an agenda of some sort, either for or against the othered group. I'm pushing the pro-continuity agenda as less offensive to everyone. People are bastards to each other most of the time- there are trends in who is a bastard to who at any given time but it seems to me that to make that the focal point of the way you look at the past is to see it all in a rather negative way and perhaps also make people feel like we're somehow smarter or more enlightened now- reassuring, but sadly incorrect. We're just more comfortably off.